CITY OF PERTH INDEX 1113 357/04 419-447 WELLI NGTON STREET, PERTH - PROPOSED SEMI-PERMANENT...

COUNCILMINUTES 1 JUNE 2004

\\CH_FS1\VOL2\MINUTES\COUNCIL MINUTES 2003-04\MN040601.DOC

Ord Con Mins 1 June 2004

CITY OF PERTH

INDEX

Item Description Page

342/04 PRAYER 1094

343/04 DECLARATION OF OPENING 1094

344/04 APOLOGIES 1094

345/04 QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC 1094

346/04 MEMBERS ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE ANDAPPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 1095

347/04 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 1095

348/04 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE LORD MAYOR WITHOUTDISCUSSION 1096

349/04 DISCLOSURE OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS 1096

350/04 QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEENGIVEN WITHOUT DISCUSSION 1096

351/04 CORRESPONDENCE 1096

352/04 PETITIONS 1097

PLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORTS

353/04 3/3 (LOT 2) ABERDEEN STREET, PERTH - PROPOSEDCHANGE OF USE TO CONSULTING ROOMS 1097

354/04 101 (LOT 6) LAKE STREET, NORTHBRIDGE -DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND REVISEDPLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THREE STOREYMIXED USE DEVELOPMENT 1099

355/04 8 (LOTS 2, 21 AND Y130) PARKER STREET,NORTHBRIDGE - PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SEVENCAR BAYS WITHIN EXISTING PUBLIC CARPARK 1106

356/04 376 (LOTS 1178 AND 969) WELLINGTON STREET,PERTH - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO PERTH




STATION FOR ‘SMARTRIDER’ BARRIER WORKSPROJECT 1113

357/04 419-447 WELLINGTON STREET, PERTH - PROPOSEDSEMI-PERMANENT UMBRELLAS FOR KFC WITHINAPPROVED ALFRESCO DINING AREA IN FORRESTPLACE 1120

358/04 STATE TREASURY BUILDING, CORNER ST GEORGESTERRACE AND BARRACK STREET, PERTH -EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR HOARDING LICENCE 1124

359/04 PERTH MASTERPLAN - WESTERN GATEWAY 1126

360/04 DESIGNATED LOCALITY - BOANS WAREHOUSE,EAST PERTH 1131

361/04 DESIGNATED LOCALITY - MOUNT STREET, WESTPERTH 1136

362/04 RIGHT TURN LANE FOR CYCLISTS IN MILL STREETAT MOUNTS BAY ROAD 1141

363/04 PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES - COLOUR STANDARDFOR ON-STREET PARKING BAYS 1143

364/04 HERITAGE INCENTIVES PROGRAMME - GRANTS ANDAWARD SUBMISSIONS 1146

365/04 REVIEW AND UPDATE OF JAN GEHL’S 1994 STUDY“PUBLIC SPACES AND PUBLIC LIFE IN PERTH” 1153

366/04 PERTH MASTERPLAN - WESTERN FORESHORE 1156

367/04 NORTHBRIDGE IDEAS COMPETITION - PALLASHOTEL SITE 1162

MARKETING, PROMOTIONS AND SPONSORSHIP COMMITTEE REPORTS

368/04 CULTURAL SPONSORSHIP – THE BIENNALE OFELECTRONIC ARTS IN PERTH (BEAP) 1166

369/04 CULTURAL SPONSORSHIP – WESTERN AUSTRALIANBALLET COMPANY 1172

370/04 CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS PROGRAMME 2003-2005 1176

BUDGET AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES COMMITTEE REPORTS

371/04 WRITE OFF OF UNRECOVERABLE DEBT 1180




372/04 TENDER 034-2003/2004 - CANOPY EXTENSIONS,PADBURY WALK 1181

373/04 TENDER 054-2003/2004 - MULTIMEDIA KIOSKS 1184

374/04 TENDER 076-2003/2004 - DRAINAGE PITSINSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE 1187

375/04 TENDER 089-2003/2004 - EXTENSION TOGARDENERS STORE - HAROLD BOAS GARDENS 1190

376/04 LEASE OF THE JAMES STREET, GROUND LEVELCARPARK 1194

377/04 RENT REVIEW: NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITEDAUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE, SHOP 2, 81 ROYALSTREET, EAST PERTH 1198

378/04 RENT REVIEW: SLATERGORDON SERVICES PTY LTD,COUNCIL HOUSE 1202

379/04 BURY STREET, NORTHBRIDGE 1205

380/04 NORTHBRIDGE LINK PROJECT 1209

381/04 REVISED PLANNING FEES 1215

382/04 PERTH CONVENTION EXHIBITION CENTRE -COMMISSIONING AND SETTLEMENT 1223

383/04 PROPOSAL TO MANAGE THE CITY WEST CAR PARK 1228

GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE REPORTS

384/04 THE FUTURE OF ROYAL PERTH HOSPITAL 1233

385/04 AMENDMENTS TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT1995 AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTIONS)REGULATIONS 1997 1238

386/04 DATE OF FUTURE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS 1243

387/04 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL – MINUTES OFORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 22 APRIL2004 1245

OTHER REPORTS

388/04 GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE - MEETING HELDON 27 APRIL 2004 1247




389/04 BUDGET AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIESCOMMITTEE – MEETING HELD ON 27 APRIL 2004 1249

390/04 PLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE– MEETING HELD ON 4 MAY 2004 1250

391/04 MARKETING, PROMOTIONS AND SPONSORSHIPCOMMITTEE – MEETING HELD ON 4 MAY 2004 1252

392/04 MOTION OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEENGIVEN 1253

393/04 REPRESENTATION ON STATUTORY AUTHORITIESAND PUBLIC BODIES 1253

394/04 URGENT BUSINESS 1254

COUNCILMINUTES - 1094 - 1 JUNE 2004


Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council of the City of Perth held in theCouncil Chamber, Ninth Floor, Council House, 27 St George’s Terrace, Perth, onTuesday, 1 June 2004 at 6.06pm.

Presiding: The Rt Hon Lord Mayor, Dr P C R Nattrass

Councillors Present: Tudori, Butler, Davidson, Kay, McEvoy,Scaffidi, Sutherland and Tan

In Attendance:

Frank Edwards - Chief Executive OfficerNoelene Jennings - Director Corporate ServicesDoug Forster - Director Business UnitsGarry Dunne - Director Service UnitsDale Quinlivan - Acting Director StrategyMax Hipkins - Director PlanningPeter Monks - Manager Approval ServicesJamie Parry - Manager Corporate SupportJohn Fathers - Administrative Services Team Leader

342/04 PRAYERThe Lord Mayor took the Chair and the prayer was read by the Chief ExecutiveOfficer.

343/04 DECLARATION OF OPENINGThe Lord Mayor declared the meeting open.

344/04 APOLOGIESNil

345/04 QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLICThe Chief Executive Officer advised that the following question had been received.

Mr T J Maller

Question Adhering to the Council’s Code of Conduct, will the Lord Mayor nowapologise to the Nyoongar Patrol and to persons who were offendedor embarrassed by the Lord Mayor’s unwarranted discriminatoryremark?

Answer: The Lord Mayor responded that he did not share Mr Maller’sviews on his remarks and saw no need to apologise forexpressing his views on a matter. Furthermore, the Lord Mayoradvised that this is what he was elected to do.



346/04 MEMBERS ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE AND APPLICATIONSFOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

347/04 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTESThe minutes of the Special Meeting of the Council held on 5 May 2004 weresubmitted for consideration.

Moved by Cr Kay, seconded by Cr McEvoy

That the minutes of the Special Meeting of the Council held on 5 May2004, be taken as read and confirmed.

The motion was put and carried

As stipulated under the City of Perth Policy No.CS28 the votes were recordedas follows:-

For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Tudori, Butler, Davidson, Kay, McEvoy,Scaffidi, Sutherland and Tan

Against: Nil

The minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 11 May 2004 weresubmitted for consideration.

Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr Kay

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 11 May2004, be taken as read and confirmed.



For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Tudori, Butler, Davidson, Kay, McEvoy,Scaffidi, Sutherland and Tan

Against: Nil



348/04 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE LORD MAYOR WITHOUTDISCUSSION

The Lord Mayor advised that he wished to correct an announcement made at theOrdinary Meeting of the Council held on 11 May 2004, relating to the staging of aconcert at the WACA.

It had been stated that Mr David Verryt had objected to the staging of the concert.Mr Verryt maintains that he did not object to the concert and the significance of that isthat there were not five but four people who complained and were prepared toprovide their name and address.

The Lord Mayor also advised that the official guests attending the Council meetingwere from the WA Chinese Chamber of Commerce as follows:

• Mr Wilson WU, President, WACCC• Mr Song Huat TAN, Vice President• Ms Shu Hua WU, Hon Secretary• Mr Stephen LEE, Council Member• Ms Sarah WHY, Council Member

349/04 DISCLOSURE OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTSThe Chief Executive Officer advised that the following Member had disclosed afinancial interest in the following matter.

Member/Officer Minute No. Page No. Nature of Interest

Cr Tudori 355/04 1106 Land Owner

The Chief Executive Officer advised that the following Members had disclosed non-financial conflicts of interest in the following matters.

Member/Officer Minute No. Page No. Nature of Interest

Cr Tudori 364/04 1146 Proximity

Cr McEvoy 375/04 1190 Proximity

350/04 QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVENWITHOUT DISCUSSION

Nil

351/04 CORRESPONDENCENil



352/04 PETITIONSNil

PLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEEREPORTS

353/04 3/3 (LOT 2) ABERDEEN STREET, PERTH - PROPOSEDCHANGE OF USE TO CONSULTING ROOMS

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: 3/3 Aberdeen Street, PerthDA/BA REFERENCE: 04/2139FILE REFERENCE : 04/2139RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 17 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Map - 3/3 Aberdeen Street, Perth

LANDOWNER: South Am Tours Pty LtdAPPLICANT: John BealeyZONING: (MRS Zone): Central City Area

(City Planning Scheme Precinct): StirlingPrecinct (P3)(City Planning Scheme Use Area): City Centre

APPROXIMATE COST: $6,000

The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by thePlanning and Urban Development Committee at its meeting held on 25 May 2004.

The Committee recommendation to the Council is the same as thatrecommended by the administration.

DETAILS:

Approval is sought for a change of use of a tenancy within the “Piccadilly Square”complex, from a bank to consulting rooms. No external alterations and only minorinternal partitioning to the tenancy within the existing building are proposed toaccommodate the new use.

The proposed service is indicated to be ‘Colonic Hydrotherapy’. The consultingservice targets health improvement to patients by the way of a detoxificationprogramme.



COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING SCHEME:

Land Use:

The proposed use will involve the treatment of physical ailments by a qualifiedprofessional and, therefore, is included in the definition of “consulting rooms”, whichfalls under the use group ‘Healthcare 1’ in City Planning Scheme No 2. The usegroup ‘Healthcare 1’ is a contemplated (‘C’) use in the Stirling Precinct. Theproposed use would be compatible with the predominantly commercial existing useson the site.

Under the Statement of Intent within the Precinct Plan for the Stirling Precinct, thefuture development of this area is envisaged as an office, mixed commercial andresidential area. This area, east of Stirling Street, is earmarked as being appropriatefor new commercial and service industrial uses provided they are compatible with thenearby office and residential uses. Generally the “Healthcare” use would beregarded as more appropriate and compatible to the nearby office and residentialuses than commercial and service industrial uses, which would make it a use thatcan be supported.

The information provided by the applicant complies with the above and the proposeduse is furthermore considered to be compatible with the current and the futuredevelopment of the area.

COMMENTS:

Consultation:

The application was not advertised for comment as the proposed change of usecomplies with the requirements of the Scheme and it is considered that theapplication would not have any adverse impact on the adjoining properties.

Land Use:

The proposed use complies with the Scheme requirements and is considered to be alegitimate practice. Restricting the development to Colonic Hydrotherapy can beaddressed as a condition of approval and enforced through the complianceprovisions of City Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Town Planning and DevelopmentAct 1928, as amended.

Conclusion:

It is considered that the proposed change of use will not have any adverse impact onthe amenities of the area, complies with the objectives of the Scheme, and cantherefore be supported.



Moved by Cr Tudori, seconded by Cr Kay

That in accordance with the provisions of the City Planning SchemeNo. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the Council APPROVES theapplication for a change of use of the tenancy from a bank to consultingrooms (Colonic Hydrotherapy) at 3/3 Aberdeen Street, Perth, as indicatedon the Metropolitan Region Scheme Form One dated 4 May 2004 andshown on the plans received on 6 May 2004, subject to:-

1. signage for the commercial tenancies being subject to a separateapplication for a sign licence;

2. the premises being used for Colonic Hydrotherapy purposes only.



For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Butler, Davidson, Kay, McEvoy, Scaffidi,Sutherland, Tan and Tudori

Against: Nil

354/04 101 (LOT 6) LAKE STREET, NORTHBRIDGE - DEMOLITIONOF EXISTING BUILDING AND REVISED PLANS FORCONSTRUCTION OF THREE STOREY MIXED USEDEVELOPMENT

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: Adjacent to Plateia Hellas, NorthbridgeDA/BA REFERENCE: 04/2092FILE REFERENCE : 04/2092RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 14 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Map - 101 Lake Street, Northbridge

Concept - 101 Lake Street, Northbridge

LANDOWNER: J & S Investments Pty LtdAPPLICANT: Oldfield Knott ArchitectsZONING: The subject property is located within the

Redevelopment Area of the East PerthRedevelopment Authority (EPRA) and is not



zoned under the City Planning Scheme orMetropolitan Region Scheme. The subject siteis located within the Lake Street Precinct(Precinct 21) of the EPRA Scheme.

APPROXIMATE COST: Not availableSITE HISTORY: The 438m2 site has a frontage to Lake Street

and rear access from Kakulas Crescent. It iscurrently occupied by a single storey residenceconstructed in the early 1900s, which has beenmost recently used as a lodging house. Thebuilding is a Category 3 listing in EPRA’sHeritage Inventory, however, it is not listed in theCity’s Municipal Heritage Inventory or in theState Register of Heritage Places.

At its meeting held on 20 April 2004, the Councilresolved to advise the East PerthRedevelopment Authority that it did not supportan application for the demolition of the existingbuilding and for the construction of a three storeymixed use development on the subject site, “asthe street elevations of the development and theroof form are not in keeping with the PlateiaHellas and the Lake Street streetscape”.



DETAILS:

A revised application for the demolition of the existing single storey building on thesubject site and for the construction of a three storey mixed use development at 101Lake Street, has been referred by the East Perth Redevelopment Authority (EPRA)to the Council for comment. The development will contain the same mix ofcommercial uses at ground level with residential uses on the upper floors. Theinternal layout is identical to the previous plans presented to the Council, however,minor modifications have been made to the configuration of some of the balconies,the front canopy and the shopfront, with more significant modifications made to theelevations to provide greater variety in materials and finishes. The details of thedevelopment are as follows:-

Ground Floor - This level will contain an entry foyer and a 90m2 showroom tenancyfronting Lake Street, with seven residential storerooms and eight car bays withaccess from Kakulas Crescent, located to the rear of the showroom. A canopy isproposed above the showroom, which will project 1.2m over the Lake Street roadreserve.



First Floor - This floor will contain four, single bedroom apartments ranging in sizefrom 63m2 to 66m2. Two of the apartments will face Lake Street and two will faceKakulas Crescent.

Second Floor - The second floor will contain three apartments ranging in size from63m2 to 109m2. A two-bedroom apartment will face Lake Street, with a singlebedroom and a two bedroom apartment facing Kakulas Crescent.

The apartments will be separated on each floor by light wells on both the northernand southern side of the building. Each apartment will have a private balcony inexcess of 19m2. The balconies will be enclosed by precast concrete planters andglass balustrades. The balconies facing Lake Street will include sliding timberlouvred screens. The southern elevation, which will abut a pedestrian access way(PAW), will incorporate windows and a secondary balcony, which will provide passivesurveillance to the PAW.

POLICY/LEGISLATION/STRATEGIC PLAN:

EPRA Planning Policy 1.14 - Heritage:

EPRA has recognised the history of development and change in the RedevelopmentArea and is sympathetic to the conservation of places of cultural heritagesignificance. Care is taken to identify such places and to give them specialconsideration in the development approval process.

The evaluation of buildings for conservation will be carried out to a number of criteriaincluding the context of their physical environment. The decision to keep, or not tokeep, requires a balanced and discriminatory value judgement based on a number ofcriteria of which heritage conservation is only one aspect.

EPRA Planning Policy 2.21 - Precinct 21: Lake Street Precinct:

The Lake Street Precinct is to become a natural extension of Northbridge – Perth’sprimary entertainment and nightlife area. Where possible, buildings and places ofrecognised heritage significance should be incorporated into the new urbanframework. Mixed residential and commercial developments will be encouraged.

The Lake Street ‘Plateia Hellas’ will form the hub of renewed development in thearea. It will be designed for versatile usage for surrounding business, residential andrecreational activities as well as providing an ideal venue for public events. Versatilebuilding forms should be encouraged which provide variety and interest during theday and at night. Vehicular access from Lake Street will not be permitted wherealternative access is available.




The provisions of the City Planning Scheme No. 2 do not apply to the subject site asthe subject property is located within the Redevelopment Area of the East PerthRedevelopment Authority.

Land Use:

Residential apartments are a preferred use within the Lake Street Precinct, while theproposed showroom would be a contemplated use. Mixed use developments arepreferred on lots surrounding the Plateia Hellas, which includes Lot 6. Theestablishment of a showroom tenancy at ground level is considered to be appropriatefor this site, as it will provide an interactive use at pedestrian level that will offer afterhours window shopping opportunities and which will be compatible with thecommercial uses established nearby in Newcastle Street. The commercial use atground level will also enable greater privacy and security to be provided to theresidential apartments on the upper levels of the development. The residential usewill provide informal surveillance of the Plateia Hellas while adding after hours activityand vibrancy to the area.

Development Requirements:

The building complies with the EPRA Scheme development standards and theDesign Guidelines applicable to the site, including dwelling density, maximum height,setbacks and car parking, as summarised in the following table:-

Development Standard Proposed RequiredMaximum Plot Ratio 1.5:1 (643m2) 2.0:1 (876m2)

Maximum Building Height 3 storeys and 9m 3 storeys and 12m

Density R160 (7 dwellings) R160 (7 dwellings)

Car Parking 7 residential bays

1 commercial tenant bay

residential bays - a t thediscretion of EPRA

1 commercial tenant baySetbacks nil to all boundaries nil to all boundaries

COMMENTS:

Consultation:

Any consultation that may be required in respect of the subject application, is to beundertaken by EPRA and is not the responsibility of the City.

Heritage Significance and Demolition:

The existing building is recognised by EPRA as having some local heritagesignificance and is a Category 3 (lowest significance) listing in EPRA’s Heritage



Inventory. An objective of the EPRA Scheme is to encourage the protection of anyplace or object of recognised cultural heritage significance within the EPRA SchemeArea, and the subject premises has been identified by EPRA as a building thatshould be retained and restored, with some scope to build two storey additions at therear of the building. It is noted, however, that the building is not listed in the City’sMunicipal Heritage Inventory or in the State Register of Heritage Places.

The applicant has explained that the existing building represents an under-utilisationof the site’s development potential (having regard for the R160 dwelling density,three storey height limit and plot ratio that applies to the site), is not an outstandingexample of its kind and no longer contributes to the streetscape, particularly as it issurrounded by a high limestone wall. It is considered that the applicant’s grounds fordemolishing the building are valid and the Council, at its meeting held on 20 April2004, did not raise any objections to the demolition of the building and, therefore, thedemolition of the building can be supported. As the building has been recognisedunder the provisions of the EPRA Scheme as having some heritage significance, itwould be appropriate for an archival record of the place to be made prior to itsdemolition.

Development Standards and Design Guidelines:

The proposed three storey building will comply with the Scheme standards andDesign Guidelines applicable to the site, including the maximum height requirementof three storeys or 12m, nil boundary setbacks to provide a consistent streetscape,and vehicle access from the rear of the site. The applicant has also advised thatdetails of suitable noise attenuation measures will be incorporated into the design atbuilding licence stage.

The revised plans have amended the design of the façades, utilising a greater rangeof materials and finishes so that the building has an improved presentation to thestreets and to the adjoining PAW. While the revised elevations would make a morepositive contribution to the locality, it is considered that further efforts are required toimprove the development’s interaction with the adjoining PAW, and that, aspreviously suggested, an alternative roof form would add considerable aestheticvalue to the proposal and would be more sympathetic to the built form approved onthe adjacent lots (which incorporate angled and pitched roofs).

The southern portion of the site is affected by the Tunnel Zone of Influence. Theapplicant has confirmed that the portion of the development that encroaches into theZone of Influence will not exceed the prescribed loading limits and that the structurewill be certified by a Structural Engineer.

The canopy proposed above the showroom shopfront has been redesigned toprovide a more interesting and contemporary element, however, the canopy isproposed to be only 2.4m above ground level, which does not comply with Local Lawand Building Code of Australia requirements, which specify a minimum height of2.75m above the level of the road verge. This matter could be addressed as acondition of any approval.



Conclusion:

The existing building on the site has not been listed in the City’s Municipal HeritageInventory and, although recognised by EPRA as being worthy of retention andrestoration, is not regarded as having sufficient cultural heritage significance towarrant its conservation. Therefore, the demolition of the building can be supported.

The proposed uses and scale of the new development are compatible with the EPRAScheme provisions and Design Guidelines and can be supported. It is considered,however, that the revised plans and elevations still lack appropriate extent ofarchitectural interest and quality, particularly in regard to the roof form and itspresentation to the adjacent pedestrian access way, that should be achieved to set abenchmark standard for redevelopment in this locality. Therefore, it is recommendedthat the revised plans for the development of this site be supported, subject to furthermodifications to these above mentioned design elements.

Moved by Cr Kay, seconded by Cr Tudori

That the East Perth Redevelopment Authority be advised that the Councilsupports the application for the demolition of the existing building andthe revised plans for the construction of a three storey mixed usedevelopment at 101 (Lot 6) Lake Street, Northbridge subject to:-

1. an archival record of the existing building being submitted includingplans, elevations, sections, a written description and colourphotographs of the exterior and interior of the building, including allarchitectural features, prior to the issue of the demolition licence;

2. the southern elevation and ground floor plan of the developmentand the roof form being modified to add greater architecturalinterest and articulation to the new development and to provideimproved interaction with, and presentation to, the adjacentpedestrian access way to ensure the development is of a quality thatwill enhance the Plateia Hellas and the Lake Street streetscape, withadditional details of the design, colours, and finishes of theproposed building being submitted and approved, prior to the issueof a building licence;

3. the dimensions of all car parking bays, aisle widths and circulationareas complying with the Australian Standard AS2890.1;

4. any signage for the proposed showroom tenancy being designed tobe integrated with the design of the building and being the subjectof a separate application for approval;

(Cont’d)



5. the proposed development being designed and constructed in sucha manner so that existing and possible future noise levelsassociated with the surrounding commercial and entertainmentuses, in addition to noise generated from within the development,that could potentially affect future residents, can be successfullyattenuated. Details of such noise attenuation measures beingsubmitted for approval prior to the issue of the relevant buildinglicence which shall include (but not be limited to) the following:-

5.1 installation of double glazing or heavyweight single glazing(10mm thickness) on windows and glass doors to bedroomsor living areas;

5.2 acoustic insulation in external walls, non-glazed doors androofs;

5.3 the construction of shared walls, ceilings and floors betweendwellings and between residential and non-residential units, insuch a way which minimises the transmission of noise;

5.4 acoustically insulated ducting in ducted air-conditioning;

5.5 screening and locating noisy mechanical plant, such as airconditioners, away from bedrooms and quiet living areas;

6. any proposed external building plant, including air conditioner units,being located so as to minimise any visual and noise impact on theoccupants of nearby properties, with details of the location of suchplant being submitted for approval prior to the issue of the relevantbuilding licence;

7. the canopy projecting over the front boundary of the site being aminimum of 2.75m above the level of the road verge;

8. the submission of a construction management plan for the proposaldetailing how it is proposed to manage:-

8.1 the delivery of materials and equipment to the site;

8.2 the storage of materials and equipment on the site;

8.3 the parking arrangements for the contractors andsubcontractors;

(Cont’d)



8.4 other matters likely to impact on the surrounding properties.

Motion to refer back to committee

Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr Tudori

That the item relating to 101 (Lot 6) Lake Street, Northbridge - Demolitionof Existing Building and Revised Plans for Construction, be referredback to the Planning and Urban Development Committee.

The motion to refer back to committee was put and carried



Against: Nil

355/04 8 (LOTS 2, 21 AND Y130) PARKER STREET,NORTHBRIDGE - PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SEVEN CARBAYS WITHIN EXISTING PUBLIC CARPARK

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: Parker Street, NorthbridgeDA/BA REFERENCE: 04/2121FILE REFERENCE : 04/2121RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 13 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Map - 8 Parker Street, Northbridge

LANDOWNER: Bert Tudori and Erina RispoliAPPLICANT: Bert TudoriZONING: (MRS Zone) Central City Area

(City Planning Scheme Precinct) Northbridge(P1)(City Planning Scheme Use Area) City Centre

APPROXIMATE COST:SITE HISTORY: The subject 529m2 site has frontages to both

Parker Street and Mountain Terrace.



At its meeting held on 28 January 2003, theCouncil granted conditional approval for the siteto be developed for a 15 bay ‘short-stay’ publiccar park for a maximum period of 5 years. TheCouncil considered that the temporarydevelopment of the vacant site for car parkingwould not have any adverse impact upon theamenity of the locality, provided suitablelandscaping and screening was provided alongthe street frontages of the property. The carpark is currently in operation.

At the Planning and Urban Development Committee meeting held on 25 May 2004the following alternate recommendation to that of the administration was adopted:-

That in accordance with the provisions of City Planning Scheme No. 2 and theMetropolitan Region Scheme, the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTEMAJORITY the application for seven additional car bays (to provide a total of 22 carbays) within the existing public car park at 8 (Lots 2, 21 and Y130) Parker Street,Northbridge, as detailed on the Metropolitan Region Scheme Form One dated 13April 2004, and as detailed in the plans received on 14 April 2004, subject to:-

1. the car park being operated as a ‘short-stay public car park’, as defined by thePerth Parking Policy, requiring at least 50 per cent of vehicles to stay less thanfour hours and at least 90 per cent to stay less than six hours;

2. a revised parking management plan, outlining the proposed method of ensuringcompliance with part 1 above, including details of the proposed valet parkingservice, being submitted and approved prior to the installation of the newparallel car bays;

3. the car park layout being modified by reducing the width of the parallel car baysto 2.5m to achieve a minimum aisle width of 5.4m and the new car bays beingline marked accordingly, to provide adequate manoeuvring and circulationspace;

4. the southern side of both the entry and exit being widened by 500mm toimprove access to the adjacent angled and parallel car bays;

5. the car park being allowed to operate for a period expiring on 29 January2008, or until completion of the approved development on the adjacentsite at 2-6 Parker Street, whichever is the lesser;

6. a minimum of 1 metre landscaping being provided adjoining Parker Streetto screen the colorbond fencing.

The administration’s original recommendation is set out below:-



That in accordance with the provisions of City Planning Scheme No. 2 and theMetropolitan Region Scheme, the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTEMAJORITY the application for seven additional car bays (to provide a total of 22 carbays) within the existing public car park at 8 (Lots 2, 21 and Y130) Parker Street,Northbridge, as detailed on the Metropolitan Region Scheme Form One dated 13April 2004, and as detailed in the plans received on 14 April 2004, subject to:-

1. the car park being operated as a ‘short-stay public car park’, as defined by thePerth Parking Policy, requiring at least 50 per cent of vehicles to stay less thanfour hours and at least 90 per cent to stay less than six hours;

2. a revised parking management plan, outlining the proposed method of ensuringcompliance with part 1 above, including details of the proposed valet parkingservice, being submitted and approved prior to the installation of the newparallel car bays;

3. the car park layout being modified by reducing the width of the parallel car baysto 2.5m to achieve a minimum aisle width of 5.4m and the new car bays beingline marked accordingly, to provide adequate manoeuvring and circulationspace;

4. the southern side of both the entry and exit being widened by 500mm toimprove access to the adjacent angled and parallel car bays;

5. the car park being allowed to operate for a period expiring on 29 January 2008,or until completion of the approved development on the adjacent site at 2-6Parker Street, whichever is the lesser.

DETAILS:

Approval is sought to add seven car bays to the existing public car park at 8 ParkerStreet. The plans for the car park, as approved by the Council at its meeting held on28 January 2003, indicated 15 car bays arranged at 90 degrees on the northern sideof the site. The existing layout, however, includes 16 bays angled at 75 degrees. Itis now proposed to seek retrospective approval for this angled parking and to add sixparallel car bays adjacent to the southern side of the site, to provide a total of 22 carbays.

The existing concrete kerb on the northern side of the lot will be retained as wheelstops within the angled bays. The (unplanted) landscaping strip will be reduced,retaining areas for planting adjacent to the upper right hand corner of each angledbay. The concrete kerb and landscaping strip adjacent to the southern boundary ofthe lot, and the parking fee collector’s kiosk will be removed to accommodate thenew parallel bays.

One way access will be maintained, with the entry being from Parker Street and theexit onto Mountain Terrace. The existing 1.6m high colorbond fences will be retainedat both street frontages. A 300mm wide landscaping bed is proposed at the end ofthe parallel parking, abutting the colorbond fence.



The applicant has advised that the operator is prepared to offer a valet parkingservice.

POLICY/LEGISLATION:

PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Northbridge Study.Chapter 3 of the Northbridge Study, adopted by the Council as policy on21 October 1991, states that surface car parks should be located behind buildingsand incorporate plantings. Vehicular access should be located so as to cause theleast possible disruption to pedestrian movement and, where possible, access shouldbe restricted to laneways only.


Land Use:

The subject site is located in the ‘City Centre’ area of the Northbridge (P1) Precinct.This Precinct will remain Perth’s primary entertainment and night life area andprovide a variety of residential accommodation and commercial services. Adequateshort term parking should be provided to service the Precinct, however, theNorthbridge Precinct Plan states that car parks will not be visible from streets andother public places.

A car park is an unlisted use in the Use Group Table for the Northbridge Precinct. Inaccordance with clause 46 of the Scheme, the Council cannot grant planningapproval for an application which involves an unlisted use unless:-

(a) the advertising procedure set out in clause 41 has been followed; and

(b) it is satisfied, by an absolute majority, that the proposed development isconsistent with the matters listed in clause 43(4).

Development Requirements:

In accordance with the principles of the Parking Policy 5.1, parking facilities are tocomplement their surroundings and provide a convenient service, without causingundue disruption to surrounding uses. The development of facilities of the higheststandard of design, layout and landscaping is expected.

It is noted that the car park has recently been used to park up to 22 cars, contrary tothe current planning approval. Where a development has been, or is being, carriedout without approval, a person may apply to the Council for planning approval for thatdevelopment, in accordance with clause 38 of the Scheme.

The proposal’s compliance with the City Planning Scheme requirements for non-residential parking facilities is summarised below:-



Development Standard Proposed Required

75o Angled Parking:- Width of Bay- Length of Bay- Minimum Aisle Depth

2.4m5.4m5.1m

2.4m5.4m5.4m

Parallel Parking:- Width of Bay- Length of Bay

3.0m6.7m

3.0m6.7m

Shade trees nil one tree for everyfour parking bays

Landscaping strips 0.3m at end of parallelbays

0m – 0.5m portionabove angled bays

1.5 metres wide striparound perimeter of

car park

Variations to the car parking standards applicable to the proposal can be granted byan absolute majority decision of the Council, in accordance with Clause 47 of the CityPlanning Scheme and provided the Council is satisfied that:-

‘47(d)(i) if approval were to be granted, the development would be consistent with:-(A) the orderly and proper planning of the locality;(B) the conservation of the amenities of the locality; and(C) the statement of intent set out in the relevant precinct plan; and

(ii) the non-compliance would not have any undue adverse effect on:-(A) the occupiers or users of the development;(B) the property in, or the inhabitants of, the locality; or(C) the likely future development of the locality’.

COMMENTS:Consultation:

As a car park is an unlisted use under the provisions of City Planning Scheme No. 2,the application was advertised to the owners of the surrounding properties for aperiod of 14 days. No submissions were received, however, verbal comments werereceived from the owners of the adjacent properties at 105 and 115 Francis Street,advising they had no objections to the application.

The application was also referred to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure(Transport) for information and comment. The Department advised that it has noobjection to the proposal subject to the layout of the bays complying with AustralianStandards.

Land Use:

The existing car park has been operating successfully for the past 12 months. TheNorthbridge Precinct Plan recognises that adequate short term parking should be



provided to service the Precinct. Given that the facility has been approved only for atemporary (5 year) period, and no objections have been raised by the owners of thesurrounding properties, it is considered that the intensification of the approved landuse would be acceptable on this site.

Development Standards:

The dimensions of the car bays comply with the standards specified in Appendix A ofParking Policy 5.1, however, the width of the access aisle is 300mm narrower thanthe minimum standard. The Scheme requirements vary slightly from the relevantAustralian Standard for off-street parking. Despite the operator’s suggestion to offervalet parking to address any difficulties manoeuvring into and out of the bays, it isconsidered preferable to reduce the width of the parallel bays from 3m to 2.5m(which would comply with the Australian Standard), in order to provide a minimumaisle width of 5.4m. Similarly, it is suggested that the fencing on the southern side ofboth the entry and exit should be reduced in width by 500mm to improve access tothe western most angled car bays and eastern most parallel bay. These matters canbe addressed as conditions of any approval.

The Council previously considered that the temporary development of the subject sitefor car parking purposes would not have any adverse impact upon the amenity of thelocality, provided suitable landscaping and screening was provided along the streetfrontages of the property. Furthermore, both the Northbridge Study and ParkingPolicy 5.1 require car parks to incorporate planting, which can be used to providescreening and shade. The existing car park has not been landscaped in accordancewith the approved plans and the proposed additional car bays will reduce the amountof landscaping that can be accommodated on the site. While the minimumlandscaping standards would normally be enforced for the development of a newparking facility, given that the car park is screened by the existing colorbond fencingand has been approved for only a further 4 year period (until 29 January 2008), avariation to the landscaping requirement is considered to be acceptable in thisinstance.

Conclusion:

The existing short-stay public car park has been sealed, drained and line marked,and screening fencing has been erected on the street frontages of the site. Thearrangement of the bays and the lack of on-site landscaping, however, is contrary tothe original approval for the car park. Notwithstanding, the angled car bays and theaddition of six parallel car bays can be reasonably accommodated on the site, withminor modifications made to the proposed layout. It is considered that theapplication can be supported.

(Cr Tudori disclosed an interest, took no part in discussion and did not vote onthis item)

Member Nature of Interest

Cr Tudori Land owner



Cr Tudori departed the Chamber at 6.17pm


That in accordance with the provisions of City Planning Scheme No. 2and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the Council APPROVES BY ANABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for seven additional car bays (toprovide a total of 22 car bays) within the existing public car park at 8(Lots 2, 21 and Y130) Parker Street, Northbridge, as detailed on theMetropolitan Region Scheme Form One dated 13 April 2004, and asdetailed in the plans received on 14 April 2004, subject to:-

1. the car park being operated as a ‘short-stay public car park’, asdefined by the Perth Parking Policy, requiring at least 50 per cent ofvehicles to stay less than four hours and at least 90 per cent to stayless than six hours;

2. a revised parking management plan, outlining the proposed methodof ensuring compliance with part 1 above, including details of theproposed valet parking service, being submitted and approved priorto the installation of the new parallel car bays;

3. the car park layout being modified by reducing the width of theparallel car bays to 2.5m to achieve a minimum aisle width of 5.4mand the new car bays being line marked accordingly, to provideadequate manoeuvring and circulation space;

4. the southern side of both the entry and exit being widened by500mm to improve access to the adjacent angled and parallel carbays;

5. the car park being allowed to operate for a period expiring on 29January 2008, or until completion of the approved development onthe adjacent site at 2-6 Parker Street, whichever is the lesser;

6. a minimum of 1 metre landscaping being provided adjoining ParkerStreet to screen the colorbond fencing.

The motion was put and lost as an absolute majority was not achieved




For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Kay, McEvoy and Sutherland

Against: Crs Butler, Davidson, Scaffidi and Tan

Cr Tudori returned to the Chamber at 6.24pm

356/04 376 (LOTS 1178 AND 969) WELLINGTON STREET, PERTH -ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO PERTH STATION FOR‘SMARTRIDER’ BARRIER WORKS PROJECT

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: PerthDA/BA REFERENCE: 04/2135FILE REFERENCE : 04/2135RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 17 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Map - 376 Wellington Street, Perth

LANDOWNER: Public Transport Authority and City of PerthAPPLICANT: Public Transport AuthorityZONING: (MRS Reserve) Public Purposes – Special Uses

(City Planning Scheme Precinct) Citiplace (P5)(City Planning Scheme Use Area) Reservedunder Metropolitan Region Scheme.

APPROXIMATE COST: $2,736,000



DETAILS:

Approval is sought to undertake works in association with the Perth Station BarrierWorks Project, for the purpose of making the Station platforms a closed environmentwhich can only be accessed by fare paying customers and authorised personnel. Toimplement the controlled access requirements of the ‘SmartRider’ ticketing system,substantial modifications will need to be undertaken to the eastern concourse and theplatforms below. The proposal necessitates the installation of new barrier fencing,ticket races, and modifications to the Station entry/exit points. The key elements ofthe proposal are as follows:-



Eastern Concourse:-

• The existing newsagent kiosk will be replaced and repositioned.• New barrier fencing will be installed to contain the new ‘Paid’ zone. This will

extend from the Platform 2 escalator at the southern end and past thePlatform 9 lift at the northern end. The new newsagent kiosk and previouslyapproved ice-cream kiosk will be integrated into the alignment of the new barrierfence. Three controlled entry points containing manual gates and ticketmachines will be provided.

• New lifts will be installed to Platforms 2 and 6/7, with the lift shafts beingconstructed through the concourse decking to extend down to the platformlevel.

• The existing lift near the bookshop will be removed.• The existing split flight of stairs leading down to Platform 6/7 will be closed off

with a new stair positioned on the northern side of the 6/7 escalators to meetemergency escape requirements.

• The existing stairwell at the northern end of the concourse will be closed andmodified to be an extension of the adjacent planter bed and Roe Streetwalkway. A new column will be installed to support the existing spaceframeroofing.

• A transit Guard Booth will be provided adjacent to the new lift to platform 6/7.• Ticket vending machines will be relocated.• The existing concrete balustrade will be replaced with a glazed balustrade and

stainless steel handrail.

Platform 1:-

• Install barrier control (1.5m high ‘pool type’ fencing) along full length of Platform1, from the western end of the Main Station Building to the western end of theplatform, to segregate the ‘free’ and ‘paid’ zones. An emergency exit gate willbe installed next to the Main Station Building, near the junction of Platforms 1and 2.

• Install new entry canopy at entry to ticket races. The design of the canopy willmatch the adjacent roofing in the use of steel work and glazed pyramidalskylights. The canopy will give weather protection to the ticket races andvending machines. The existing paving, planters, light poles and steps will beremoved or modified to provide covered queuing space in front of the ticketareas. One of the existing trees will also be removed/relocated.

• Install new steps under entry canopy. Disabled access to be provided viaexisting ramp adjacent to new canopy.

• Install Control Booth conduits for ticket races and vending machines. Installglazed Transit Guard Booth, manual gate, and ticket machines.

• Replan existing gates, fencing and electronic locking under the HorseshoeBridge to allow for movement of the public from the platform outside the paidzone to the Main Station Forecourt.

• Install new clear and visible signage.



Platform 2:-

• Install new ticket gates and a manual gate at the existing Wellington Streetentry.

• Modify layout of existing kiosk to prevent rail patrons from moving between thefree and paid zones, other than by the ticket gates.

• Segregate the public areas inside the existing Information Office so that patronsfrom either the free or paid zones can access the service counters but will beunable to pass from one zone to the other.

• Install a new lift to Platform 2 to provide disabled access from easternconcourse.

• Install new Transit Guard Booth to underside of existing escalators.• Install new barrier fencing near the junction with Platform 4 and Australind

Platform 3.

Platforms 5 and 8:-

• Install new barrier fencing at foot of existing escalators, together with new ticketraces and manual gate.

• Enclose area underneath escalators for new communications and electricalroom.

Platforms 6 and 7:-

• Remove existing lift and a portion of the existing stairs. Install new storeroomand flooring.

• Install new lift and concrete stair to provide access from eastern concourse.• Enclose area underneath escalators for new communications and electrical

room.• Remove existing paving east of existing concourse stair and replace with new

tiling and drainage.

Platform 9 – western end:-

• Install new barrier fencing, together with new controlled entry point with ticketraces and manual gate.

• Realign portion of Principal Shared Path, requiring modifications to existinglandscaping, planter beds and retaining walls.

• Install entry signage.

Platform 9 – eastern end:-

• access to be locked off and used as emergency access only.• enclose area underneath escalators for new store.



Horseshoe Bridge:-

• a barrier will be installed to block access from the existing stairs connecting thebridge to Platforms 1/2, 6/7 and 5/8.

POLICY/LEGISLATION:

Legislation: Forrest Place and City Station Development Plan Agreement 1985.Section: 3.20. All Signatories have provided their written consent to the proposedalterations to the eastern concourse to accommodate the SmartRider ticketingsystem.


Metropolitan Region Scheme:

The site is reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) for ‘PublicPurposes - Special Uses’. The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) isrequired to determine applications for the development and use of reserved land.

Under clause 30 of the MRS, when considering a proposal for development on landreserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the WAPC must have regard to thefollowing factors:-

• the purpose for which the land is reserved under the MRS;

• the orderly and proper planning of the locality; and

• the preservation of the amenities of the locality.

There are no development controls contained within the MRS.

City Planning Scheme No. 2:

The site is located within the Citiplace Precinct of the Scheme, however, as the landis reserved under the MRS, it is not located within a Use Area of the Scheme and,therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Scheme. The application must bereferred to the Western Australian Planning Commission, together with the Council’scomments and recommendations, for determination under the MRS.

The Citiplace Precinct Plan of City Planning Scheme No. 2 recognises that theRailway Station and Horseshoe Bridge are historic landmarks and that the publictransport function in this part of the Precinct will continue. The railway station will bemaintained as a safe and convenient public transport facility with ancillary services.Any further development of the railway station must strive to improve public transportaccessibility to and from the city centre and to improve the city centre environment.



COMMENTS:

Proposed Barrier Project:

The proposal to introduce a ticket barrier system to the Perth Station has beendiscussed for many years, with its final design and implementation delayed, in part,due to the planning for the city section of the New Metro Rail project. TheSmartRider ticketing system and controlled access to the railway platforms wouldbring Perth Station into conformity with most central stations in cities across Australiaand overseas. The concept of the proposal is supported on the basis that it willimprove security at the station and ensure that only legitimate railway patrons accessthe platforms. Notwithstanding, any development of the railway station must strive toimprove public transport accessibility to and from the city centre and, therefore, thedetails of the Project need to be assessed in this regard.

Where appropriate, the new barrier system will incorporate Transit Guard Booths sothat any access difficulties, including problems with the SmartRider cards, can beaddressed quickly and efficiently. New directional and entry signage will be installedat the station, together with new tactile paving to aid visually impaired patrons. Acondition should be imposed on any approval that requires the proposedmodifications to the eastern concourse and station platforms to be constructed incompliance with the relevant Australian Standards for disabled access.

The numbers of fare gates and ticket machines are considered to be adequate by thePTA for projected needs, however, the design of the barrier system will enableadditional fare gates and vending machines to be installed in various locations shouldfuture demand dictate such need.

Impact on Pedestrian Movement:

The Perth Station, and in particular the eastern concourse, is an integral part of thepedestrian network in the central city. Upon completion of the South-West Metro railline and the new stations in William Street and The Esplanade, rail patron numberswill be significantly reduced at Perth Station. Furthermore, Platform 1, which servicesthe Currambine line, will be removed and this portion of Perth Station (including theproposed barrier works) will be substantially modified to reflect the undergrounding ofthe new rail line.

The PTA have undertaken studies which have shown that a 5.5m minimum width onthe eastern concourse level for “crush space” for train patrons is required. With therelocation of the newsagent kiosk and the removal of the existing stairs and lift, theconcourse will have a minimum width of 8m between the new barriers and theexisting commercial tenancies. PTA considers that the concourse will retainsufficient space for both barrier controlled access and general pedestrian activities.

In addition to the eastern concourse, access to the ‘Paid’ zone will be restricted tothree ground level access points, being access to Platforms 1 and 2 from WellingtonStreet and access to the western end of Platform 9 from Roe Street, and two upperlevel access points from the western concourse (adjacent to the bus station) to



Platforms 2 and 5/8. The existing access from Roe Street to the eastern end ofPlatform 9, access to Platforms 1/2, 6/7 and 5/8 from the Horseshoe Bridge, andaccess to Platforms 3 and 4 from Wellington Street, will be blocked off through theinstallation of new barriers.

While it is acknowledged that access to the Station is required to be restricted to addto the efficiency and security of the new ticketing system, concern is raised in respectto the closure of the access to the platforms from the Horseshoe Bridge. The stairsconnect the existing bus stops, including a CATS bus stop, to the Station and toWellington Street.

The City engaged Praxis Solutions to carry out a pedestrian count on the HorseshoeBridge as part of the Northbridge Pedestrian Survey. A count was carried out at theentrance to the stairs leading from the Horseshoe Bridge to the Perth Stationplatforms on Wednesday 24 March 2004, between the hours of 7.00am and 7.00pm.In the order of 3,100 pedestrian movements were recorded during this time. Themajority of these pedestrians were utilising the CATS bus and using the stairs toaccess the platform.

City officers also conducted an intercept survey during the peak morning period. Ofthe estimated 600 people accessing the stairs from 7.30am to 8.30am, more than50% were recorded to be using the platform to access Wellington Street, while theremaining pedestrians were gaining access to the train or bus. Based on this data, itis considered that the secure barriers to the Horseshoe Bridge should be deletedfrom the proposal and that the barriers on Platform 1 should be modified so that thestair access from the Bridge to Platforms 1 and 2 can be used to access both the“Free” zone (western stair) or the “Paid” zone (eastern stair). This would allow theStation access to be integrated with the CATS bus stop and would maintain thisimportant pedestrian link from Northbridge to both the Station and the city centre.This could be addressed as a condition of any approval.

During the construction phase it is expected that some disruption will occur to thepedestrian access through the facility. The management of pedestrian movementand safety should be part of any construction management plan and could beaddressed as a condition of any approval.

Heritage:

The Perth Station is listed on the State Register of Heritage Places. The barrierworks project has been developed in consultation with the Heritage Council of WA.The WAPC will be responsible for referring the application to the Heritage Council fortheir advice and comment, prior to determining the application.

Conclusion:

The proposal to introduce a ticket barrier system to the Perth Station will beconsistent with the operation of most central railway stations in cities aroundAustralia. The concept of the proposal can be supported on the basis that it willimprove security and legitimate use of the station. Retention of access from the



Horseshoe Bridge, however, is considered to be desirable and should be imposed asa condition of any approval.

Moved by Cr McEvoy, seconded by Cr Kay

That the application for alterations and additions associated with theproposed Perth Station Barrier Works Project at 376 (Lots 1178 and 969)Wellington Street, Perth, as detailed on the Metropolitan Region SchemeForm One dated 5 April 2004 and as shown on the plans received 28April 2004 be referred to the Western Australian Planning Commissionfor determination under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, with arecommendation for APPROVAL, subject to:-

1. the secure barriers to the Horseshoe Bridge being deleted from theproposal and the barriers on Platform 1 being modified, to enablethe existing stair access from the Horseshoe Bridge to Platforms 1and 2 to be used to access both the “Free” zone (western stair) orthe “Paid” zone (eastern stair) in order to better integrate the Stationaccess with the existing CATS bus stop located on the HorseshoeBridge and to maintain this important pedestrian link fromNorthbridge to both the Station and the city centre;

2. the submission of a construction management plan for theproposed development detailing how it is proposed to manage:-

2.1 the delivery of materials and equipment to the site;

2.2 the storage of materials and equipment on the site;

2.3 the parking arrangements for the contractors andsubcontractors;

2.4 maintaining pedestrian access through the eastern concoursethroughout the construction period;

2.5 other matters likely to impact on the existing commercialtenancies and services at Perth Station;

3. the proposed modifications to the eastern concourse and stationplatforms being constructed in compliance with the relevantAustralian Standards for disabled access.






Against: Nil

357/04 419-447 WELLINGTON STREET, PERTH - PROPOSEDSEMI-PERMANENT UMBRELLAS FOR KFC WITHINAPPROVED ALFRESCO DINING AREA IN FORREST PLACE

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: Forrest Place, PerthDA/BA REFERENCE: 04/2123FILE REFERENCE : P1000855-2RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 14 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Map - 419-447 Wellington Street, Perth

Concept - Umbrella Concept Plans

LANDOWNER: Department of Land AdministrationAPPLICANT: Oldfield Knott Architects Pty LtdZONING: (MRS Zone) Central City Area

(City Planning Scheme Precinct) CitiplacePrecinct (P5)(City Planning Scheme Use Area) City Centre

APPROXIMATE COST: Not availableSITE HISTORY: At its meeting held on 25 June 2002 the Council

granted conditional approval for a 164 squaremetre alfresco dining area in Forrest Place toreplace the previous alfresco dining areasadjacent to McDonalds, Subway and ChickenTreat (now KFC). A portion of the licenseddining area is currently used by “Centrofino”Café.

The Council also resolved to grant a licence tothe Forrest Chase Centre Management over thesubject portion of the Forrest Place GroundLevel Reserve, for use as an alfresco diningarea for a five year term, subject to variousconditions.

At its meeting held on 11 February 2003 theCouncil granted conditional approval to install



four semi-permanent umbrellas within theapproved alfresco dining area for the“Centrofino” Café, subject to various conditions.



DETAILS:

Approval is sought to erect four semi-permanent umbrellas for “KFC” within thenorthern 42m² section of the approved 164m² alfresco dining area in Forrest Place.The umbrellas will have a white powdercoated aluminium frame. Two alternativecanopies are proposed. The first consists of broad, white and red stripes and thesecond alternative proposes white canopies with red “KFC” lettering on all four sides.The semi-permanent umbrellas will be bolted onto a fitting that will be installed flushwith the Forrest Place pavement, and will be able to be removed at any time. Theumbrellas will be of similar design to those of the adjoining Centrofino Café in ForrestPlace, the City’s umbrellas erected in the Hay Street Mall and umbrellas within thealfresco dining areas for Hungry Jacks and The Merchant Tea Company in theMurray Street Mall. The applicant is seeking approval for semi-permanent structuresin order to present a shade structure with a high quality appearance and a robust andsafe design.

POLICY/LEGISLATION:

PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Alfresco Dining Policy 2000.

The objectives of the City’s Alfresco Dining Policy are:-

• to encourage high quality alfresco dining to enhance the amenity, vitality andambience of the city;

• to provide a framework for control and management of these areas; and• to ensure that the dining area does not interfere with reasonable pedestrian

movement.

The Policy requires all furniture to be removed from the alfresco dining area at theclose of business each day, unless otherwise permitted by the Council.

To provide shade and shelter, high quality market umbrellas are encouraged. Thecanopy of the umbrellas must be a minimum of 2.3 metres above the pavement.Umbrellas are to be secured in an approved manner and footings for marketumbrellas shall be installed by the City at the applicant’s cost.




Under City Planning Scheme No. 2, the subject site in Forrest Place falls within theCity Centre area of the Citiplace Precinct where “Dining” is a preferred use. Theobjectives of this Precinct are to provide activity and interest and to create a clearand coherent sense of place with a community focus and with priority being given topedestrians. Finally, alfresco dining will be supported throughout the precinct whereit satisfies the provisions of the City’s Alfresco Dining Policy 2000.

COMMENTS:

Semi-Permanent Umbrellas:

The applicant is seeking to install semi-permanent, rather than removable, umbrellasin order to provide higher quality, durable shade structures, which are compatiblewith other umbrellas erected in the Malls. It is intended that such umbrellas wouldenhance the appearance of the alfresco dining area and of Forrest Place. It is notedthat the Alfresco Dining Policy does allow market style umbrellas and acknowledgesthat heavy bases (associated with removable umbrellas) are not always appropriate.

These proposed umbrellas will not be suitable for removal at the close of trade eachday, and instead, would be left in place, other than on those occasions when the areais required for events and the like.

The first option for the umbrella canopies is a white canopy with broad red stripesdisplaying the corporate “KFC” colours. The second option is a white canopy withred letters “KFC” on all four sides. The applicant has indicated that the letteringcovers approximately 15-20% of the canopy, however, they have agreed to reducethese to 10% of the canopy area, which is a requirement of the Alfresco DiningPolicy.

Alternative one, although bright and lively, could be regarded as advertising. Theproposed second alternative with the materials, colours and the letters “KFC” beingreduced to 10% are considered to be acceptable. The logo will comply with therequirements of the City’s Alfresco Dining Policy and with Condition 7 of the previousplanning approval that requires any advertising displayed on the umbrellas beinglimited to 10 per cent of the area of each umbrella, displaying only the names andlogos of the adjacent eating houses or the products sold by the eating houses.

CONCLUSION:

It is considered that the proposal to erect “KFC” semi-permanent umbrellas in theapproved alfresco dining area in Forrest Place can be supported, as it will enhancethe amenity of Forrest Place by providing high quality shade structures.



Moved by Cr Kay, seconded by Cr Scaffidi

That in accordance with the provisions of the City Planning SchemeNo. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the Council APPROVES theapplication for the installation of four semi-permanent umbrellas withinthe approved alfresco dining area at 419-447 Wellington Street (ForrestPlace), Perth, as indicated on the Metropolitan Region Scheme Form Onedated 6 April 2004 and shown on the plans received on 15 April 2004 and13 May 2004, subject to:-

1. the “KFC” alfresco dining area being contained within the licensedForrest Place alfresco area as approved by the Council at itsmeeting held on 25 June 2002;

2. the umbrellas being removed from the licensed alfresco dining areaon those occasions when unobstructed access is required to thelicensed area for the purpose of maintenance, conducting majorevents in Forrest Place, or as otherwise required by the City, subjectto fourteen (14) days notice in writing being given to the Licensee ofthe area by the City;

3. the umbrellas being a minimum height of 2.3 metres above thepavement level;

4. advertising being restricted to 10% of the canopy area;

5. any advertising displayed on the umbrellas being limited to thevalance, displaying only the names and logos of “KFC” and theproducts sold by “KFC”;

6. the footings for the semi-permanent umbrellas being installed inaccordance with the City’s specifications and to the City’ssatisfaction at the applicant’s cost.




Against: Nil



358/04 STATE TREASURY BUILDING, CORNER ST GEORGESTERRACE AND BARRACK STREET, PERTH - EXTENSIONOF APPROVAL FOR HOARDING LICENCE

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1011765-2RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 12 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: N/A


That the:-

1. proposed extension of the Hoarding Licence for the State Treasury Building begranted for a period ending 30 June 2004;

2. applicant be advised that the Hoarding Licence for the State Treasury Buildingwill not be further extended beyond 30 June 2004, unless the hoarding ispainted in accordance with the City’s standard requirements.


That the proposed extension of the Hoarding Licence for the State Treasury Buildingbe granted for a period ending 30 June 2004.

A hoarding license for Perth Aluminium Scaffolding on behalf of the Department ofHousing and Works, was approved on 21 January 2004, as an interim measure toprotect the public against roof tiles falling from the State Treasury Building roof.


LegislationSection 377 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960; andPart 7 – Precautions During Construction of the Building Regulations 1989.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Built Environment.Objective No: EN2.5 Objective: Plan, integrate and implement

sustainable development for Perth toensure its liveability.

Strategy: Public Places Enhancement Strategy.

DETAILS:

On the original application, the City was advised that the hoarding would only be inplace for a period of 4 weeks until 18 February 2004, at which point a gantry and



scaffolding would be erected to enable the commencement of repair andmaintenance works.

Due to the urgent nature in addressing issues of public safety and havingconsideration to the relatively short duration the hoarding was expected be in place,approval was granted without the need to paint the hoarding. The existing hoardingdoes not comply with the City’s standard requirements, which recommends thathoardings be painted semi gloss white and recommends that murals be painted onthe hoarding to improve their visual appearance.

To date, the repair works to the roof have not commenced, which the City has beenadvised is primarily due to the requirements and specifications from the HeritageCouncil being finalised and the scope of the works having exceeded originalestimates. The Department of Housing and Works have therefore applied to extendthe hoarding licence until the end of June.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

INCOME:ACCOUNT NO: 117-309-6535BUDGET ITEM: Economic Services - Building Control -

Building Control LicensingBUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 5BUDGETED AMOUNT: $684,000AMOUNT RECEIVED TO DATE: $560,442ACTUAL INCOME: $ 1,280

COMMENTS:

The Department of Housing and Works has rescheduled the repair and maintenanceworks twice since the original application was made. The City has now been advisedthat the project tender will be completed by the end of May with the associated repairand maintenance works to the building to begin before the end of June, after thecontractor is appointed. Upon commencement of the proposed works (before theend of June), the hoarding would be replaced with a gantry for the duration of therepair works, which is anticipated to take 14 weeks to complete.

It is recommended that in view of the above circumstances that an extension to thehoarding licence can be granted for a period until 30 June 2004.

Cr Sutherland departed the Chamber at 6.31pm and returned at 6.32pm



Moved by Cr Scaffidi, seconded by Cr McEvoy

That the:-

1. proposed extension of the Hoarding Licence for the State TreasuryBuilding be granted for a period ending 30 June 2004;

2. applicant be advised that the Hoarding Licence for the StateTreasury Building will not be further extended beyond 30 June 2004,unless the hoarding is painted in accordance with the City’sstandard requirements.



For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Butler, Kay, McEvoy, Scaffidi, Sutherland, Tanand Tudori

Against: Cr Davidson

The Lord Mayor welcomed the official guests to the meeting at 6.34pm

359/04 PERTH MASTERPLAN - WESTERN GATEWAY

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1015544-5RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Max Hipkins, Director PlanningDATE: 10 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: N/A


That the Council progresses the City’s Perth MasterPlan – Western Gateway by:-

1. conducting an internal workshop involving Elected Members;

2. consulting with the City’s Stakeholders including the Kings Park Board;

3. initiating a public comment period for a minimum of three months aftercompleting parts 1 and 2 above.




That the Council initiates a public comment period for a minimum of three months forthe City’s Perth MasterPlan-Western Gateway.

As part of the Perth MasterPlan work, a framework plan and two scenarios for theWestern Gateway were prepared in mid 2002. A presentation was subsequentlycompiled for screening to Elected Members, with the aim of exhibiting the work forpublic comments for a three-month period towards the end of 2002.

However due to higher priorities relating to the South West Metropolitan Railway,work on the Western Gateway was not seen by Elected Members and did notprogress.

Although prepared some time ago and despite the current situation where theCouncil is not at this time in a position to contemplate any major new improvementinitiatives, the Western Gateway work is still relevant to on-going landscaping anddevelopment assessment being undertaken by the City and work in the area beingdone by others within the Parliamentary Precinct and Kings Park.

The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s endorsement for release of theWestern Gateway work to provide an opportunity for the public to make comments.

This item was considered by the Planning and Urban Development Committee on 11November 2003, where the following was resolved:-

“That a workshop be organised with the Elected Members at a date and timespecified to comment on the City’s Perth MasterPlan Western Gateway work prior tothe public comment period.”


Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Urban Development and Transport.Objective No: U1.1 Objective: To create a beautiful City that is both

liveable and sustainable.Strategy: To develop a structured plan which

clearly sets out the Council’s intentionsfor the future development of the City.

DETAILS:

The Western Gateway project area comprises that part of the City of Perth to thewest of the Mitchell Freeway and includes West Perth, Kings Park and Crawley.

Over the past ten years there have been many planning studies within the projectarea, including:-



• West Perth Urban Design Study 1993;• Kings Park Plans 1995;• Mount Street Built Form and Urban Design Study 1995;• Crawley Building Heights and Plot Ratio Study 1996;• Perth A City for People Western Gateway Initiative 1996;• Kings Park Framework Plan 1997;• Enhancing Perth’s Public Places 1997;• RAIA Charette 1999;• City West Station Urban Design Study 2000;• Kings Park Treetop Walk 2001 (opened 2003); and• Parliament House Precinct Policy Review 2002.

All of these studies, particularly the comprehensive West Perth Urban Design Study,have provided the framework for on-going improvement works within the projectarea.

Analysis of the above plans compared with what is happening on the ground revealthe following current issues:-

• There is poor acknowledgment of Perth as the Capital City.• There is a clear separation of the responsibilities between government

agencies.• The Freeway is a barrier, separating West Perth from the city centre.• There is a lack of local open space.• Parliament House lacks presentation of its built form.• The government precinct is underutilised.• Public transport access is poor.• Development pressures are resulting in a loss of character.• There have been many plans but little action.

Criteria for on-going planning within the project area are proposed as follows:-

• create a sense of arrival at the City of Perth;• preserve established character (views, landscaping, setbacks);• respect history and heritage;• acknowledge the parliamentary and government sub-precincts;• strengthen the West Perth commercial district;• improve connectivity between West Perth, Kings Park, Swan River and the

railway;• include elements befitting a Capital City; and• value add to previous plans.



The urban design framework for future improvements comprises the following:-

• up-grade City entry statements;• install a pedestrian bridge over Mounts Bay Road at Crawley;• selective removal of railings along shared path;• historic marker/sculpture at the site of the Crawley Baths;• brewery illumination;• landscaped median barriers;• reduce number of signs on poles;• reinforce shopping on Hay Street (to city centre) and Colin Street (to station);

and• create a tourist circuit linking West End, Kings Park and the river.

Two long range planning scenarios have been developed, each containing thefollowing ideas/features:-

Scenario 1

• landscaped corridors along main roads;• masked sub-station on Thomas Street;• improved CAT access to the West Perth railway station;• major open space and buildings constructed over the Mitchell Freeway;• Parliament House extended to south;• Parliament Place widened;• Harvest Terrace closed;• Premier’s Walk sculptures;• infill office development in the government precinct;• pedestrian bridge over Kings Park Road; and• up-graded Jacob’s Ladder.

Scenario 2

• West Perth station square with carparking underneath;• entry statements on Wellington and Murray Street, exit from Kwinana Freeway;• major public plaza with water and buildings constructed over the Mitchell

Freeway;• expansion of Parliament House to south and east, overlooking public plaza;• public square in front of Parliament House entrance;• water feature in widened Parliament Place;• minimal additional buildings in government precinct;• decked carpark behind Dumas House;• Mounts Bay Road shoreline marker;• Kings Park Road underpass; and• tourist sign at CAT stop closest to Kings Park.

Ideas can obviously be mixed and matched in any adopted plan.




ACCOUNT NO: GL 153222 7232BUDGET ITEM: Community Amenities – Other community

amenities – Administration (DP)BUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 10BUDGETED AMOUNT: $457,857 (this component $35,000)AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $ 540 (this component)PROPOSED COST: $ 10,000 (this component)BALANCE: $ 24,460 (this component)

A sum of up to $10,000 has been allowed for public consultation expenses, fordisplay material and printing of brochures.

There are no financial implications for any improvement works by the City at thisstage.

COMMENTS:

The Western Gateway analysis, the ideas presented in the framework for urbandesign and the two scenarios have been generated for discussion.

It is proposed that the work be put on public exhibition for comment. A questionnairewould be structured to elicit views from the community as to preferred ideas for civicimprovement.

Following analysis of submissions, a report will be presented to the Council for theadoption of a preferred scenario. The intent is not to commit the City to specificexpenditure but to gain an understanding of community likes and dislikes whendeciding development applications and implementing landscape improvementprojects.

Moved by Cr Kay, seconded by Cr Sutherland

That the Council progresses the City’s Perth MasterPlan – WesternGateway by:-

1. conducting an internal workshop involving Elected Members;

2. consulting with the City’s Stakeholders including the Kings ParkBoard;

3. initiating a public comment period for a minimum of three monthsafter completing parts 1 and 2 above.



Motion to amend

Moved by the Lord Mayor, seconded by Cr Scaffidi

That part 2 be amended to read as follows:-

“2. consulting with the City’s Stakeholders including the Kings ParkBoard and the Subiaco City Council;”

The motion to amend was put and carried


For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Butler, Kay, McEvoy, Scaffidi, Sutherland andTudori

Against: Crs Davidson and Tan

The amended motion was put and carried



Against: Nil

360/04 DESIGNATED LOCALITY - BOANS WAREHOUSE, EASTPERTH

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1015549RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 12 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Map - Boans Locality Map





At the Council meeting held on 9 March 2004 the following was resolved:-

“That the Council advertises the following Designated Locality - Boans Warehousefor public comment for a four week period, in accordance with the requirements ofClause 11 of the Resident On-Street Parking Policy:-

“Designated Locality – Boans Warehouse

1. The Boans Warehouse Designated Locality is the area shown in Figure 1.2. One parking permit can be issued to any dwelling unit within the Boans

Warehouse Designated Locality.3. The north side of Brown Street is not included within the designated locality in

order to allow turnover of vehicles visiting the commercial premises duringworking hours”.”

On 15 March 2004, 192 letters were sent to all tenants and owners of residential andcommercial premises in the area and on Tuesday 23 March 2004 a public notice wasplaced in The Guardian Express Community Newspaper calling for comments on theproposed Boans Warehouse Designated Locality. The proposal was also availableto be viewed at the Customer Service Centre and on the City’s web site.


PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Resident On-Street Parking Policy - ST14.

LegislationSection: City of Perth Parking Local Law 1999.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Urban Development and Transport.Objective No: U5 Objective: To ensure that public transport provision

and routes adequately meet the needsof the community and that the City hasadequate and appropriately locatedparking.

Strategy: Develop an integrated public transportand parking strategy.

DETAILS:

Clause 11 of the Council’s Resident On-Street Parking Policy enables the Council tocreate “Designated Localities” where specific resident parking entitlements can beintroduced on an area specific basis. This approach recognises that the provisions ofthe Policy, which are quite restrictive in issuing new permits, may not be applicable



throughout the whole city. Different parts of the city have different characteristics andthe Policy allows different approaches in these areas to be introduced.

At present, Jewell Lane and North Cove have been set up as “Designated Localities”under the Policy. The Council has recently resolved to advertise the proposedConstitution Hill and St James Designated Localities for public comment.

This report deals with the Boans Warehouse area in East Perth.

COMMENTS:

Public Submissions:

Six submissions and responses were received during the public consultation periodfor the proposed Boans Warehouse Designated Locality. Four submissionssupported the proposal and the other two submissions made comments that were notactually directed at the proposal. Issues raised through the submissions on theproposal include the following:-

• The one hour bay and the two 15 minute bays on the south side of Saunders Stopposite Boans Warehouse should not be included as these bays are requiredfor short term parking for businesses.

• It is unrealistic not to award occupiers a permit if there is one off-street baywhen planning approval was given to large two bedroom apartments.

• Parking for residents will worsen with the completion of ABC building.• There is a view that current parking restrictions in the area are designed for a

commercial zone and do not take into account the residents in area.

One submission requested that the three bays on the south side of Saunders Streetopposite the Boans Warehouse not be included for residential parking. Clause 2(b)(i)of the Resident On-Street Parking Policy requires that the needs of commercialfacilities must not be prejudiced by the provision of on-street residential parking.Accordingly, it is agreed that these three bays should not be included so as to retaina higher turnover of parking to cater for the commercial facilities situated adjacent tothese bays in the Boans Warehouse building.

The removal of these bays leaves about 43 bays available for permit parking andabout 20 other bays available for non-permit parking. This is considered sufficient forthe 180 dwellings that are included within the Designated Locality boundary of whichthe majority have one or two off-street bays.

Two of the submissions expressed concern that parking will worsen once the ABCbuilding in Henry Street is completed. With an anticipated increase of traffic in thearea from workers and visitors to this building, it is considered that having baysavailable for residential permit parking will be a benefit for the residents of the areaand ease some of the projected burden for on-street parking.

One submission considered that the parking restrictions that govern the area aredesigned for a commercial zone and do not take into account the residents in the



area. With such a large increase of residential premises in the area it has beenacknowledged that there is a need to review the on-street parking situation forresidents. It is envisaged that by establishing a “Designated Locality” in the areaparking for residents and their guests would be more viable.

Boans Warehouse Parking Issues:

The general area is characterised by predominantly residential land uses in theSaunders, Brown (south side), Glyde and Henry Street block with a predominantlycommercial precinct existing in the Fielder, Kensington, Brown (north side) and EastParade Street blocks. The north side of Brown Street does contain one residentialdevelopment of 15 apartments and St Bartholomew House, which is a men’s hostel.The boundaries of the Designated Locality should be restricted to the definedresidential area but include these apartments in this section of Brown Street.

All of the residential developments have incorporated one or two off-street parkingbays as required under the East Perth redevelopment provisions implemented by theEast Perth Redevelopment Authority with the exception of St Bartholomew House,which has no off-street parking. Most of the commercial properties have some off-street parking facilities but it is evident that staff members and some customers utilisethe on-street parking bays in the area.

The following parking restrictions are in place in this area:-

• Brown Street (north side) – 2 hour restrictions Monday – Friday 8 - 5.30pm,Saturday 8-12noon;

• Brown Street (south side) – 15 minute, 1 and 2 hour restrictions Monday –Friday 8 - 5.30pm, Saturday mornings;

• Saunders Street – unrestricted (4 bays),15 minutes (2 bays), 1 hour (I bay)restrictions 8 - 5.30pm Monday – Friday, Saturday mornings;

• Glyde Street - 1 hour restriction Monday to Friday 8 – 5.30pm (6 bays),• Henry Street – 9 unrestricted bays;• Fielder Street – 1 hour restriction Monday to Friday 8 – 5.30pm, Saturday

mornings.

The main parking issues evident in this area are:-

• there is little on-street parking available in the area;• there is high demand for the limited amount of on-street carparking;• the commercial premises in Brown Street require access to kerbside parking for

their customers and the 15 minute, one hour and two hour parking restrictionshelp to create sufficient turnover of these bays; and

• parking bays adjacent to the commercial area in Brown Street should not beincluded within the Designated Locality area. These bays should not be used forpermit parking however may be used by residents and visitors in accordancewith the parking restrictions for these streets.



Conclusion:

After reviewing the submissions received on the proposal, the request that the threebays on the south side of Saunders Street be excluded from residential permitparking has some merit, and can be supported through the exclusion of the 1 hourbay and the two 15 minute bays. This allows for a higher turnover of vehicles that isrequired for the commercial premises of the area.

The proposed provisions for the Boans Warehouse Designated Locality balance thecommercial, resident and visitor parking demands in the area and retain the provisionof a parking permit for all residential properties in the locality. It is recommended thatthe proposal is adopted and the Resident On-Street Parking Policy be amendedaccordingly.

Moved by Cr Sutherland, seconded by Cr McEvoy

That the Council:-

1. approves the Boans Warehouse Designated Locality and thefollowing amendment to the Resident On-Street Parking Policy:-

1.1 within Schedule 2, after the North Cove Designated Localityinsert the following:-

“3. Boans Warehouse

1. The Boans Warehouse Designated Locality is the areashown in Figure 3;

2. One parking permit can be issued to any dwelling unitwithin the Boans Warehouse Designated Locality;

3. The parking permit can only be used within the parkingbays hatched and described in Figure 3.”;

2. advertises the adoption of the amendment of the Policy inaccordance with Clause 9.4 of the Perth Parking Local Law 1999.




Against: Nil



361/04 DESIGNATED LOCALITY - MOUNT STREET, WEST PERTH

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1015549RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 12 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Map - Figure 6 – Mount Street Designated Locality




PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Resident On Street Parking Policy - ST14.

LegislationSection: Perth Parking Local Law 1999.




DETAILS:

Clause 11 of the Council’s Resident On-Street Parking Policy enables the Council tocreate “Designated Localities” where specific resident parking entitlements can beintroduced on an area specific basis. This approach recognises that the provisions ofthe Policy, which are quite restrictive in issuing new permits, may not be applicablethroughout the whole city. Different parts of the city have different characteristics andthe Policy allows different approaches in these areas to be introduced.

At present, Jewell Lane and North Cove have been set up as “Designated Localities”under the Policy. The Council recently resolved to advertise the proposed Boans



Warehouse, Constitution Hill and St James Designated Localities for publiccomment.

Reports on whether the following areas are appropriate to be set up as “DesignatedLocalities” under the Resident On-Street Parking Policy will be presented to theCouncil progressively during 2004:-

• South Cove;• Goderich/Forrest Street;• Waterloo Crescent;• Crawley;• Northbridge tunnel;• West Perth; and• Terrace Road.

This report deals with the Mount Street area in West Perth.

COMMENTS:

Mount Street Designated Locality Parking Issues:

Once the transitional provisions of the Resident On-Street Parking Policy expire inFebruary 2005, most residential properties in this locality would not be eligible for aparking permit as the majority have off-street parking bays.

The general area is characterised by predominantly residential land uses with theexception of the Mount Street Café located at the eastern end of this portion of MountStreet. The premises of the U.S. Consul General are located in the subject area.

The following parking restrictions are in place in this area:-

• Bellevue Terrace – All parking is two hour parking Monday – Friday 8 - 5.30pmand Saturday 8 – 12 noon.

• Mount Street – The majority of the parking is one hour with three 15 minutebays, all operating Monday – Friday 8 – 5.30pm and Saturday 8 – 12 noon.

• Cliff Street – Predominately two hour with some one hour parking operatingMonday – Friday 8 – 5.30pm and Saturday 8 – 12 noon and a Taxi zoneoperating at all times.

• Malcolm Street – Predominately two hour with some one hour parking operatingMonday – Friday 9 – 4.15pm and Saturday 8 – 12 noon and four 15 minutebays operating Monday – Friday 9 – 4.15pm.

The main parking issues evident in this area are:-

• there are about 121 parking bays available in the area and about 521 dwellings;• there is high demand for the on-street car parking in the area;• evidence that some residents give their parking permits to city workers to utilise

given the proximity of Mount Street to the city centre;



• the café in Mount Street requires access to kerbside parking for their visitors;• visitors to the city and Kings Park take advantage of the free on-street parking

provided in Mount Street due to its close proximity;• Jacobs Ladder is located at the southern end of Cliff Street having visitors early

in the morning till late at night;• the need to maintain access for visitors that want to experience the attractions

of the area; and• the US Consul General’s residence is located in Bellevue Terrace, which

attracts a large number of visitors on official business.

Options:

There have been a number of complaints from residents in this locality thatresidential parking permits were previously being given to city workers to use due tothe areas close proximity to the C.B.D. This is not the intended use of the permitsand is an abuse of the system.

In an endeavour to prevent this from occurring, three options were considered for theMount Street Designated Locality, being:-

1. allocating a permit to a vehicle registration number owned by a resident;2. employ a four hour time limit on the permit during business hours; and3. issue permits to caretakers of grouped dwellings to distribute to their residents

for residential purposes only.

Option One of allocating the permit to a particular vehicle would prevent thefraudulent use of the permit by stopping the holder of the permit handing it to cityworkers to use. However, this option would be in conflict with previous publicsubmissions made by residents in West Perth which referred to difficulties withvisitors, carers and trades people not being able to park for longer than the one ortwo hour time restrictions that apply to the area. Allocating the permit to a particularvehicle means that it could not be utilised by residential visitors vehicles, includingcarers and tradespeople, which is one of the main purposes of the permit system.

There is however, a necessity to prevent the misuse of the permits that are issued toensure that parking bays remain available for legitimate holders of the residentialpermits. Option Two, of implementing a maximum time limit on the permit duringbusiness hours, would put a stop to the permit being used by city workers.

It is suggested that a time limit of four hours would best suit the purposes ofresidential visitors, including carers and tradespeople, while at the same timepreventing city workers from utilising the residential permits.

Option Three, of issuing the permits to the caretakers of residential complexes wasconsidered. This option may be appropriate for localities such as Terrace Road,where the number of dwellings is significantly greater than the number of kerbsideparking bays, however, this is not such an issue in the Mount Street Locality.



It is considered that Option Two would provide the most benefit to the residents. Thisoption would still provide every residential dwelling in the locality the benefit of aresidential parking permit. The versatility of the permit would continue by notallocating the permit to a particular vehicle and would also prevent long term parkingwhich would stop the permits being used by city workers.

The US Consul General’s residence has a large number of visitors on officialConsular business and have therefore requested that they receive more than onepermit. Due to the exceptional circumstances of this situation, this request can besupported and it is recommended that two residential permits be issued for thispremises and that the permits should not be subject to any time limits.

Residential Permit Parking Proposal:

The following is proposed for this locality:-

1. Notwithstanding that the majority of dwellings have one or two on site bays, oneresidential parking permit may be granted to any dwelling within the locality toassist visitors, carers or family members, particularly in the case of visitors thatwould usually stay for longer than one or two hours.

2. The residential parking permit is to have a maximum time limit of four hoursimposed on it during business hours, Monday to Friday 8.00am till 5.30pm andunrestricted at other times.

3. To ensure that non-residential visitors do not park for extended periods in thekerbside parking bays, the 15 minute, one and two hour parking restrictionshould remain as at present.

4. Holders of residential permits may park in any available bay that has beendesignated for permit parking within the locality not just in their own street.

5. The US Consul General’s premises be allowed two residential parking permitsand would not be subject to the four hour time limit being imposed.

Process:

Clause 11(c)(ii) of the Resident On Street Parking Policy specifies that the Councilwill consult with the community in establishing a Designated Locality. It is proposedthat all residents and businesses in the Locality will be written to and invited tocomment on the proposal. A report will be presented to the Council following theconclusion of the advertising period. The Policy also enables the Council tointroduce the provisions on a trial basis and the merits of this will be furtherconsidered following the receipt of public comments.

Conclusion:

Due to the unique characteristics of the Mount Street Designated Locality a separateapproach to the residential parking provisions is required. The proposed provisions



best balance the commercial, resident and visitors parking demands in the area andretain the provision of a parking permit for all residential properties in the locality. It isrecommended that the proposal be advertised for public comment.

Moved by Cr McEvoy, seconded by Cr Butler

That the Council advertises the following Designated Locality – MountStreet for public comment for a four week period, in accordance with therequirements of Clause 11 of the Resident On-Street Parking Policy:-

“Designated Locality – Mount Street

1. The Mount Street Designated Locality is the area shown inFigure 6.

2. One parking permit can be issued to any dwelling unit withinthe Mount Street Designated Locality.

3. The parking permit is to have a four hour time restrictionimposed during business hours, Monday to Friday 8.00am till5.30pm and unrestricted at other times.

4. The US Consul General’s residence is to be entitled to twoparking permits with no time limit restrictions.

5. The parking permit can only be used within the parking bayshatched and described in Figure 6.”.

Motion to amend

Moved by Cr Scaffidi, seconded by Cr Tan

That part 4 be deleted.



For: Crs Davidson, McEvoy, Scaffidi, Tan and Tudori

Against: The Lord Mayor, Crs Butler, Kay and Sutherland





For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Butler, Davidson, McEvoy, Scaffidi,Sutherland, Tan and Tudori

Against: Cr Kay

362/04 RIGHT TURN LANE FOR CYCLISTS IN MILL STREET ATMOUNTS BAY ROAD

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1005192RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Ray Cross, Acting Director StrategyDATE: 12 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 1 – Cyclists Right Turn Lane - Mill-Mounts Bay

Roads



As a result of the construction of the Perth Convention Exhibition Centre (PCEC), theintersection of Mill Street and Mounts Bay Road has been redesigned toaccommodate access to the PCEC Carpark, the Bus Port and the PCEC Concourse.This design has been prepared based on advice from Main Roads WA, Departmentfor Planning and Infrastructure, the PCEC Centre Pty Ltd and the City of Perth. Thedesign accommodates the possible future movements by pedestrians, cyclists andvehicles.

The approved deletion of the proposed pedestrian overpass between the PCEC andthe northern side of Mounts Bay Road will result in a significant increase ofpedestrians using this intersection as a crossing point. This intersection will be theonly ‘at grade’ crossing from PCEC to the CBD and pedestrians from both the carpark and the concourse will utilise this facility.


Legislation: Road Traffic Code 2000.Section: 132 (1) - Bicycle Lanes; andSection 213 - Riding in a bicycle lane.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Urban Development and Transport.Objective No: U4.2 Objective: Promote walking and cycling.

Strategy: Integrate where possible a Citywide



network of bikeways.

DETAILS:

The PCEC development has resulted in the extension of the shared path, on thesouth side of Mounts Bay Road, from Spring Street to Mill Street. The shared pathwill terminate at this point and all path users will cross Mounts Bay Road on the westside of the intersection during the fully protected pedestrian phase of the trafficcontrol signals. This may increase the likelihood of conflict between cyclists andpedestrians.

Given that the intersection connects directly with the principal shared path, it isreasonable to expect that the majority of cyclists will ride across the intersectionparallel to the pedestrians and vehicles exiting the car park and continue northboundon Mill Street. Due to the design of the intersection and the high vehicle demand, itis not possible to incorporate a separate bicycle phase for this movement.

To reduce the likelihood of conflict between pedestrians and cyclists wishing toaccess the shared path from Mill Street, the parties involved in the discussionsagreed that a bicycle turn lane on the right side of the Mill Street approach to MountsBay Road is required (see Schedule 1).

This lane would provide room for bicycles to queue while waiting to filter throughvehicles exiting the carpark and pedestrians crossing the intersection during theparallel phase. It would also minimise the potential conflict between pedestriansentering or leaving the PCEC and other cyclists crossing from the shared path. Thecyclists would also be able to utilise the westbound lane of Mounts Bay Road whichwould further reduce congestion on the shared path at the entrance to the PCEC.


There are no costs associated with this project for the City of Perth. The PCECCentre Pty Ltd is required to complete all works within the road reserve that arenecessary as a result of the development.

COMMENTS:

The intersection of Mill Street and Mounts Bay Road will be a major access point andentry statement to the Perth Convention Exhibition Centre and will attract significantpedestrian traffic. The PCEC car park, to be operated by the City of Perth, will alsogenerate significant pedestrian traffic during peak times.

The extension of the shared path on the south side of Mounts Bay Road from SpringStreet to Mill Street will also attract commuter cyclists during peak times. It isconsidered that the provision of cyclist right turn lane on the west side of the MillStreet approach to Mounts Bay Road will minimise the potential conflict betweenpedestrians and cyclists and given the high demand on this intersection, is the besttechnical solution available. This design is consistent with the intersection of MountsBay Road and Spring Street, which provides bicycle access to the principal sharedpath, while minimising the potential for conflict with pedestrians and motor vehicles.



It is therefore recommended that the cyclist right turn lane be supported.


That the Council:-

1. approves the installation of a cyclist right turn lane in Mill Street onthe southbound approach to Mounts Bay Road, as detailed inSchedule 1;

2. notes the work will be carried out by the PCEC Centre Pty Ltd at nocost to the City of Perth.



For: Crs Butler, Davidson, Kay, Scaffidi, Sutherland, Tan and Tudori

Against: The Lord Mayor and Cr McEvoy

363/04 PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES - COLOUR STANDARD FORON-STREET PARKING BAYS

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1000405RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 14 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 2 - Parking for People with Disabilities Colour

options



The Planning and Urban Development Committee has requested information on thedifference between ACROD and Universal Bays and why some of these bays arecoloured blue whilst others are yellow.




PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Parking Restrictions - Kerbside - SU52.

LegislationPerth Parking Local Law 1999.




DETAILS:

The preferred term for these types of bays by the various disability service groups is‘Parking for People with Disabilities’. However they are generally know by the publicas ACROD bays, because of the permits issued. In this report, the term ‘ACROD’ isused colloquially for parking bays for ‘People with Disabilities’.

ACROD and Universal bays

An ACROD bay is a bay set aside only for persons holding an ACROD permit. AUniversal Bay can be used by the general public as well as holders of the ACRODpermit as these bays are wheelchair accessible. Generally, the City restricts thesebays to short term (5 or 15 minutes) only.

Colour Of Parking Bays For People With Disabilities

The Road Traffic Code 2000, the Austroads Guidelines and four AustralianStandards provide guidance on design of parking bays for people with disabilities.The Universal Bay is a new concept and is not mentioned in any of these documents.

Road Traffic Code 2000The Code shows the panel sign (on the parking pole) to be a white internationalaccess symbol on a blue background. It also indicates that the road marking can beeither the white international access symbol on a blue background or a blue symbol.No reference is made to the colour of the line delineating the parking space on theroad surface.

AS2890.5 On-Street ParkingThis standard states that the panel sign should conform with AS1742.11 which statesthat the panel sign should be a white access symbol on a blue background.



It further states that the parking space may be delineated by yellow broken lines onthe pavement and that the international access symbol may be painted in yellowwithin the parking space.

AS2890.1 Off-Street ParkingThe only reference to signage in this standard is that it should comply with AS1428.1.

AS1428.1 Design For Access and MobilityThis standard states that where the access sign is used it should be white on a bluebackground.

AS1742.11 Uniform Traffic Control DevicesThe standard states that the parking space may be delineated by yellow broken lineson the pavement and that the preferred colour for access symbol on the pavement isyellow, however it may alternatively be a white symbol on a blue background. Theminimum height shall be 800mm.

Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice - Part 11These guidelines states that the bays should comply with AS2890.1

Summary:

The Panel SignThe various Australian Standards and the Road Traffic Code 2000 states the accesssymbol on the panel signs should be white on a blue background.

Line markingThe Australian Standards state that the line delineating the parking space may beyellow. The Road Traffic Code 2000 and Austroads do not make any reference tothe colour of the line.

Access Symbol on roadwayThe Road Traffic Code 2000 specifies that the colour of the access sign marked onthe pavement is to be a white symbol on a blue background or a blue symbol. TheAustralian Standards state that the preferred colour for the symbol is yellow,however, it may alternatively be a white symbol on a blue background.

COMMENTS:

An inspection of the City’s ACROD bays shows that all on-street ACROD bays aredemarcated on the ground by yellow lines, an international access symbol andbanding, whilst all off-street bays have blue lines, symbol and banding.

It is evident that the City does not have a documented colour standard for ACRODand Universal bays and has created inconsistency in how these bays are markedthroughout the city.

The Access Working Group, which consists of representatives of various City Unitsand members of various disability groups, have previously supported the use of



yellow due to its high visibility, however at a recent meeting of the group it wasacknowledged that it is now generally accepted that ACROD bays should be blue, asis generally used within the metropolitan area.

In reference to Universal Bays, the City does not generally paint the bay as theraised concrete kerb demarcates the bay, as they can be used by all members of thecommunity.

The existing bays will be repainted progressively when they are due to be upgradedor when the road requires resurfacing.

Various options are attached in Schedule 2, showing how ACROD bays could bemarked and it is recommended that Option 1, the blue colour scheme with the whiteinternational access symbol on the blue background, be adopted as the City’sstandard.

Moved by Cr Kay, seconded by Cr Butler

That the Council adopts Option 1 (blue line marking and a whiteinternational access symbol on a blue background) as the City’sstandard for parking bays for People with Disabilities within the City, asdetailed in the report dated 14 May 2004.




Against: Nil

364/04 HERITAGE INCENTIVES PROGRAMME - GRANTS ANDAWARD SUBMISSIONS

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1012291; P1013745-2RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Ray Cross, Acting Director StrategyDATE: 12 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 3 - Assessment of the Grants Applications

Schedule 4 - Assessment of the Award Entries




That the Council:-

1. receives the submissions for Grants in relation to the heritage programme;

2. approves a grant of $20,000 (excluding GST) to the Hellenic Communitytowards the preparation of a Conservation Plan and maintenance work at 115Francis Street, Northbridge;

3. receives the submissions for the City of Perth Heritage Award as detailed in thereport dated 12 May 2004 and supports the submission from 918 Hay Street,Perth (Box Building) being the inaugural winner of the Heritage Award;

4. approves the sum of $10,000 (excluding GST) being awarded to the inauguralwinner of the Heritage Award detailed in part 3 above;

5. awa rds merit certificates for the submissions at 942 Hay Street, Perth (TheMelbourne Hotel) and 36 St Georges Terrace, Perth (St Andrews Church);

6. notes the expenditure in parts 2 and 4 above being charged to Budget Item‘Recreation & Culture – Heritage – Heritage Inventory’.


That the Council:-

1. receives the submissions for Grants in relation to the heritage programme;

2. approves a grant of $20,000 (excluding GST) to the Hellenic Communitytowards the preparation of a Conservation Plan and maintenance work at 115Francis Street, Northbridge;

3. receives the submissions for the City of Perth Heritage Award as detailed in thereport dated 12 May 2004 and considers one of the following:-

3.1 918 Hay Street, Perth (Box Building); OR

3.2 36 St Georges Terrace, Perth (St Andrews Church),

to be the inaugural winner of the Heritage Award;

4. approves a grant of $10,000 (excluding GST) being awarded to the inauguralwinner of the Heritage Award;

5. awards merit certificates for the submissions at 942 Hay Street, Perth (TheMelbourne Hotel) and the unsuccessful submission in part 3 above;



6. notes the expenditure in parts 2 and 4 above being charged to Budget Item‘Recreation & Culture – Heritage – Heritage Inventory’.

On 18 July 2003, the Council adopted a budget of $200,000 for Grants and $10,000for the City of Perth Heritage Award to be spent in the 2003/04 financial year.

At its meeting held on 14 October 2003 the Council resolved to adopt the HeritageGrants Guidelines and Heritage Award Programme Criteria.

On 10 March 2004, the City officially launched its Heritage Incentives Programme atCouncil House. Applications for Heritage Grants and Entries for the Award closed on10 May 2004.


Legislation: Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990.Section: 45.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Environment.Objective No: EN2.8 Objective: Plan, integrate and implement


Strategy: Develop a strategy to ensure theongoing maintenance and ability of thecities, places, objects and buildings ofheritage significance.

DETAILS:

The closing date for applications and entries to the programmes was 10 May 2004.By this date, five applications had been lodged for grants and four entries had beenreceived for the Award.

Grants:-

1. 242 Murray Street, Perth (Commonwealth Bank Building) – Universal Access;2. 200 St Georges Tce, Perth (“The Cloisters”) – Conservation Plan;3. 19 Howard Street, Perth (Howard Chambers) – repainting façade,

improvements to internal access and repainting staircase;4. 171 Riverside Drive, Perth (WA Rowing Club) – funding for presentation of

memorabilia; and5. 115 Francis Street Northbridge (Tower House) – funding for a Conservation

Plan and maintenance works.



Award:-

1. 918 Hay Street, Perth (Box Building);2. 16 Milligan Street, Perth (Next Building);3. 942 Hay Street, Perth (The Melbourne Hotel); and4. 36 St Georges Terrace, Perth (St Andrews Church).

The applications have been individually assessed against the relevant criteria asadopted by the Council on 14 October 2003, and these assessments are attachedas Schedules 3 and 4. Each entry for the award has been given a score, based oncompliance with the criteria as specified in the entry form.


ACCOUNT NO: GL 139 241BUDGET ITEM: Recreation & Culture – Heritage – Heritage

InventoryBUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 10BUDGETED AMOUNT: $405,442AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $116,525PROPOSED COST: $ 30,000BALANCE: $258,917

All figures quoted in this report are exclusive of GST.

COMMENTS:

Grants:Despite the diversity of the applications for grants received only one of the fiveapplicants could demonstrate that the place subject to the application was negativelyimpacted as a result of its heritage listing.

A summary of each place with an assessment to determine if it meets the criteria inrelation to economic impact of heritage listing is highlighted below:-

1. Commonwealth Bank – recently purchased in full knowledge that the place washeritage listed both on the State Register and City of Perth Scheme andtherefore the purchaser paid market price for the building.

2. The Cloisters – the Council provided a development bonus for the developmentabutting the site in relation to the protection of the Cloisters Building and thetree facing St George’s Terrace.

3. Howard Chambers – Purchased in 1997 in full knowledge of listing with NationalTrust (1981) and City Planning Scheme (1985) and as such paid market price.

4. WA Rowing Club – Has been listed for some time and received considerablesupport to rebuild premises. Next year is the 100th anniversary of the Club. Inaddition the property does not pay rates and is therefore ineligible to apply for agrant.

5. Tower House – Listed on the Municipal Inventory and meets the economiccriteria for assessment.



Schedule 3 provides an assessment of the applications against the judging criteria.Additional assessments may be obtained from the Design Advisory Committee ifconsidered necessary.

The grants programme was established to assist owners that cannot achieve their fulleconomic potential from their buildings due to restrictions that heritage listing canimpose. This is considered essential criteria for applications and places should bejudged principally on their ability to address this requirement.

The first four properties subject to the applications have already received aneconomic advantage however the Council can decide that given the programme is inits inaugural year, some leniency may be afforded to the applicants on complyingwith the criteria. The recommendations specified in Schedule 1 are provided if theCouncil decides to relax this criteria.

Recommendation:It is recommended that the application from the Hellenic Community for TowerHouse, 115 Francis Street Northbridge, be supported. The application meets thecriteria and the restoration works proposed, plus the preparation of a conservationplan will ensure future works will be appropriately guided. In addition, thecommitment by the Hellenic Community to partly finance the works identifies theiroverall commitment to heritage conservation.

Award:The four entries received for the award cover the following topics:-

1. Adaptation of a heritage building - Box Building;

2. Construction of a new building - Next Building;

3. Conservation / restoration - The Melbourne Hotel (does not meet criteria); and

4. Conservation / restoration – St Andrews Church.

The works undertaken on the Melbourne Hotel were completed in 1997 making itineligible for the award, as the criteria required the development to have occurredwithin the last 5 years.

Schedule 4 provides an assessment of the applications against the judging criteria.Additional assessments may be obtained from the Design Advisory Committee ifconsidered necessary.

Recommendation:Based on the assessment attached as Schedule 4, it is recommended that theCouncil consider either the adaptive use of the Box Building or the conservation andrestoration of the St Andrews Church for the inaugural City of Perth Heritage Award.It is unfortunate that the Melbourne Hotel is ineligible for the award but should berecognised with a merit certificate.



Feedback:The low number and standard of applications received for both the grants and theaward were disappointing.

The following is an outline of the programme undertaken to disseminate informationabout the heritage programme:-

1. mail out to all property owners on the Municipal Inventory and listed in the CityPlanning Scheme;

2. invitation to all property owners listed above to the launch of the programme;3. invitation to all heritage professionals and interest / stakeholder groups in the

City of Perth to the launch;4. extensive media coverage of the launch and the heritage programme including

closing dates;5. presentations to:-

Property Council conference; Chamber of Commerce; Royal Australian Institute of Architects; National Trust; and Heritage Council;

6. lodged the programme including application forms on the City of Perth Web sitewith links from:-

The National Trust; Property Council; and Heritage Council of WA.

Due to the infancy of the programme, the City of Perth will approach otherorganisations that allocate grant money, to assess their programmes and determinewhat is required to lift the level of interest in the programme and improve thestandard of applications. A report will be presented to the Council on the findings ofthis additional research.

Presentation Ceremony:The Grant and Award should be officially presented at a ceremony, which is likely tooperate in conjunction with the launch of the Heritage Fund. It is anticipated that afunction will be held this August. Extensive media coverage is proposed to raise theprofile of this event, and to promote more interest in the incentives programmes.

(Cr Tudori disclosed an interest, took no part in discussion and did not vote onthis item)


Cr Tudori Proximity



Cr Tudori departed the Chamber at 7.07pm

Moved by Cr Butler, seconded by Cr Scaffidi

That the Council:-

1. receives the submissions for Grants in relation to the heritageprogramme;

2. approves a grant of $20,000 (excluding GST) to the HellenicCommunity towards the preparation of a Conservation Plan andmaintenance work at 115 Francis Street, Northbridge;

3. receives the submissions for the City of Perth Heritage Award asdetailed in the report dated 12 May 2004 and supports thesubmission from 918 Hay Street, Perth (Box Building) being theinaugural winner of the Heritage Award;

4. approves the sum of $10,000 (excluding GST) being awarded to theinaugural winner of the Heritage Award detailed in part 3 above;

5. awards merit certificates for the submissions at 942 Hay Street,Perth (The Melbourne Hotel) and 36 St Georges Terrace, Perth (StAndrews Church);

6. notes the expenditure in parts 2 and 4 above being charged toBudget Item ‘Recreation & Culture – Heritage – Heritage Inventory’.



For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Butler, Davidson, Kay, McEvoy, Scaffidi,Sutherland and Tan

Against: Nil

Cr Tudori returned to the Chamber at 7.12pm



365/04 REVIEW AND UPDATE OF JAN GEHL’S 1994 STUDY“PUBLIC SPACES AND PUBLIC LIFE IN PERTH”

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1018803RESPONSIBLEDIRECTORS:

Ray Cross, Acting Director Strategy; andMax Hipkins, Director Planning

DATE: 13 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 5 - Perth Central City Public Spaces and Public

Life Study : Project Proposal for Study and Promotion



In 1993, Professor Jan Gehl from the University of Copenhagen conducted a publicspaces and public life survey in the Perth City Centre in collaboration with the City ofPerth and the State Government Planning agency. The public life survey is a tool forgaining a detailed overview concerning the conditions offered for pedestrians as wellas developing strategies for improving the quality of city districts. Professor Gehl hascompleted similar work in Adelaide, Melbourne and most recently for the City ofLondon.

The 1993 survey work was published as “Public Spaces and Public Life in Perth” in1994 and provided part of the basis of the Central Area Policy Review document andthe streetscape improvements and urban development initiatives taken by the Cityover the past 10 years.


Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Social and Cultural.Objective No: S3 Objective: Create a city famous for its opportunities

for social and cultural exchange.Strategy: Provide meeting places where people

can gather and be encouraged tointeract and communicate.

DETAILS:

Professor Gehl visited Perth between 25 and 29 January 2004 to initiate a review ofhis 1994 study, after which he visited Adelaide and Wellington where he continuedsimilar work. He has offered his services to review the progress of theimplementation of his study that is now 10 years old.



As Professor Gehl was only in the city for four days there was not enough time forhim to do a complete review of the study. The Department for Planning andInfrastructure (DPI) asked him only to provide a brief overview of the changes thathave occurred in the city’s public spaces in the past decade. He was also asked toexamine opportunities for the connection and linkage between the major governmentfunded infrastructure projects due to be completed in the city in the next few years.The City of Perth provided input for a briefing on the projects and initiatives that havebeen undertaken in the city since 1993.

Professor Gehl met with the Elected Members on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 andgave a summary of his findings during this visit with some comparisons with the workhe has done elsewhere. The Elected Members indicated their support for theproposed review of the 1994 study. It is intended that the costs for the study areshared between the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the City of Perth.

The initial review by GEHL Architects in January 2004 involved pedestrian counts,movement patterns and public life activity analysis over a twelve-hour holiday period,which was not exhaustive enough, and Professor Gehl undertook to come back witha proposal for further work on the review. To be more meaningful the survey needsexpanding to a broader city centre area with further analysis to be conducted onother days of the week. A draft brief with costs has consequently been prepared byGehl Architects, The Planning Group and Sinclair Knight Merz to undertake thisproposed review and update study in May 2004. The brief has been received by theCity of Perth and has been attached for reference. Total cost estimates for the entirestudy, including the review and update are:-

GEHL Architects costs $ 15,000 (10 page report appendix to 1994 study)GEHL Architects costs $ 5,500 (Accommodation/Airfares/Presentation)Report Production $ 4,500 (200 colour copies 20 pages each)SKM costs $ 7,000 (Pedestrian Survey)The Planning Group $ 8,000 (Coordination of SKM Survey/Gehl report)

TOTAL $ 40,000

The first stage of the study has been initiated and progressed by GEHL Architects,and the $15,000 cost for the first part of the study has been underwritten by the DPI.DPI has also undertaken to pay for the sundry works costs of Brett Wood-Gush fromthe Planning Group. The City of Perth is being asked to contribute the remaining$20,000 towards the review and update of the study.


ACCOUNT NO: GL 153222 7232BUDGET ITEM: Community Amenities – Other community

amenities – Administration (DP)BUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 10BUDGETED AMOUNT: $457,857 (this component $35,000)



AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $ 10,540PROPOSED COST: $ 20,000 (this component)BALANCE: $ 4,460


The project is to be jointly funded between the City and the DPI.

COMMENTS:

The proposal as presented will see work done in Perth by local consultants SinclairKnight Merz and the Planning Group and consolidated by Professor Gehl inDenmark. Professor Gehl has proposed to return to Perth to present the study tocoincide with the launch of the report.

However, it is important for Perth to continue monitoring public life in the city and togain the proposed further knowledge on the use of its public spaces. It is thusrecommended that the review and update of Professor Gehl’s 1994 study “PublicSpaces and Public Life in Perth” be undertaken. This work will provide part of thebase data to look at activity and movement patterns after the Perth ConventionExhibition Centre and new railway stations and lines are operating. It will alsoprovide input to the Capital City Perth 2012 study being undertaken in conjunctionwith the DPI, and it will supply useful information for public space enhancement bythe City in the future.

It is recommended that the City of Perth agree to share the costs of the study withthe DPI and contribute $20,000 towards the study.


That the Council:-

1. approves the expenditure of $20,000 (excluding GST), being acontribution towards funding the review and update of ProfessorJan Gehl’s 1994 study “Public Spaces and Public Life in Perth”;

2. notes the expenditure in part 1 above being charged to Budget Item‘Community Amenities – Other community amenities -Administration (DP)’.

The motion was put and lost


For: Crs Butler, Kay and McEvoy

Against: The Lord Mayor, Crs Davidson, Scaffidi, Sutherland, Tan and Tudori



366/04 PERTH MASTERPLAN - WESTERN FORESHORE

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1015544-5RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Max Hipkins, Director PlanningDATE: 10 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: N/A


That the Council:-

1. endorses the revised alternative foreshore development scenarios, resultingfrom the Preliminary Environmental Study;

2. undertakes an internal workshop within four weeks involving Elected Membersto consider the merits of the scenarios detailed in part 1 above;

3. undertakes public consultation period on the preferred foreshore developmentscenario to be endorsed in part 2 above;

4. submits to the Minister for Planning and the Department for Planning andInfrastructure the results of the preferred foreshore development scenario as aresult of parts 2 and 3 above.


That the Council endorses the revised alternative foreshore development scenarios,resulting from the Preliminary Environmental Study, and submits them to the Ministerfor Planning and Department for Planning and Infrastructure for consideration inplanning the western foreshore.

At the Ordinary meeting of the Council held on 8 July 2003 four alternatedevelopment concepts for the western foreshore were considered and it wasresolved:-

That the Council:-

1. reaffirm its support for removal of the William Street Overpass and relocation offoreshore roads back from the water’s edge;

2. advise the Central Perth Planning Committee that, in relation to developmentguidelines for the Perth foreshore between Barrack Square and the KwinanaFreeway, it supports:-



2.1 the creation of sheltered water and a north-facing shore, provided theriver area is not reduced;

2.2 appropriate scaled development;2.3 priority for enhancement of the foreshore from Barrack Square to William

Street;2.4 nutrient reduction measures to improve water quality in the river to

accompany any development;

3. release alternative foreshore development scenarios for public comment.

A Preliminary Environmental Study was undertaken to address 2.4 above, with thefindings reported to the Ordinary meeting of the Council held on 20 April 2004. Thestudy required adjustment of the earlier concept plans.

The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s endorsement to supply the revisedscenarios to the State Government.


Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Urban Development and Transport.Objective No: U1.1 Objective: To create a beautiful City that is both

liveable and sustainable.Strategy: To develop a structured plan which

clearly sets out the Council’s intentionsfor the future development of the City.

DETAILS:

The Western Foreshore project area comprises that part of the City of Perth adjoiningthe Swan River, between Barrack Square and the Narrows Bridge.

Construction of the railway will cut all roads on the foreshore between BarrackSquare and the Kwinana Freeway. It is to be determined whether these roadsshould be reinstated in the same or some other position. Removal of the WilliamStreet overpass allows roads to be located further back from the water’s edge andthat part of Riverside Drive east of William Street will be straightened, so that thePCEC terminates the western vista of the road. However west of William Street thePackage F construction contract requires roads to be rebuilt in their previouspositions. Construction is proceeding and if there is to be any change to the contract,then the sooner the better.

Any development of the western foreshore should follow clearly pronouncedprinciples and criteria.

The City of Perth adopted the following principles as part of its Foreshore Action Plan(1999):-



• maintain public access along the entire length of the foreshore;• improve north-south pedestrian access to river via routes with intensifying

activities;• create a more interesting shoreline;• maintain open character with few buildings; and• maintain Langley Park as a large grassed open space for major events.

In 2002, the following criteria gave rise to the Preferred Action Plan:-

• acknowledge Perth’s natural setting;• make true connections between city and water;• make the most of the opportunity provided by Graham Farmer Freeway Tunnel;• improve connections between foreshore and Kings Park;• use changes occurring in Perth to bring about significant improvements; and• identify Capital City building sites.

In response to the initial conceptual ideas for the western foreshore, the Counciladopted the following guidelines (2003):-

• the creation of sheltered water and a north-facing shore, provided the river areais not reduced;

• appropriate scaled development;• priority for enhancement of the foreshore from Barrack Square to William Street;

and• nutrient reduction measures to improve water quality in the river to accompany

any development.

As part of the progression of the redevelopment of the western foreshore, theDepartment for Planning and Infrastructure is in the process of developing a series offurther principles and other planning tools that could be utilised to guide the design ofthe area. These principles are intended to be more place specific to locations andoutcomes within the western foreshore than the previous City of Perth foreshoreguidance documents. At the time of writing, these principles had not been finalisedbut would cover the following:-

• the Setting of Perth;• City Geometry;• heritage;• amenity;• natural environment;• movement systems; and• land use.

As a framework for progressing the initial conceptual options and producing reviseddevelopment scenarios, the following is proposed (incorporating earlier guidelines,where relevant):-



• make a true connection between the city and water with a variety of activities ie.achieve a critical mass of development with wide appeal to ensure success;

• create an interesting shoreline, with sheltered water and a north-facing shore,without reducing river area;

• appreciate that the development is located in a prominent position and will beseen by tourists and locals alike from city approach roads and from above, fromKings Park and city buildings;

• ensure appropriate scaled development, of light-weight pavillion character, in anopen setting;

• adopt environmental sustainability for stormwater run-off, river flushing andnutrient reduction;

• maintain public access along the entire length of the foreshore, whileaccommodating commuter and recreational cyclists, disabled access, servicevehicles and special events;

• provide alternative pedestrian routes to the river from the city and Kings Park;and

• reduce the area of foreshore occupied by motor vehicles and the freewayenvironment, while maintaining Riverside Drive as a landscaped boulevard.

The above framework does not specifically address the Esplanade Reserve, which isbeing considered as a separate planning exercise. If adopted, the framework wouldseem to rule out the Government’s suggested concept for the western foreshore,released in December 2003, which does not appear to have the critical mass toensure a true connection between the city and water, nor does it provide a shelteredshoreline or alternative pedestrian access. The concept plan does not reflect thecurrent rail alignment which will require adjustments to the proposal.

Based on the above framework, two alternative planning scenarios have beendeveloped for the western foreshore as follows:-

Scenario 1

This scenario incorporates the Main Roads WA approved design for the RiversideDrive/William Street intersection, but roads are reconstructed further back from theriver’s edge than specified in the current Package F contract, mainly north of therailway. The loop on-ramp from the Point Lewis rotary to the Narrows Bridge istightened, to provide a total area for development of approximately 6 hectares.Access to the Bus Port is from the centre of the Kwinana Freeway, via buswaysacross the foreshore. The area is well served by public transport and has access to1500 car spaces in the adjacent Perth Convention Exhibition Centre (PCEC). Thereare pedestrian connections to the waterfront development from the Perth downtownarea around both ends of the PCEC. A water park with a family oriented beachkeeps open a view corridor from the Esplanade Reserve south to the swan River.

A north-facing shore has been created by maintaining the existing shoreline butbuilding on piers out into the river. There is no net loss of river and visually the riverextends into the land with the use of perched lakes that could either be ornamental orused for recreation – with paddle boats or as swimming pools. A new harbour issurrounded by commercial uses (particularly cafes, restaurants and bars) and short



stay accommodation. A footbridge over the mouth of the harbour maintains theround-the-river walk. The scale and character of development is low rise, pavilionstyle architecture. There is no interference with views from the PCEC and the vistafrom the Esplanade Reserve to the river. This proposal has 240 carparking bays forresidential uses but not commercial. In terms of floor space, the plan shows 215hotel rooms, 300 short stay apartments, 30,000sqm of commercial space and5,000sqm of function rooms, museums and galleries.

Scenario 2

This scenario has a different design for Riverside Drive/William Street, not yetapproved by Main Roads WA, which involves more of a T-junction than a four-wayintersection, occupying less land and allowing roads to be moved further back fromthe river’s edge than in the previous scenario. The loop on-ramp from the PointLewis rotary to the Narrows Bridge is further tightened, to gain more area fordevelopment – approximately 7 hectares. Access to the Bus Port from the centre ofthe Kwinana Freeway is via a busway on Mounts Bay Road, with only the outboundbusway located on the foreshore. In addition to the pedestrian connections to thewaterfront around both ends of the PCEC, this scenario proposes a new routethrough the PCEC, in the public space between the exhibition and convention halls.It is accepted that this link may be only used intermittently. A board-walk links theproject to Barrack Square.

This scenario is similar in concept to the previous scenario, with commercialactivities, short-stay accommodation and cultural facilities partly extending into theriver on piers, to create a north facing shore around a sheltered water body. Thedevelopment focuses on a central open space, with lakes. Once again the existingshoreline is retained. The plan shows 300 hotel rooms, 440 short stay apartments,44,000sqm of commercial space and 10,000sqm of function rooms, museums andgalleries and 225 car spaces.


There are no financial implications for the City at this stage.

COMMENTS:

The Minister for Planning has a particular interest in development of the westernforeshore and has asked the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) toprogress the matter.

The City has worked closely with the DPI in the location of roads that provide theboundaries of development. Two revised scenarios have been generated, taking intoaccount the findings of the environmental study.

Although a prior decision of the Council was to put the revised scenarios onexhibition for public comment, it is proposed that the work be forwarded to theMinister and DPI for consideration in planning the western foreshore.




That the Council:-

1. endorses the revised alternative foreshore development scenarios,resulting from the Preliminary Environmental Study;

2. undertakes an internal workshop within four weeks involvingElected Members to consider the merits of the scenarios detailed inpart 1 above;

3. undertakes public consultation period on the preferred foreshoredevelopment scenario to be endorsed in part 2 above;

4. submits to the Minister for Planning and the Department forPlanning and Infrastructure the results of the preferred foreshoredevelopment scenario as a result of parts 2 and 3 above.

Motion to amend

Moved by Cr Butler, seconded by Cr Scaffidi

That part 1 be amended by deleting the word “endorses” and replacing itwith the word “receives”.




Against: Nil




Against: Nil



367/04 NORTHBRIDGE IDEAS COMPETITION - PALLAS HOTELSITE

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1017458RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 20 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Map - Pallas Hotel site, Northbridge



At the Council meeting held on 30 March 2004, it was resolved:-

“That the Council approves the draft specification for the proposed “ideascompetition” for the redevelopment of the Pallas Hotel site subject to amendment ofthe programme timetable as follows:-

1. last date for submissions of questions to the Competition Manager be 5.00pmon Wednesday 21 April 2004;

2. competition submissions close 2.00pm Wednesday 12 May 2004.

3. judging be at the Council meeting to be held on Tuesday 1 June 2004;

4. winner(s) be announced on Tuesday 8 June 2004;

5. public exhibition of entries be in the Council House foyer from 8 to 22 June2004.”


Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Built Environment.Objective No: EN2.6 Objective: Plan, integrate and implement


Strategy: Recognise and protect Perth’s longestablished emphasis on open space asan essential ingredient of the City’squality of life.

Key Result Area: Social and Cultural.



Objective No: S3 Objective: Create a City famous for itsopportunities for social and culturalexchange.

Strategy: Provide meeting places where peoplecan gather and be encouraged tointeract and communicate.

DETAILS:

At the close of the submission period at 2.00pm Wednesday 12 May 2004, 14 entrieswere received as follows:-

Jenica Heydon Architectural concept showing low scale retaildevelopment to north and eastern edges, a centralpublic stage with viewing platforms on the Lake St andJames St frontages. Substantial public open spaceincorporating glass sculpture as a public art element.

Joe Ferrante Artist impression of small retail component on northernedge, small park and large central water feature.

Simon Shack A paper providing a short reflection with observations ofNorthbridge.

Peter Evans Artist impression of a permaculture garden.McDonald JonesArchitects

Concept plan for three level developments. The groundfloor plan of this submission incorporated a stage, andpublic open space.

Javier Gonzalez Artist impression with a multicultural theme incorporatingmosaic relief in paved areas, low scale commercialdevelopment on the northern and southern edges with asmall park on the eastern edge.

Bon Maguire Concept drawing for a retail development over much ofthe site, with a multicultural feel, and incorporating acoloured searchlight.

Gita Siva Architectural impression incorporation street front cafeson Lake and James Streets, retail component on theeastern edge, central piazza with public performancespace, public toilets and public art. Exhibition spaceincorporated in upper level retail development.

Robert WoodConsultancy

Artist impression with retail/commercial development onthe northern edge. Paved piazza and water feature in agarden setting.

Jeannie & Allen Buchart Artists impression of two water features.Frank Young, BenAnderson & RossWarren (Frank YoungArchitect)

Artist impression incorporating low scale commercialdevelopment on the northern and eastern edges. Largewater feature in a garden setting with multiculturalelement and shade structures.

Debbie Kuh (SyrinxEnvironmental)

Scale model supported by architectural impression.Commercial development on the Lake and James Streetcorner and the northern and eastern edge. A plazacreated between the two built forms.



John Damant (ArcologicDesign)

Scale model and supporting concept graphics.Incorporated considerable attention to detail.Development proposed covered a considerable amountof the site, with some public art and a water feature.

Top Seangsong Architectural impression incorporating a large area ofpublic space, small scale retail development and publicart feature on corner of Lake and James Streets.

All submissions reviewed by a panel of the available Elected Members on 19 May2004.

The following submissions were recognised by the Panel as having particular merit:-

Entrant - McDonald Jones ArchitectsThe Panel considered that the ground floor plan of this submission generallyresponded well to the brief. The key element was considered to be the suggestion ofa public stage and how it integrated with the site and its servicing requirements.

Entrant – Javier GonzalezThis submission was regarded as generally responding well to the brief. Itsmulticultural theme and the use of artworks and decorative paving to express thecharacter of Northbridge was well received.

Entrant – Top SeangsongThis submission was commended for its overall layout and 'openness' of the publicspace to the surrounding streets. In addition, the Panel considered that the inclusionof a public artwork (preferably a water feature) located close to the intersection ofJames and Lake Street to be an element for further investigation.


ACCOUNT NO: CL 12679000BUDGET ITEM: Property Management Pallas HotelBUDGET PAGE NUMBER: N/A (The Council approved on 17 February 2004

unbudgeted expenditure for the project totalling$78,803.63)

BUDGETED AMOUNT: $ 78,803AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $ 35,557PROPOSED COST: $ 12,000BALANCE: $ 31,246


COMMENTS:

It is recommended that the Council awards three prizes of $4,000 each to:-



• Javier Gonzalez;• Top Seansong; and• McDonald Jones Architects.

Moved by Cr Tudori, seconded by Cr Scaffidi

That the Council:-

1. awards three equal prizes of $4,000 to Javier Gonzalez, TopSeangsong and McDonald Jones Architects for their entries in theNorthbridge Ideas Competition for the Pallas Hotel site;

2. approves the prizes in part 1 above being taken by the awardees in aform of either:-

2.1 cash; or

2.2 travel vouchers to the value of $4,000;

3. prepares a design concept for the site, incorporating the followingdesign elements identified from the competition:-

3.1 a water feature on the corner of Lake and James Streets;

3.2 a mosaic artwork set into the paving of the public space,celebrating the diverse character of Northbridge;

3.3 a stage for public performances, with servicing access off theright of way at the rear of the site;

3.4 a low scale commercial component on the northern andeastern edges; and

3.5 a screen wall for video presentations or outdoor theatre.




Against: Nil



MARKETING, PROMOTIONS AND SPONSORSHIPCOMMITTEE REPORTS

368/04 CULTURAL SPONSORSHIP – THE BIENNALE OFELECTRONIC ARTS IN PERTH (BEAP)

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1017038RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 13 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: N/A

At the Marketing, Promotions and Sponsorship Committee meeting held on 25 May2004 the following alternate recommendation to that of the administration wasadopted:-

That:-

1. the Council approves cultural sponsorship of $22,325 (including $20,125 cash(excluding GST) and $2,200 in-kind) to the Biennale of Electronic Arts in Perthfor ‘BEAP in the City’ a series of free installations and street performances thatwill be conducted in the City of Perth during the 2004/2005 financial year;

2. the expenditure in part 1 above be charged to the following 2004/2005 BudgetItems:-

2.1 $12,325 (including $10,125 cash (excluding GST) and $2,200 in-kind)from ‘Recreation and Culture - Other Culture - Donations andSponsorships’;

2.2 $10,000 (excluding GST) from ‘Economic Services - Tourism and AreaPromotion - City Vibrancy’;

3. BEAP be informed in wr iting that this sponsorship is not a guarantee of ongoingfunding.


That the Council approves:-

1. cultural sponsorship of $22,325 (including $20,125 cash (excluding GST) and$2,200 in-kind) to the Biennale of Electronic Arts in Perth for ‘BEAP in the City’a series of free installations and street performances that will be conducted inthe City of Perth during the 2004/2005 financial year;



2. the expenditure in part 1 above being charged to the following 2004/2005Budget Items:-

2.1 $12,325 (including $10,125 cash (excluding GST) and $2,200 in-kind)from ‘Recreation and Culture - Other Culture - Donations andSponsorships’;

2.2 $10,000 (excluding GST) from ‘Economic Services - Tourism and AreaPromotion - City Vibrancy’.

The City of Perth has been approached by the Biennale of Electronic Arts in Perth(BEAP) with the opportunity to support ‘BEAP in the City’, a free to the publiccomponent of the festival.

BEAP was established in 2002 as the premier electronic arts event in Australia and iscurrently the only Electronic Arts Biennale in the Southern Hemisphere.

The Biennale makes Perth the destination for new technologies, cutting edge,inspirational research and electronic artwork, for three months every two years.

The Biennale consists of:-

• five curated exhibitions/performances/installations presented in conjunction witha number of cultural institutions around greater Perth;

• five conferences including international theorists, academics and practitionersworking in the sciences, arts, industry and tertiary sectors; and

• public lectures, symposia, fora, workshops and other events.

‘BEAP in the City’ is planning to present a programme of street performance,installation and workshop events to take place in Forrest Place and in the Mallsduring the first week of the festival from 5 - 12 September 2004 and during theSchool Holidays from 4 - 18 October 2004.


PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Arts and Culture – SU68; and

Provision of Sponsorship and Donations – SU43.Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Social and Cultural.Objective No: S3 Objective: Create a City famous for its

opportunities for social and culturalexchange.




Objective No: S4.1 Objective: Continue to augment and enhance theCity’s contribution to its culturalenvironment and to increaseparticipation in its cultural life.

Strategy: Continue to support quality venues forperforming and visual arts.

DETAILS:

The application was measured against the criteria outlined in Policy SU43.

The project must be of high artistic quality

‘BEAP in the City’ will include the work of leading international artists that have beenshown throughout Europe at premier international events. BEAP proposes that theseinstallations and performances be placed within the hub of the city, bringing vibrancyand animating the city space.

The ‘BEAP in the City’ programme will include the following:-

• Magic Bike, Yury Gitman and Joshua Kinsburg (5 – 12 September 2004)

Two innovative new media artists from the USA, Yury Gitman and Joshua Kinsburgwill bring to the city, Magic Bike; two bicycles touring around Perth generating freewireless connections to the public. People will be able to connect to the Internetwithout phone cords or network cords. The bikes will also transmit data capturedduring their tour through the city, which will be projected onto a screen in ForrestPlace, a gallery space during the data difference exhibition and onto the web beingaccessible globally. Magic Bike explores new technologies in a humorous way.

• Rain Dance, Paul DeMarinis (4 – 16 October 2004)

Rain Dance displays showers of water interacting with umbrellas held by the generalpublic. These streams of water emanate sounds that are controlled by the participantusing the umbrella. This work is highly accessible to the public and allows people toplay with new technologies. This installation has been seen in Lisbon, Hong Kong,Berlin and Austria.

• Audio Ballerinas, die Audio Gruppe (5 – 9 October 2004)

Berlin based art group, The Audio Group, become mobile and acoustic sculptures or“Audio Ballerinas” by performing in electronic tutus. By interacting with the public inthe Malls, the ballerinas will orchestrate musical compositions by manipulating theirbeautifully crafted sensor based clothing. Highly technical and highly graceful, theMalls will effectively become a set for a street based audio ballet.



• Workshops Series, (School Holidays October 2004)

A series of teachers and children’s workshops will be held within the city during theschool holidays. Reflecting on the Audio Ballerinas performance, new technologieswill be demystified in hands on, exciting ways.

The project must be a free or low cost event

The project will be a series of free events.

The project must be based within the City of Perth boundaries

The project will take place in Forrest Place and in the Malls.

The project must raise a high level of public attendance, interest and/orparticipation

The project is designed to be a series of participatory events that is engaging andaccessible to the general public.

Forrest Place sees daily pedestrian traffic of approximately 25,000. Considering this,it is likely that the events will attract an audience of over 200,000 people.

Two of the events and a workshop series will be scheduled for the October SchoolHolidays Program.

The project must contribute to the development of inner city culture

BEAP has been developed to showcase Perth as the destination for Electronic Arts inAustralia. The events will allow for displays of cutting edge arts practice and isdesigned to encourage participation by all members of the community.

The project must be scheduled between July 2004 and June 2005

The project will take place from 5 – 12 September and 4 – 18 October 2004.

The applicant must provide evidence of funding from other sources

The total budget for the BEAP festival is $831,896. The budget for ‘BEAP in the City’is $35,825.

Funding for the festival has been sourced from ArtsWA, Events Corp, CurtinUniversity, Australia Council, Tura New Music, UWA, Department of Industry andResources, Digital Junction, SymbioticA, Technology Precinct, Midland Arts Space,Jumbo Vision, Lawrence Wilson Gallery, Cullity Gallery, Moores Building, BreadboxGallery, SpECtrUm Gallery as well as a self-contribution from some of the festivalstaff.



Funding is yet to be confirmed from Festivals Australia, Community Arts Network,Healthway, Canadian Embassy, Goethe Institute and CMC TAFE.

The City of Perth has been asked to contribute $22,325 (including $20,125 cash and$2,200 in-kind) towards the program. This funding would be a joint contributionthrough the School Holidays Programme and the Cultural Sponsorship Program.

The applicant must provide evidence of being able to manage the activity

BEAP employs qualified specialist curators and a project manager/arts administrator.BEAP will employ a marketing company to promote the festival. BEAP provided theCity of Perth with a balanced financial report for the 2002 Exhibition Program.

Acknowledgment of City of Perth support

Sponsorship of ‘BEAP in the City’ will provide the City of Perth with:-

• naming rights for ‘BEAP in the City’ – City of Perth presents;• inclusion of the City of Perth crest in any press advertising or promotional

material;• inclusion of the City of Perth signage at specific events;• acknowledgment of the City of Perth in any, promotions or advertising;• an invitation for the Lord Mayor or representative to open the event; and• invitations for Elected Members and City of Perth representatives to attend

exhibitions and selected events.

Past support

BEAP received cultural sponsorship of $3,000 from the City in 2001/2002.

Assessment of return on investment

For an investment of $22,325 the City of Perth will receive the benefit of a three-month cultural programme costing $831,896. In addition to the direct benefits ofincreased visitation, new audiences and promotional recognition, the City of Perth willbenefit from animating the city and positive community recognition.


ACCOUNT NO: 121 254 7901BUDGET ITEM: Recreation and Culture – Other Culture –

Donations and Sponsorships.BUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 12BUDGETED AMOUNT: $272,000 (2004/2005 To be adopted).AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: Budget to be confirmed.PROPOSED COST: $ 12,325BALANCE: $259,675



ACCOUNT NO: 1438 6000BUDGET ITEM: Economic Services – Tourism and Area

Promotion – City Vibrancy.BUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 12BUDGETED AMOUNT: $743,901 (2004/2005 To be adopted)AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: Budget to be confirmed.PROPOSED COST: $ 10,000BALANCE: $733,901


COMMENTS:

BEAP is a young festival that has drawn support from EventsCorps and the State andFederal governments. BEAP would like Perth to be the home of the festival andplans to base the festival club and three of the five BEAP conferences in Perth.BEAP will attract intra-state, inter-state and international visitors to Perth for theduration of the three-month biennale.

It is anticipated that investing in BEAP will benefit the City’s economy throughincreased visitation, tourism, retail and other business use. It is recommended thatthe Council approves this proposal.

Moved by Cr Sutherland, seconded by Cr Scaffidi

That:-

1. the Council approves cultural sponsorship of $22,325 (including$20,125 cash (excluding GST) and $2,200 in-kind) to the Biennale ofElectronic Arts in Perth for ‘BEAP in the City’ a series of freeinstallations and street performances that will be conducted in theCity of Perth during the 2004/2005 financial year;

2. the expenditure in part 1 above be charged to the following2004/2005 Budget Items:-

2.1 $12,325 (including $10,125 cash (excluding GST) and $2,200 in-kind) from ‘Recreation and Culture - Other Culture - Donationsand Sponsorships’;

2.2 $10,000 (excluding GST) from ‘Economic Services - Tourismand Area Promotion - City Vibrancy’;

3. BEAP be informed in writing that this sponsorship is not aguarantee of ongoing funding.





For: Crs Butler, Davidson, Kay, McEvoy, Scaffidi, Sutherland, Tan andTudori

Against: The Lord Mayor

369/04 CULTURAL SPONSORSHIP – WESTERN AUSTRALIANBALLET COMPANY

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1010627-10RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 3 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: N/A

The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by theMarketing, Promotions and Sponsorship Committee at its meeting held on 25 May2004.


The WA Ballet Company has applied to the City of Perth for cultural sponsorship of$15,000 to support their annual programme of events.

The WA Ballet Company has been in operation for over 50 years and is the oldestballet company in Australia. The Company’s mission is to facilitate culturalenrichment through the development and delivery of dance as an art form and anentertainment and education medium.


PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Provision of Sponsorship and Donations – SU43.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Social and Cultural.Objective No: S3 Objective: Create a City famous for its





Objective No: S4.1 Objective: Continue to augment and enhance theCity’s contribution to its culturalenvironment and to increaseparticipation in its cultural life.

Strategy: Continue to support quality venues forperforming and visual arts.

DETAILS:

The application was measured against the criteria outlined in Policy SU43.

The project must be of high artistic quality

The WA Ballet Company provides high quality performances that are widely popularwith the WA community and recognised on a national and international level.

The project must be a free or low cost event

Ballet Under The Stars is a free public event with other WA Ballet Company seasonproductions using standard BOCS ticketing pricing structures.

The project must be based within the City of Perth boundaries

Ballet Under The Stars, the only free event, is performed in Forrest Place, the City’smajor retail focus. Other productions are held at His Majesty’s Theatre and oneproduction is held at the Quarry Amphitheatre.

The project must raise a high level of public attendance, interest and/orparticipation

The WA Ballet Company’s total audience for 2004 is expected to be over 20,000attendees.

The project must contribute to the development of inner city culture

As Western Australia’s premier ballet arts company, the WA Ballet Company iscentral to the cultural life of the city.

The applicant must provide evidence of funding from other sources

WA Ballet attracts funds from Lotterywest, ArtsWA, and Healthway as well as over 30corporate sponsorship investors.

The applicant must provide evidence of being able to manage the activity

The WA Ballet Company has been in operation for over 50 years. They are anincorporated entity and have provided audited financial statements for 2002.



Acknowledgment of City of Perth support

Sponsorship of the West Australian Ballet Company will provide the City of Perthwith:-

• inclusion of the City of Perth crest in all programs throughout the year as aproject partner;

• placement of City of Perth signage at the opening night of the performances;• acknowledgment of the City of Perth in season promotion and advertising

activities;• the opportunity to advertise in WA Ballet season programs;• listing on the WA Ballet website;• option to use WA Ballet logo, messages and images for City of Perth

promotional uses;• tickets to attend the opening night performances for the season for the Elected

Members and representative staff;• tickets to attend the sponsors night for each season performance;• a complimentary programme for each two people attending;• corporate hospitality at each opening night performance attended;• invitations to special previews and other networking functions hosted by WA

Ballet; and• 20% discount on tickets for all City of Perth staff.

Past cultural sponsorship support

Year Requested Amount Amount Provided2003 $15,000 $15,0002002 $15,000 $15,0002001 $10,000 $10,0002000 $10,000 $10,0001999 $10,000 $10,000

For the past decade, the City of Perth has partnered the WA Ballet Company toproduce Ballet Under The Stars, a free cultural event held in Forrest Place. The totalcost of producing this event is $109,400. The City of Perth partnership contribution is$45,000 in Marketing Unit operational funds.

Assessment of return on investment

An investment of $15,000 will deliver to the City of Perth a cultural programme heldpredominantly in the central city. In addition to the direct benefits of increasedvisitation, new audiences and promotional recognition, the City of Perth will benefitfrom positive community recognition.




ACCOUNT NO: 121-254-7901BUDGET ITEM: Recreation and Culture – Other Culture –

Donations and SponsorshipsBUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 11BUDGETED AMOUNT: $277,000AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $231,596PROPOSED COST: $ 15,000BALANCE: $ 30,404


COMMENTS:

The WA Ballet Company produces high quality performances that are recognised ona national and international level. The large-scale free performances provided by theWA Ballet Company serve to increase the audience at these productions and toattract large numbers of people to the city. This results in economic benefits throughincreased parking revenue as well as benefiting city-based traders.

It is recommended that the Council approves this request for cultural sponsorship.



1. cultural sponsorship of $15,000 (excluding GST) to the WA BalletCompany to support the Company’s annual programme of events;

2. the expenditure in part 1 above being charged to Budget Item‘Recreation and Culture – Other Culture – Donations andSponsorships’.




Against: Nil



370/04 CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS PROGRAMME 2003-2005

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1014821RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Ray Cross, Acting Director StrategyDATE: 14 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Maps:

Location Plan A – CBD Christmas Decorations; andLocation Plan B – Northbridge Christmas Decorations.

At the Marketing, Promotions and Sponsorship Committee meeting held on 25 May2004 the following alternate recommendation to that of the administration wasadopted:-

That the Council approves the variations to the Christmas Decorations OperationalPlan 2003 to 2005 as detailed in the report dated 14 May 2004, with the exceptionof:-

1. Zone Three, Northbridge to remain unchanged, allowing for decorations to beinstalled in James Street, in the vicinity of Nicks Lane and Parker Streets, in2004;

2. the inclusion of lighting decorations to a pine tree in Victoria Gardens, EastPerth.


That the Marketing, Promotions and Sponsorship Committee approves the variationsto the Christmas Decorations Operational Plan 2003 to 2005 as detailed in the reportdated 14 May 2004.

Christmas decorations have not been considered for East Perth in the OperationalPlan previously due to the adopted Objectives and Principles of focusing on theCentral City area and increasing visitation to the retail sector.

To provide a focal point for East Perth the decoration of a pine tree in VictoriaGardens, in a manner similar to the tree adjacent to Council House, could beundertaken for 2004. The anticipated cost to make up, install and dismantle festoonlights is $25,000. The tree selected is approximately one third larger in size than theCouncil House tree.

Two location plans are attached showing the current decoration locations in the CBD,West End and Northbridge.

At its meeting held on 1 April 2003 the Christmas Decorations Committee resolvedthe following:-



“That the Christmas Decorations Committee approves the:-

• objectives;• principles;• three year operational plan;

for Christmas 2003 to 2005 as detailed in the report, dated 19 March 2003.”

The City of Perth has had responsibility for Christmas decorations for someconsiderable time. A $5 million programme was suggested in 1995 but never fullyimplemented because of the costs involved. An annual programme continued until athree year plan for 2001 – 2003 was accepted. This plan was updated in 2003 withthe addition of the years 2004 and 2005.

In accepting the strategy of a three year programme, the operational plan addressesthe further development of the decorations in a coherent plan for the future.

The Christmas Decorations Operational Plan has been reviewed to consider thespecific requirements for 2004.


Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Economy.Objective No: E1 Objective: A financially healthy City.

Strategy: Ensure long term viability of thebusiness centre of Perth by promotingand facilitating business opportunitieswithin the City.

DETAILS:

The City of Perth has provided Christmas decorations, principally in the central cityarea for over 40 years. The annual turning on of the Christmas lights has been asignificant event in the lives of children and families for decades. To a very largeextent it has become part of the cultural expectations and aspirations for peopleacross the entire metropolitan area. It is also recognised by the retail industry asbeing an important component in the success of their individual Christmas marketinginitiatives. This was evident in 2002 and 2003 with a cash contribution beingreceived from David Jones towards the Christmas marketing campaign. Thiscontribution is likely to continue in 2004.

The plan is to be reviewed and updated annually in the first quarter of each financialyear to enable the financial implications to be understood in preparation for the City’sannual budget and Principal Activities Plan. The following are the objectives andprinciples of the plan:-



Objectives

1. Provide the people of Perth with a unique Christmas experience to rememberand cherish.

2. Increase city visitation during the Christmas season.

3. Give the city a competitive edge over regional shopping centres during asignificant retail period.

Principles

The Christmas decorations will:-

• have both a strong day and night time appeal;

• have a strong appeal to children and families;

• reflect universal themes and symbols of peace, goodwill, sharing and givingwhich are in keeping with the religious nature of the celebration;

• evolve rather than change dramatically from year to year;

• be principally located in the central city (between Wellington Street, BarrackStreet, William Street and Hay Street, including the Malls and Forrest Place);and

• have satellite decorations in Northbridge (James, Lake and William Streets), theWest End (Hay Street to King Street - including King Street and Murray Street),and West Perth (Hay Street, between Colin and Outram Streets).

Operational Plan 2003 – 2005

The operational plan proposes the following for 2004 and proposed variations areshown adjacent:-

Zone One – Central City

Current Plan VariationNew Hay Street Malldecorations

Hay Street Mall decorations to remain unchanged for 2004and any upgrade considered following the completion of theMall upgrade.

It should be noted that the centrepiece decoration (large Bell) at the intersection ofMurray and William Streets is unlikely to be erected in 2004 due to the demolition ofthe buildings on the north eastern corner. Similarly, two Bethlehem Star catenariesthat span William Street, between Murray and Wellington Streets, are unlikely to beerected in 2004 due to works relating to the New Metrorail Project. There is currentlyno information available on when or if these decorations will return to the streetscapein future years.



Zone Two – West End

Current Plan VariationNo change. Updating of the Gateway/Gooseneck decorations in Murray

Street between William and King Street. Hay Street wascompleted in 2003 but funds did not allow completion ofMurray Street. Preparatory work to install poles in MurrayStreet will be undertaken from the current capital budget.

Zone Three – Northbridge

Current Plan VariationNew James StreetGateway

New catenaries for James Street to be deferred.The William Street catenaries between Roe and FrancisStreets were listed for upgrade in 2005 however the verypoor condition of the existing decoration requires that thesebe brought forward into 2004.

Zone Four – West Perth

Current Plan VariationNo change. There are no current proposals for West Perth.


The above variations are principally part of the Capital Budget for which a bid of$100,000 has been submitted for 2004/05 budget.


COMMENTS:

The variations to the Christmas Decorations Operational Plan are proposed toensure that the best possible use is made of allocated funds and that decorations aremaintained to a high standard. In addition, decorations must be maintained for ahigh level of public safety.

The proposed variations reflect the dynamics that are applied to the Operational Planto maintain decorations and ensure relevance.

The approval of the variations will enable forward planning to commence on designsto be presented to a future Committee meeting.



Moved by Cr Kay, seconded by Cr Butler

That the Council approves the variations to the Christmas DecorationsOperational Plan 2003 to 2005 as detailed in the report dated 14 May2004, with the exception of:-

1. Zone Three, Northbridge to remain unchanged, allowing fordecorations to be installed in James Street, in the vicinity of NicksLane and Parker Streets, in 2004;

2. the inclusion of lighting decorations to a pine tree in VictoriaGardens, East Perth.




Against: Nil

BUDGET AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES COMMITTEEREPORTS

371/04 WRITE OFF OF UNRECOVERABLE DEBT

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1001812-2RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Noelene Jennings, Director Corporate ServicesDATE: 4 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 6 – Unrecoverable Debts Written Off – March to

April 2004

The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by theBudget and Business Opportunities Committee at its meeting held on 18 May 2004.





Delegation of Authority to Officers – 1.9 – Unrecoverable Debts – Write Offs.

DETAILS:

Details of the items written off under delegated authority are shown on Schedule 6.Individual and aggregate amounts written off are within the limits specified under thedelegated authority.


ACCOUNT NO: 1BS-000-1591PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS: $1,302,121.21TOTAL AMOUNT WRITTEN-OFF: $794.45BALANCE OF THE PROVISION: $1,301,326.76


Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr McEvoy

That the Council notes the amount of $794.45 has been written off underdelegated authority during the period March to April 2004.




Against: Nil

372/04 TENDER 034-2003/2004 - CANOPY EXTENSIONS,PADBURY WALK

BACKGROUND:






The existing Murray Street and Wellington Street canopy structures on the upperwalkway system do not fully cover the pedestrian area. Since the City Centralarcade (Woolworths) was connected to the walkway, there have been a number ofinstances where pedestrians have slipped in wet weather conditions.

An amount of $150,000 was included in the 2003/04 Capital Works Budget to carryout extensions to the canopies to provide pedestrians with shelter from the weatherelements and to address the slip hazard.

Consultants, Woodhead International were appointed to provide working drawings forthe extension of the canopies and provide a specification to enable tenders to beinvited.


PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Expenditure Authorisations – Annual Items - CS2.

Legislation Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.Section: 11(2)(c)(i) provides the opportunity for a local government to purchasegoods or services outside the public tender process if a public tender has beenconducted within the previous six months.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Economy.Objective No: E1.4 Objective: A financially healthy City.

Strategy: Develop a comprehensive AssetManagement Strategy.

DETAILS:

An invitation seeking public tenders was advertised in The West Australian onWednesday 26 November 2004.

At the close of tenders at 2:00pm on Thursday 8 December 2003 no tenders werereceived.

Under the provisions of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations1996, if no tenders are received, it is permissible for a local government to seekquotations. Several building companies and steel fabricators were approached tosubmit a quotation. All but one declined, due to current work loads or the complexityof the project.



One quotation has been received from structural engineers, DCCM Pty Ltd for$179,627.77 exclusive of GST. The architect has reviewed the quotation andrecommends acceptance, notwithstanding that their pre-tender cost estimate was$135,000 plus GST.

It is proposed that the additional funds be included in the 2004/05 capital worksbudget.


ACCOUNT NO: CW07950BUDGET ITEM: Transport - Streets, Roads, Bridges, Depots

- Canopy Extensions, Upper WalkwayBUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 19BUDGETED AMOUNT: $150,000AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $ 18,535PROPOSED COST: $189,627.77 ($179,627.77 contract sum

+ $10,000 contingency allowance)BALANCE: -$58,162.77


COMMENTS:

In view of the known safety implications of the tiles being slippery when wet and theextreme difficulty of sourcing competitive prices, it is proposed that the Councilaccepts the quotation from DCCM Pty Ltd to carry out extensions to the PadburyWalk canopies, and that approval be given to fund the unbudgeted expenditure.


That the Council:-

1. notes that no tenders were received for the proposed extensions tothe Padbury Walk canopies when Tender 034–03/04 closed at2:00pm on Thursday 8 December 2003;

2. accepts the quotation submitted from DCCM Pty Limited to carry outthe works in part 1 above, at a cost of $179,627.77 (excluding GST)under the provisions of section 11(2)(c)(i) of the Local Government(Functions and General) Regulations 1996;

(Cont’d)



3. notes that $131,465 (excluding GST) of the expenditure in part 2above can be funded from Budget Item ‘Transport - Streets, Roads,Bridges, Depots - Canopy Extensions, Upper Walkway’;

4. approves the balance of $58,162.77 (excluding GST) inclusive of acontingency of $10,000 (excluding GST), being included in the draft2004/05 capital works budget.




Against: Nil

373/04 TENDER 054-2003/2004 - MULTIMEDIA KIOSKS

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1018803RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Noelene Jennings, Director Corporate ServicesDATE: 28 April 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: N/A



The City of Perth Touchscreen Kiosks have been in operation since 1997 andprovide similar information to that presented on the City of Perth Website. The kiosksare currently located in the City of Perth Library, the Council House CustomerService Centre, the Visitors Centre in Forrest Place, the car park at His Majesty’sTheatre and the Perth Railway Station concourse.

The kiosks are primarily used by visitors to the city, and it was considered that theyshould be redeveloped with a “Visitor” focus, and tenders were called for theprovision and maintenance of these kiosks.




PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Accessible Public Information - ST12; and

Expenditure Authorisations Annual Items - CS02.

Legislation: Local Government Act 1995.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Service Quality.Objective No: SQ4 Objective: Develop strategies, which integrate the

collection and deployment of usefulinformation and data to improve theorganisation’s customer service andperformance.

Strategy: Improve understanding and use of dataand information in corporate decisionmaking.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Service Quality.Objective No: SQ6 Objective: Develop and sustain high quality

relationships with the City’s customersand stakeholders.

Strategy: Improve focus on customer service as adriving force for organisationalimprovement.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Social and Cultural.Objective No: S2 Objective: To enhance the quality of life of the

community of the City of Perth throughthe recognition of the interdependenceof all sections of the community.

Strategy: Develop community participation plans.

DETAILS:

Two tenders were received in response to advertising the tender. The tenders wereevaluated against the following selection criteria:-

• Content and Useability (40%);

• Corporate IT Requirements (30%);

• Support and Maintenance (20%);

• Company Experience and Profile (10%); and

• Value for Money.



The tenders received were from the following companies:-

Company Price (capital)Exc GST

Price (operating)Exc GST

Abuzz $281,245 $49,000 (estimated – finalfigure to be determined)

Pie Networks $ 60,000 $35,280

Scoring of the tenders submitted by these two companies was extremely close inmost categories, with the exception of Value for Money where Pie Networks were aclear leader.

Pie Networks also scored very well in the Support and Maintenance criteria, and thepanel felt that Pie Networks had closely read and understood the tenderrequirements and will be able to provide a fleet of kiosks that will function adequatelyfor the City’s requirements. Abuzz were unable to provide firm pricing on a numberof items, including the annual support and maintenance figure, until a contract wassigned and this was felt to be a major risk in their proposal.

Neither company responded with costings for the section regarding networking of thekiosks, and quotes will be sought to provide this with the balance of the budgetmonies. Pie Networks did not tender for the development of content on the kiosks,and quotes will be sought to provide this with the balance of the budget, and withmoney budgeted for this project in the next financial year.


ACCOUNT NO: CW06580BUDGET ITEM: Other Property and Services - Unclassified -

Multimedia Kiosks System ReplacementBUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 21BUDGETED AMOUNT: $80,000AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: NilPROPOSED COST: $60,000BALANCE: $20,000

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE: $35,280


The tender price of $95,280 is made up of $60,000 capital and the first yearsmaintenance and support of $35,280, to be paid out of the operating budget in2004/05.




That the Council:-

1. accepts the most suitable tender, being that submitted by PieNetworks for:-

1.1 the provision of Multimedia Kiosks at a cost of $60,000(excluding GST);

1.2 the annual maintenance of Multimedia Kiosks at a cost of$35,280 (excluding GST);

2. notes the expenditure in part 1.1 above being charged to BudgetItem ‘Other Property and Services – Unclassified - MultimediaKiosks System Replacement’.




Against: Nil

374/04 TENDER 076-2003/2004 - DRAINAGE PITS INSPECTIONAND MAINTENANCE

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1018728RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Doug Forster, Director Business UnitsDATE: 21 April 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 7 - Tender 076-03/04 Schedule of Rates





Tenders have been invited from suitably qualified and experienced contractors for theprovision of drainage inspection and maintenance services within the City of Perth.


PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Expenditure - Authorisations - Annual Items - CS2.

Legislation: Local Government Act 1995; andLocal Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Environment.Objective No: E2.1 Objective: Plan, integrate and implement


Strategy: Provide for the safe handling anddisposal of wastes, minimising risk topublic health and the environment, andencourage the minimisation andrecovery of wastes generally.

DETAILS:

Four tenders were received at the close of submissions on 26 February 2004.

The specification and accompanying documents stated the criteria upon which theevaluation of tenders would be based, namely:-

1. Price;2. Experience with similar works;3. Support resources;4. Traffic management;5. Disposal of waste; and6. Financial viability.

Tenderers were asked to submit written details of how they would achieve therequirements of the selection criteria.

The contract is for an initial period of two years when a review will be carried outbefore exercising an option to extend the contract by one year. The contract willcommence immediately.

Tender Evaluation

Tenders were submitted by the following companies:-



• Western Maze Pty Ltd;• S & SA Drainage;• Works Infrastructure Pty Ltd; and• Premium Corporation Pty Ltd.

The tenders were evaluated against the selection criteria and a comparison of theschedules of rates (Schedule 7 - Tender 076-03/04) was assessed.

Price

The results of the price evaluation show that S & SA Drainage have supplied the bestbalance of cleaning, inspection and maintenance rates.

S & SA Drainage and Western Maze have similar rates for cleaning and inspectioncomponents. However, Western Maze did not tender for the remainder of themaintenance works and consequently was not considered further.

Rates from the other two tenderers are substantially greater than those submitted byS & SA Drainage for many of the components.

Qualitative Criteria

Both S & SA Drainage and Works Infrastructure satisfactorily addressed all of thequalitative selection criteria.

Western Maze’s tender submission was not considered any further as it only partiallyaddressed the selection with regard to a small portion of the tender specifications.

Premium Corporation’s tender submission was not considered any further as it failedto address three of the six selection criteria.


ACCOUNT NO: CL07121210BUDGET ITEM: Transport – Streets, Roads, Bridges, Depots

– Drainage – RoadwaysBUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 11BUDGETED AMOUNT: $714,620 ($130,000 this component)AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $479,266 ($105,500 this component)PROPOSED COST: $ 24,500 (this component)BALANCE: $210,854


Approximately $130,000 is allocated annually against this Budget Item for works ofthis nature carried out under tender.



COMMENTS:

Following an appraisal of the schedule of rates and tender submissions, it isrecommended that the tender submitted by S & SA Drainage be accepted. Theyhave the necessary experience and resources to carry out drainage inspection andmaintenance in compliance with the tender specifications. S & SA Drainage are theincumbent contractors for this tender.


That the:-

1. most suitable tender, being that submitted by S & SA Drainage, fordrainage pit inspection and maintenance for a period of two yearswith a further one year option commencing 2 June 2004, beaccepted in accordance with the submitted rates detailed inSchedule 7;

2. expenditure in part 1 above be charged to Budget Item – ‘Transport -Streets, Roads, Bridges, Depots - Drainage – Roadways’.




Against: Nil

375/04 TENDER 089-2003/2004 - EXTENSION TO GARDENERSSTORE - HAROLD BOAS GARDENS

BACKGROUND:






An amount of $35,000 has been included in the 2003/04 Capital Works Budget tocarry out extensions to the gardener’s store located within the Harold Boas Gardens.

Consultants, MPS Architects were appointed to provide working drawings and aspecification to enable quotations to be invited.


PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Expenditure Authorisations – Annual Items - CS2.

Legislation Local Government Act 1995.Section: 6.8(1)(b) – Expenditure from municipal fund not included in the annualbudget.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Environment.Objective No: EN2.8 Objective: Plan, integrate and implement


Strategy: Develop a strategy to ensure theongoing maintenance and viability of thecity’s places, objects and buildings ofheritage significance.

DETAILS:

Quotations for extensions to the Harold Boas Gardeners Store were invited fromseveral building contractors. At the close of quotations at 2:00pm on Wednesday 28January 2004 six quotations were received. They are summarised below:-

Contractor Cost (ex GST)TJ & PJ Flood $46,966.00Colin Lockhart T/A Centerline Constructions $61,711.00Kayedar Services $65,253.60RWE Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd T/A Robinson Buildtech $66,550.00Dawn Express Construction $69,743.00Palmerston Building Company $73,890.00

With the exception of the quotation received from TJ & PJ Flood, the quotations wereabove the $50,000 threshold requiring tenders to be called. If the quotations from TJ& PJ Flood was accepted and there were any variations required to the contractduring the construction phase, the project could have exceeded the $50,000threshold and it was deemed necessary to invite public tenders.



An invitation seeking public tenders was advertised in The West Australian onWednesday 7 April 2004. At the close of tenders at 2:00pm on Thursday 29 April2004 four tenders were received. They are summarised below:-

Contractor Cost (ex GST)Debin Pty Ltd T/A Freo Constructions $49,025.00TJ & PJ Flood $60,920.00Dalcon Construction Company $63,590.00RWE Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd T/A Robinson Buildtech $68,850.00

The tender submissions were evaluated against the following selection criteria:-

• appreciation and methodology of the work;• programme of works/capability to complete works within the specified

timeframe;• experience with similar works/supply of goods;• qualifications of project personnel; and• safety management expertise.

Only Debin Pty Ltd and Robinson Buildtech addressed the qualitative selectioncriteria. The tender from Debin Pty Ltd, trading as Freo Constructions, scoredhighest.

The tender from Debin Pty Ltd also provided the lowest price and it was consideredto offer the best value for money.

All tenders received are above the budget allocation of $35,000. The Council’sapproval is required for the unbudgeted portion of this expenditure and for theadditional funds to be drawn from another project.

It is proposed that the additional funds be sourced from the budget allocation for newsecurity screen and acrylic panels, Raine Square Bridge, which is not beingprogressed, due to the quotations for that project exceeding the budget allowance.


ACCOUNT NO: CW07920BUDGET ITEM: Recreation and Culture - Other Recreation

and Sport - Extension to Gardeners Store,Harold Boas Gardens

BUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 18BUDGETED AMOUNT: $35,000AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $ 2,100PROPOSED COST: $55,075 (Tender Amount $49,025 +

Contingency $5,000 + ContractAdministration $1,050)

BALANCE: -$22,175



FUNDING SOURCE FOR BALANCE :ACCOUNT NO: CW07960BUDGET ITEM: Transport - Streets, Roads, Bridges, Depots

- Security Screen and Acrylic Panels, RaineSquare Pedestrian Bridge

BUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 19BUDGETED AMOUNT: $25,000AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $ 2,120PROPOSED COST: $22,175BALANCE: $ 705


COMMENTS:

Additional funding would be required to accommodate acceptance of any of thetenders. The additional funding required can be accommodated from Budget Item‘Transport - Streets, Roads, Bridges, Depots - Security Screen and Acrylic Panels,Raine Square Pedestrian Bridge’, which is not being progressed.

The tender received from Debin Pty Ltd, trading as Freo Constructions, offers thebest value for money and it is recommended that their tender be accepted.

(Cr McEvoy disclosed an interest, took no part in discussion and did not voteon this item)


Cr McEvoy Proximity

Cr McEvoy departed the Chamber at 7.40pm


That the Council:-

1. accepts the lowest tender, being that submitted by Debin Pty Ltd,trading as Freo Constructions, to carry out extensions to thegardeners store at Harold Boas Gardens, at a cost of $49,025(excluding GST);

2. notes that $32,900 (excluding GST) of the expenditure in part 1above can be funded from Budget Item ‘Recreation and Culture -Other Recreation and Sport - Extension to Gardeners Store, HaroldBoas Gardens’;

(Cont’d)



3. APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the unbudgetedexpenditure of $22,175 (excluding GST) to fund:-

3.1 the balance of works in part 1 above; and

3.2 a contingency of $5,000 (excluding GST) and contractadministration fees of $1,050 (excluding GST),

offset from savings in Budget Item ‘Transport - Streets, Roads,Bridges, Depots - Security Screen and Acrylic Panels, Raine SquarePedestrian Bridge’.

The motion was put and carried by an absolute majority


For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Butler, Davidson, Kay, Scaffidi, Sutherland,Tan and Tudori

Against: Nil

Cr McEvoy returned to the Chamber at 7.41pm

376/04 LEASE OF THE JAMES STREET, GROUND LEVELCARPARK

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1002515RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 5 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Map - Lease of James Street Ground Level Carpark



At its meeting held on 12 June 2001, the Council resolved as follows:-

“That further to its decision of 23 January 2001, to establish a fee structure for theJames Street Carpark, the Council endorses the action taken to enter into a lease



with Western Power Corporation, over Perth Lot 21 James Street, for a period ofthree years commencing 5 February 2001.”


PolicyPolicy Name and Number: CS 24 Budget Policy, Section 5 - Parking Business:

The City is engaged in a Parking business for thefollowing purpose:- 5.1 To ensure that there isadequate public parking for both commuters andshoppers to ensure the long term viability of the City asthe premier business district of Perth and the state ofWestern Australia and that the Parking business beoperated at a profit.

LegislationPerth Parking Management Act 1999; andLocal Government Act 1995.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Economy.Objective No: E1.3 Objective: A Financially Healthy City.

Strategy: Develop strategies for the future throughincome maintenance, diversity and growth.

Key Result Area: Urban Development and Transport.Objective No: U5 Objective: To ensure that public transport provision

and routes adequately meet the needs ofthe community and that the City hasadequate and appropriately locatedparking.

Strategy: Develop an integrated public transport andparking strategy.

DETAILS:

The City has sustained operating losses for each year it has operated the groundlevel public carpark at Lot 21 James Street, Northbridge, as disclosed in the followingtable which has been adjusted to allocate land tax payments to the correct periods:-

1/2/01 to 31/1/02 1/2/02 to 31/1/03 1/2/03 to 31/1/04

INCOME $ 68,254.82 $ 90,036.25 $ 90,817.48

EXPENDITURE

7208 – Telephone $ 195.78 $ 232.69

7213 – Equipment Maintenance $ 426.20 $ 75.00 $ 146.51

7214 - Property Maintenance $ 435.27 $ 1,970.59

7215 - Other Maintenance $ 739.07 $ 513.02



1/2/01 to 31/1/02 1/2/02 to 31/1/03 1/2/03 to 31/1/04

7223 – Agency Fees & Commission $ 3.11 $ 9.24

7229 - Coin Collection Fees $ 1,036.76 $ 1,776.43 $ 2,185.50

7232 - External Contract Labour $ 22.15 $ 319.97

7242 – Printing $ 77.00 $ 224.12

7244 - Rental & Outgoings $ 67,142.40 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00

7245 - Security Service $ 787.26 $ 1,777.22 $ 1,931.10

7247 - Stores & Materials $ 1,287.87 $ 77.10 $ 56.03

7253 – Signage $ 178.09

7301 – Power $ 1,479.72 $ 1,751.47 $ 2,560.82

7303 – Water Rates & Consumption $ 164.25 $ 2,257.78 $ 1,874.13

7502 – Depreciation (Fixed Plant) $ 673.18 $ 2,431.12

7904 – Parking Bay Licence Fees $ 8,305.00 $ 7,320.00 $ 10,150.17

7905 - Rates & Taxes $22,784.50 $ 20,070.56 $ 20,475.39

9135 – Fleet & Plant Management $ 84.56

9997 - Cost Allocation $ 3,055.35 $ 9,350.46 $ 11,716.13

9999 - Internal Charges $ 4,388.00 $ 13,143.00 $ 9,529.00

Plants & Flowers $ 271.89

Technical $ 2,052.13

On Cost $ 150.94

Standard Labour $ 972.54

Other General Insurance $ 125.10

Total Expenditure $115,214.44 $119,441.53 $126,115.95

TOTAL PROFIT/ - LOSS -$ 46,959.62 -$ 29,405.28 -$ 35,298.47

On 17 November 2003, the City wrote to Western Power Corporation, owner of thesite to advise that its lease was due to expire on 4 February 2004 and that the Citywas interested in exercising its option of renewal for a further three years, subject tosatisfactory re-negotiation of the rental to apply for the option period, as the presentrental had been demonstrated to be unsustainable.

Western Power Corporation was provided with the following summary of the groundlevel carparks which the City leases at fixed rentals, to illustrate this point:-

Property NoBays

GrossIncome2002/03

AnnualRental

Rental/Bay/Annum

Rental - %Gross

Income

12b Carpark, CornerJames and FitzgeraldStreets, Northbridge

67 $126,000 $22,370 $334 17.8%

3 (Entertainment Centre)Carpark, Wellington Street,Perth

626 $1,073,000 $534,780 $854 49.8%



Property NoBays

GrossIncome2002/03

AnnualRental

Rental/Bay/Annum

Rental - %Gross

Income

42 Carpark James Street,Northbridge (WesternPower)

62 $90,036 $60,000 $968 66.6%

Western Power Corporation subsequently obtained a rental valuation of $48,000 perannum plus outgoings, plus GST from the Valuer General’s Office and they haveoffered to reduce the rental to that level. In the interim, the lease has expired and theCity is holding over as a monthly tenant.

A $12,000 rental reduction will not address the operating losses sustained in thiscarpark, partly due to the fact that the lease requires the City to pay the land taxassessed against Western Power, as a non exempt, corporatised State GovernmentEnterprise.

This is the only carpark for which the City must pay land tax. At the 2003/04 rate of$17,409 per annum, land tax represents 19.17% of the gross income from theproperty.

An approach was made to Western Power for them to absorb the land tax, with theadvice that a negative response would be presumed if acceptance of the City’sproposal was not received by 10 May 2005. No response was received.


ACCOUNT NO: VariousBUDGET ITEM: Transport - Parking Facilities - Ground Level

Carpark OperationsBUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 12BUDGETED AMOUNT: $4,716,928 (this component $145,625)AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $ 114,062 (this component)


INCOME:ACCOUNT NO: CL 09367000BUDGET ITEM: Transport - Parking Facilities - Ground Level

Carpark OperationsBUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 4BUDGETED AMOUNT: $8,294,100 (this component $96,965)AMOUNT RECEIVED TO DATE: $ 94,648 (this component)



COMMENTS:

The subject carpark is located to the west of the centre of Northbridge, beingapproximately midway between Milligan and Fitzgerald Streets, on the southern sideof James Street.

As a consequence, it is rarely used during the day and its primary function is to meetthe parking needs for the night clubs on the western fringe of Northbridge, whichpeak on Friday and Saturday nights each week.

It is considered to be unnecessary to operate this carpark with the losses it incurs, tomeet a demand which can be accommodated in the multi-storey carparks at RoeStreet, Francis Street and the State Library, which all have significant availablecapacity at all times, including Friday and Saturday nights.

It is therefore proposed that the City gives one-month’s notice to Western PowerCorporation of its intention to surrender the lease of this site.

Moved by Cr Sutherland, seconded by Cr Kay

That the Council surrenders the lease from Western Power Corporationover the James Street Carpark, Lot 21 James Street, Northbridge.




Against: Nil

377/04 RENT REVIEW: NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITEDAUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE, SHOP 2, 81 ROYALSTREET, EAST PERTH

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1016007-2RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 29 April 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Map - NAB ATM site, 81 Royal Street, East Perth





At its meeting held on 14 November 2000, the Council adopted the followingresolution:

“That the Council:-

1. Advertises its intention to enter into a lease to the National Australia BankLimited over space for an automatic teller machine in the north western cornerof Shop 2 at the Regal Place Carpark, on the following terms and conditions:-

PremisesAn area of approximately 5.1 sqm, 2.02 metres in width and 2.54 metres deepin the north western corner of Shop 2 at the Regal Place Carpark, East Perth,adjacent to main pedestrian entry to the carpark, to accommodate an automaticteller machine set into the shop window, facing Regal Place, with access forservicing purposes, off the building entry;

TermFive (5) years from 1 January 2001, with a five year option of renewal, with thebank having the right to terminate the lease by one month’s written notice, if atany time after twelve months from the commencement date, the number oftransactions through the automatic teller machine is less than 7,000 in anymonth;

Initial Rental$5,500 per annum plus GST, to be indexed by 3% each year, and with a marketreview every three years, subject to determination by an independent expertappointed by the President of the Australian Property Institute in the event ofdispute;

OutgoingsThe lessee shall pay all service charges (energy and communications) and thelandlord shall pay all other outgoings assessed on this tenancy;

InsuranceThe lessee shall be required to hold a policy of insurance for public liability for aminimum of $10 million cover for any one claim during the term of this lease,and any extension thereof;

Exclusive UseThe landlord shall not allow the installation or operation of any other automaticteller machine on the property by another bank or financial institution during theterm of this lease, or any extension of it;



DocumentationThis lease to be documented in the standard National Australia Bank LimitedATM site licence, subject to any amendments requested by one of the City’slegal advisers;

2. advises the National Australia Bank Limited that it is intended that it mayincorporated its standard graphics on the automatic teller machine, but that anyother signage must be the subject of a separate application for a sign licence”.

As practical completion of the Regal Place car park was not effected until 7 March2001, the commencement date for the lease was varied by agreement, to 1 April2001.


Rent reviews are essentially determined by reference to the covenants of theindividual lease, however, Open Market rental for retail premises is defined bySection 11(2) of the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985.

This section provides that “where a retail shop lease provides for a review of thelease of the amount of rent payable under the lease having regards to the marketrent of the premises, the market rent shall be taken to be the rent obtainable at thetime of the review in a free and open market, if the premises were unoccupied andoffered for a use permitted by, and on the same terms as contained in the currentlease”.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Economy.Objective No: E1.3 Objective: A financially healthy City.

Strategy: Develop strategies for the future throughincome maintenance, diversity andgrowth.

DETAILS:

The lease between the City and the National Australia Bank Limited over space foran automatic teller machine in the north western corner of Shop 2, 81 Royal Street,East Perth, provides for predetermined increases of 3% in 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006,2008 and 2009, with a review to the market in 2004, 2007 and 2010.

With the predetermined reviews in 2002 and 2003, the current rent for the subjectsite is $5,834.95 per annum, plus GST.

There are no directly comparable market rentals for automatic teller machine sites, asthere are no similar sites within East Perth.

From enquires with a commercial competitor and United KFPW who manage someeighty automatic teller machine sites for the National Australia Bank Limited, it has



been determined that automatic teller machine rentals generally vary from $3,000 to$10,000 per annum. The majority of the sites attract rentals in the range $3,000 to$5,000 per annum.

United KFPW has advised that the present lease rental for this site is at the upperend of the scale for a low volume site. That advice was confirmed by the informationobtained from the commercial competitor.


INCOME:ACCOUNT NO: 124330006521BUDGET ITEM: Transport - Parking Facilities - Parking

Property IncomeBUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 4BUDGETED AMOUNT: $561,033 (this component $5,834.95)AMOUNT RECEIVED TO DATE: $ 4,862 (this component)ACTUAL INCOME: $ 5,835 (this component)

COMMENTS:

It is therefore recommended, that the Council agrees not to vary the rental for theNational Australia Bank Limited automatic teller site in the Regal Place Car Park forthe period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.


That the Council agrees not to increase the rental for the NationalAustralia Bank Limited automatic teller machine in the north westerncorner of Shop 2, 81 Royal Street, East Perth, for the period 1 April 2004to 31 March 2005.




Against: Nil



378/04 RENT REVIEW: SLATERGORDON SERVICES PTY LTD,COUNCIL HOUSE

BACKGROUND:




At the Council meeting held on 10 December 2002, it was resolved:-

“That the Council approves:-

1. the base rental for SlaterGordon Services Pty Ltd for Level 2 Council Housebeing increased to $160 per square metre per annum, or one hundred andthirteen thousand two hundred and eighty dollars ($113,280) per annumexclusive of GST for the rent review period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2004;

2. car parking licence fees for the review period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003remain at:-

2.1 tandem bays - $325 per bay per calendar month, exclusive of GST;

2.2 single bays - $375 per bay per calendar month, exclusive of GST”.

At the Council meeting held on 17 February 2004, it was resolved:-

“That the base rental for Allfern Pty Ltd be increased to $232,467 per annum, plusGST for the period 1 May 2004 to 30 April 2006, in respect of levels 3 and 4 atCouncil House”.


Rent reviews for commercial premises are not covered by any existing legislation.They are essentially determined by reference to the covenants of the individuallease.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Economy.Objective No: E 1.3 Objective: A Financially healthy City.




DETAILS:

Office RentalThe lease between the City and SlaterGordon Services Pty Ltd over Level 2 CouncilHouse, provides for predetermined rent reviews on 1July 2000,1 July 2001 and rentreviews to market on 1 July 2002 and 1 July 2004 and thereafter upon the expiry ofeach and every successive period of 18 months.

While there have been significant rent increases, matched by ballooning leaseincentives for prime grade offices in the Perth Central Business District, the rents forall other classes of offices in the city have remained static over the last two years.

Accordingly, it is proposed that the rental of $164.19 per square metre per annumwhich was recently adopted for Levels 3 and 4 Council House, which represented anincrease of 2.6% per annum in line with the current Consumer Price Index, beadopted for Level 2. The lease area is 707.9 square metres. At $164.19 per squaremetre per annum, the new rental computes to $116,230 per annum, exclusive ofGST.

Car Park RentalsThe Car Parking Licence covenant in the lease provides for annual reviews of the carparking licence fees in respect of the two tandem bays in the basement of CouncilHouse and one ordinary bay in the public car park at the rear of Council House.

The licence fees for these bays remained unaltered at $325 per month for thetandem bays and $375 per month for the ordinary bay, exclusive of GST, since thelease commenced on 1 July 1999.

Current monthly rentals being achieved in the public car park at the rear of CouncilHouse are $336 per bay per annum, inclusive of GST. Market evidence obtainedfrom private competitors suggests that the licence fees paid by SlaterGordonServices Pty Ltd now approximated their current market value. It is thereforeproposed that they remain unaltered.


INCOME:ACCOUNT NO: 12055000 6521BUDGET ITEM: Other Property and Services- Unclassified -

Council HouseBUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 5BUDGETED AMOUNT: $352,664 ($121,680 this component)AMOUNT RECEIVED TO DATE: $101,400 (this component)ACTUAL INCOME: $121,680 (this component)




COMMENTS:

It is considered to be appropriate to apply the same rental rate to Level 2 CouncilHouse, as that which was recently resolved by the Council to apply to Levels 3 and 4.

It is considered that the carpark licence fee which SlaterGordon Services Pty Ltd arecurrently paying represents current market value. It is therefore recommended thatthe licence fees for the two tandem bays remain at $325 per month and the ordinarybay at $375 per month, plus GST, for the period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005.



1. the base rental for SlaterGordon Services Pty Ltd for Level 2 CouncilHouse being increased to $116,230 per annum (excluding GST), forthe rent review period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2006;

2. car parking licence fees for the review period 1 July 2004 to 30 June2005 remaining at:-

2.1 Tandem Bays - $325 per bay per calendar month, (excludingGST);

2.2 Single Bays - $375 per bay per calendar month, (excludingGST).




Against: Nil



379/04 BURY STREET, NORTHBRIDGE

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1011784RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 11 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Map - Bury Street, Northbridge

At the Budget and Business Opportunities Committee meeting held on 18 May 2004the following alternate recommendation to that of the administration was adopted:-

That the Council:-

1. enters into negotiations with the owners of “Bury Street” on lighting, subject toCouncil ratification of the outcome;

2. directs that orders be issued to the property of 77-81 James Street, Northbridgefor upgrading and repair to the gutters and down pipes serving the buildings andfor disposal of storm water into the City’s storm water drain;

3. directs that orders be issued to the property owners at 77-81 James Street and87-89 James Street, Northbridge, to provide rubbish bin enclosures within theirbuildings and to ensure that all rubbish bins are kept out of public view, in thoseenclosures, at all times, under Clauses 43 (2) (d), (e) and (f) of the City of PerthHealth Local Law 2000;

4. seeks an accurate valuation of the land and reviews the acquisition of the right-of-way known colloquially as “Bury Street”, Northbridge in six months time.


That the Council:-

1. does not seek to acquire the right-of-way known colloquially as “Bury Street”,Northbridge, at the present time;

2. enters into negotiations with the owners of “Bury Street” on lighting, subject toCouncil ratification of the outcome;

3. directs that orders be issued to the property of 77-81 James Street, Northbridgefor upgrading and repair to the gutters and down pipes serving the buildings andfor disposal of storm water into the City’s storm water drain;

4. directs that orders be issued to the property owners at 77-81 James Street and87-89 James Street, Northbridge, to provide rubbish bin enclosures within theirbuildings and to ensure that all rubbish bins are kept out of public view, in those



enclosures, at all times, under Clauses 43 (2) (d), (e) and (f) of the City of PerthHealth Local Law 2000.

At the Budget and Business Opportunities Committee meeting held on 16 March2004, a report was requested on the resumption of “Bury Street” in order to controlthe cleaning issues in this area and to improve safety by installing lighting.


PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Stormwater Drainage Connection - SU1.

Legislation: Local Government Act 1995.Section: 3.25.

Legislation: Health Act 1911.Sections: 124-126, 181-184 and 372.

Legislation: City of Perth Health Local Law 2000.Section: 43 (2). The owner or occupier of premises who is authorised under thisclause to deposit rubbish in a refuse container shall:-

(d) cause the container to be located on the premises in an enclosure constructedand located as approved by the Council;

(e) ensure that the container is not visible from the street and is readily accessiblefor the purposes of collection; and

(f) ensure that the container does not cause a nuisance to an occupier ofadjoining premises.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Environment.Objective No: EN3.2 Objective: Living Environment. Promote and

support the excellent and unique livingenvironment of Perth.

Strategy: Improve street lighting.Action: Seek to control those rights ofway which could provide increasedamenity.

DETAILS:

After detailed consideration of the issues which need to be addressed to improve theamenity of “Bury Street”, it is considered that only the control of car parking would beachieved by the City taking ownership of this lane.

Uncontrolled parking is considered to be one of the least troublesome of the issueswith this lane. In view of the relatively high value of this land, estimated by Councilofficers to be in the order of $1.2million, it is recommended that the City does notseek to acquire it.



The current unsatisfactory aspects of this lane are:-

1. untidiness;

2. a proliferation of untidy rubbish bins and cooking fat drums in the western leg ofthe right of way;

3. storm water drainage problems;

4. night time safety, due to the absence of laneway lighting; and

5. uncontrolled car parking in excess of the parking permit issued for this land.

It is considered that, with the exception of the parking issue, these matters arecapable of resolution by the owners of the adjoining buildings at 77-81 James Street,and 87-89 James Street, which back onto the western leg of the lane, and by theCity, if it was prepared to make this lane a pilot project for its private property lightinginitiative under the Northbridge Action Plan.

UntidinessThe lane is generally unswept and littered with rubbish. While some litter wouldundoubtedly be deposited by pedestrians passing through the lane, it is consideredthat the bulk of it is caused by inconsiderate rubbish disposal practices by theoccupants of the adjoining properties.

The solution to those problems is not dependent on the ownership of the lane. It isfound in the City’s power to compel the adjoining property owners to construct and tomaintain adequate rubbish bin enclosures within their buildings, under the City ofPerth Health Local Law 2000.

Rubbish binsA close examination of the aerial photograph in the schedule attached to this reportwill confirm that the majority of the rubbish bins which appear to be in “Bury Street”are in fact within the unfenced rear yard of the strata-titled building at 77-81 JamesStreet, which houses:-

• Connections Night Club;• Original Kebab House;• Ahn’s Kabuka Japanese Take Away; and• Blue Sea Café.

Plaka Shishkebabs which operates from the adjoining property at 87-89 JamesStreet, Northbridge, houses its rubbish bins in Bury Street.

It is proposed that the owners be compelled to make alternative arrangements and tomanage them appropriately, under the City of Perth Health Local Law 2000.



StormwaterThe discharge of storm water from 77-81 James Street is considered to be a majorcontributor to the drainage problems in the laneway. As the City has statutory powerunder section 3.25 of the Local Government Act 1995 to compel property owners toprevent water dripping from land onto other land, it is proposed that they be orderedto either contain their storm water on site or connect to the City’s storm water drainsin accordance with the City’s stormwater drainage policy.

LightingLighting of the lane could be undertaken by the City if it was the owner. However,the high value of the lane, suggests that another solution should be investigated.

The owners of the lane have been reluctant to undertake works of this nature in thepast, as they view the lane as part of a development site on which they should notmake short term improvements. It is proposed that they be approached to explorethe opportunities for the City to assist them to install appropriate lighting, subject tothe Council’s ratification of any agreement being reached.

Grant funding has been sought for lighting privately owned “black spots” under theNorthbridge Action Plan, but no Council approval and no budget allocation exists forthis project.

Car parkingThe uncontrolled car parking in Bury Street is a relatively minor problem over whichthe City would gain control, if it was to acquire this land.

When the City of Perth Parking Act came into effect, the Department for Planningand Infrastructure issued parking licences to any property owner who had a planningapproval for car parking or a history of parking on their land. The owners of BuryStreet were issued with a licence to park 7 cars.

Compliance with the conditions of the car parking licence issued to the land owners,is controlled by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure.


The financial implications of the proposed negotiations with the property ownerscannot be predicted. It is intended that these will be included in the report on theoutcome of these negotiations.

COMMENTS:

There are significant parallels between the issues to be resolved with “Bury Street”as those in Grand Lane, off Barrack Street.

The City’s acquisition of Grand Lane has not simplified the resolution of the problemswith rubbish bins, anti-social activities and adjoining properties. It is submitted thatthe same would be true of “Bury Street”.



In view of the high value of “Bury Street”, it is proposed that other initiatives beexplored before consideration is given to acquiring title to it.


That the Council:-

1. enters into negotiations with the owners of “Bury Street” onlighting, subject to Council ratification of the outcome;

2. directs that orders be issued to the property of 77-81 James Street,Northbridge for upgrading and repair to the gutters and down pipesserving the buildings and for disposal of storm water into the City’sstorm water drain;

3. directs that orders be issued to the property owners at 77-81 JamesStreet and 87-89 James Street, Northbridge, to provide rubbish binenclosures within their buildings and to ensure that all rubbish binsare kept out of public view, in those enclosures, at all times, underClauses 43 (2) (d), (e) and (f) of the City of Perth Health Local Law2000;

4. seeks an accurate valuation of the land and reviews the acquisitionof the right-of-way known colloquially as “Bury Street”, Northbridgein six months time.




Against: Nil

380/04 NORTHBRIDGE LINK PROJECT

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1016304-4RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Frank Edwards, Chief Executive OfficerDATE: 14 April 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 8 – Submissions on the Business Plan.





The State Government has announced it intends to build the New Metropolitan RailCity (NMRC) through the centre of Perth. The line will be sunk from the NarrowsBridge to Lake Street; however the current State Government plans do not includesinking all the rail lines between the city and Northbridge. The existing rail lines havebeen a significant barrier between the city and Northbridge for over 100 years andleaving the NMRC and Fremantle lines on the surface will do nothing to overcomethis.

Rail design studies indicate that unless the lines are sunk as part of the currentNMRC rail project it will be extremely difficult and financially prohibitive to do so later.

The central rail reserve (bounded by Wellington Street, the Horseshoe Bridge, RoeStreet and the Mitchell Freeway) has significant potential as an inner cityredevelopment project. By sinking the rail lines an area of 10.12 hectares could bemade available for redevelopment with two major advantages. Firstly it provides anopportunity to remove the rail barrier and again link the city with Northbridge.Secondly it sets the scene for a major inner city redevelopment.

On 10 February 2004 the Council resolved to advise the State Government that theCouncil, despite having limited resources, is willing to consider a contribution towardssinking the rail lines between the city and Northbridge and the redevelopment of thecentral railway by making a contribution of between $29million to $35million andforegoing its contractual entitlement to a lease of Lot 1192 Wellington Street andmake it available for redevelopment.

The Council resolution was subject to a number of conditions. The most relevantbeing:-

1. for the State Government to seek a price for a contract variation to the tenderfor the New MetroRail City project to extend the proposed New Metro Rail City(NMRC) tunnel underground from Lake to just west of Milligan Street andunderground the Fremantle line from the Perth Central Station to just west ofMilligan Street, and submitting the price to the City of Perth;

2. consideration of public submissions to the Council’s Business Plan for theproject.

The Council also resolved to advertise the Business Plan for the Northbridge LinkProject dated February 2004 for six weeks in accordance with section 3.59 of theLocal Government Act 1995.



The City has worked closely with the State Government on the Northbridge LinkProject through the Northbridge Link Committee. The purpose of the Committee is tofacilitate the rejoining of Northbridge with the Perth Central Business District in amanner which is acceptable to, and agreed upon, by the State and the City.


PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Budget Policies – CS24.

Legislation Local Government Act 1995.Section: 3.59 Advertising of Business Plan.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Environment.Objective No: EN2 Objective: Plan, integrate and implement


Key Result Area: Social & Cultural.Objective No: S3 Objective: Create a City famous for its


Key Result Area: Urban Development & Transport.Objective No: U1 Objective: To create a beautiful City that is both

livable and sustainable.Objective No: U2 Objective: To make Perth an attractive location for

major businesses to establishthemselves.

Objective No: U3 Objective: Ensure vehicular movement in the Cityis effective and efficient.

Objective No: U5 Objective: To ensure that public transport provisionand routes adequately meet the needsof the community and that the City hasadequate and appropriately locatedparking.

DETAILS:

Business PlanThe Business Plan for the Northbridge Link Project dated February 2004 wasadvertised on 14 February 2004 for public comment with the submission periodclosing on 26 March 2004. Five submissions were received and have beencirculated to Elected Members. A summary of the submissions is attached asSchedule 8.



Price for contract variationThe Northbridge Link Committee received the following advice from the PublicTransport Authority (PTA) regarding the price received from Leighton Kumagai forthe additional rail sinking:-

• the price for sinking the Perth-Fremantle lines was $160million and when addedto the previously priced Option 1 (Perth-Butler lines) of $39.5million (less$4million for duplicate costs) amounted to approximately $195m direct cost tosink the railways to a portal at Milligan Street;

• in addition, indirect costs would be incurred as a result of the delay tocommissioning the whole Southern Suburbs railway (4.5 months). The cost ofthis delay on other contracts for the Southern Suburbs railway would besubstantial and unacceptable.

The $160million price is also qualified due to the limited time available for detaileddesign and estimating for some items on which the price is based. Costs for itemssuch as services relocation and Perth Station changes have not been calculated indetail. Other items such as work to gain all statutory approvals, removal of sometemporary works, landscaping and the possible treatment of discharge water havebeen excluded. These items have the potential to increase the cost.

The committee concluded that the qualified total cost, and the delay, is unacceptableto PTA and Government. The Committee also noted that:-

• all members of NLC were equally disappointed that the Milligan Street portaloption was not achievable because of the cost; and

• given the above, it behoves the NLC to explore opportunities arising from aportal located near Lake Street, and advise the Minister and the Councilaccordingly.

Further investigation to link Northbridge and the cityFollowing consideration of the price of the Link Project, the Northbridge LinkCommittee decided:-

1. to recommit to continue with and support the work of the Northbridge LinkCommittee;

2. to recommend that the Committee continue its work to robustly andcollaboratively identify and evaluate the planning options to link the City andNorthbridge;

3. to seek a report from officers on remaining options and methodology, includingtime frame;

4. the Committee further resolved that:-



4.1 the business case for sinking the railways to Milligan Street does notstand up and must be dismissed;

4.2 all remaining options are to be identified and evaluated;

4.3 the Committee has no view on what should be included or excluded;

4.4 there are no remaining decisions to be made within the terms of thecurrent contract with Leighton Kumagai;

5. to advise the Minister and the City of Perth Council and seek endorsement forthe continuing work of the Northbridge Link Committee.


This report has no financial implications for the 2003/04 budget. It is noted that theNorthbridge Link Committee’s future recommendations may have budget impacts forthe Council which will have to be assessed.

COMMENTS:

Price for contract variationIt is considered that the price for the variation is unacceptable. Given that the StateGovernment has said it will not contribute any funding towards the extra rail sinking,the price will require a contribution by the Council that is considerably more than theamount of $29million to $35million conditionally offered to the State Government.The offer was based on a cost of $67million for undergrounding the extra rail lines.The $195million price (plus other potential costs) has placed the project beyond theCouncil’s reach.

Further investigation to link Northbridge and the cityThe Northbridge Link Committee’s recommendation to continue with its work to findan acceptable solution is supported for the following reasons:-

1. the Council’s objective of linking the city and Northbridge is worthy of furtherexamination notwithstanding the current situation; the studies and work done forthe project to date will form a valuable basis to consider other options;

2. the Minister has stated publicly she wishes to pursue further options to stillrealise the vision to link Northbridge with the city; this would be done throughthe Northbridge Link Committee; by being represented on the Committee theCouncil will have influence over the project and be able to pursue its objectivesto link Northbridge and the city;

3. the City has built up a good working relationship with the State Government viathe Northbridge Link Committee and a joint approach could result in a positiveoutcome;



4. sinking the Fremantle lines after the completion of the current rail contract hasthe benefit of the PTA being able to call fresh tenders for the project;

5. the Council will shortly be the owner of lot 1192 Wellington Street on which anew carpark will be constructed; it has care and control of local roads in thearea and is likely to receive new roads and public spaces if new developmentoccurs in the rail reserve; by participating in the project the City can continue toprotect its current and future interests.

It is appropriate that the Council be represented on the Northbridge Link Committeeby the Lord Mayor, the Deputy Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer, withCr Davidson and the Coordinator City Projects attending as observers.

Current Rail contractOne option to be assessed is to sink the Fremantle lines after theMandurah/Joondalup rail tunnel has been completed. The latter tunnel oncecompleted will impose considerable constraints on future works (such as a Fremantletunnel and redevelopment over) in the Perth rail yard. It will be imperative, therefore,to identify all constraints, quantify their impacts and take any immediate action to limitthe constraints. It will be particularly important to determine whether it is necessaryto carry out any immediate works in addition to the current contract to address thisissue. Failure to do this could result in undue cost penalties and rail operationaldifficulties when the Fremantle lines are sunk later.

Business PlanIn view of the above it is considered appropriate that the Business Plan for theNorthbridge Link Project not be adopted. An appropriate response, reflecting theCouncil’s decision on the Business Plan, will also be made to eachperson/organisation having made a submission.

Moved by Cr Tudori, seconded by Cr McEvoy

That the Council:-

1. acknowledges that the price for the contract variation to sink all therail lines from the Perth Central Station to Milligan Street far exceedsthe estimated price, putting it beyond the Council’s financialcapacity to support this option;

2. notes the five submissions to the advertised Business Plan for theNorthbridge Link Project dated February 2004 as attached inSchedule 8;

3. does not adopt the Business Plan for the Northbridge Link Project;

(Cont’d)



4. agrees that the Northbridge Link Committee should continue itswork to robustly and collaboratively identify and evaluate theplanning options to link the City and Northbridge;

5. requests the State Government as a matter of priority, to identify allconstraints on the future sinking of the Fremantle lines created bythe construction of the Mandurah/Joondalup lines, quantify theirimpacts and take immediate action to limit these constraints so thatthe Fremantle lines can be sunk without incurring excessive costsor creating unacceptable disruption to rail services;

6. agrees that the Council be represented on the Northbridge LinkCommittee by the Lord Mayor, the Deputy Lord Mayor and the ChiefExecutive Officer, with Cr Davidson and the Coordinator CityProjects attending as observers.




Against: Nil

381/04 REVISED PLANNING FEES

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1012767/2RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 20 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 9 - Proposed Planning Fees

The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by theBudget and Business Opportunities Committee at its special meeting held on 26 May2004.


The Council adopted the current fee schedule for planning services on 28 November2000 in recognition that the Town Planning (Local Government Planning Fees)



Regulations 2000 were to be gazetted on 19 December 2000. The Regulationsproposed a uniform system of fees and charges for local government planningservices and this resulted in a number of changes being made to the Council’sprevious fee structure.


Legislation:Section: 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995; andTown Planning (Local Government Planning Fees) Regulations 2000.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Economy.Objective No: E1.3 Objective: Recognise and acknowledge the City’s

role in the State’s economy. For theCity’s economic viability to be financiallyhealthy the City needs to develop afinancial plan which will take intoconsideration the following elements.


DETAILS:

The table below lists the current planning fee schedule. Fees for developmentapplications are based on a sliding scale relative to the cost of the development. Aminimum fee of $100 applies to development applications where the estimated costof development is up to $50,000. Fees are capped at a maximum fee of $25,000 fordevelopments with an estimated cost of $21.5 million or more:-

Item Description of Planning Service Maximum Fee

1. Determination of development application(other than for an extractive industry) wherethe estimated cost of the development is –

(a) not more than $50,000 (excl GST) $100

(b) more than $50,000 (excl GST) but not morethan $500

0.23% of the estimated cost ofdevelopment.

(c) more than $50,0000 (excl GST) but not morethan $2.5 million (excl GST)

$1,150 + 0.18% for every $1in excess of $500,000.

(d) more than $2.5 million (excl GST) but notmore than $5 million (excl GST)

$4,750 + 0.15% for every $1in excess of $2.5 million.

(e) more than $5 million (excl GST) but notmore than $21.5 million (excl GST)

$8,500 + 0.1% for every $1 inexcess of $5 million.

(f) more than $21.5 million (excl GST) $25,000



Item Description of Planning Service Maximum Fee

2. Determination of development application foran extractive industry

$500

3. Provision of a subdivision clearance -

(a) not more than 5 lots $50 per lot

(b) more than 5 lots but not more than 195 lots $50 per lot for the first 5 lotsand then $25 per lot.

(c) more than 195 lots $5,000

4. Application for approval of home occupation -

(a) initial fee $150

(b) renewal fee $50

5. Application for change of use or for change orcontinuation of a non-conforming use wheredevelopment is not occurring

$200

6. Issue of zoning certificate $50

7. Reply to a property settlement questionnaire $55 (incl GST)

8. Issue of written planning advice $55 (incl GST)

** Scheme Amendments and Structure Plans are calculated in accordance with Part2 & 3 of the Schedule of Fees of the Town Planning (Local Government PlanningFees) Regulations 2000.

Residential DevelopmentApplications for residential development are to be charged planning fees at a rate of50% of the above scheduled fees;

RenewalsApplications for renewal of development received within two years of the planningapproval will be charged planning fees at a rate of 15% of the above scheduled fees,provided that no scheme amendments have been made to the City Planning Schemesince that planning approval. Any application for renewal received two or more yearsfrom the planning approval will be charged the full scheduled fee;



ModificationsApplications for modifications to previous approvals, lodged with the Council will becharged the full scheduled fee. Minor modifications will be charged the fullscheduled fee for the value of the work associated with the modification;

RebateA 50% rebate be given, on that portion of fees in excess of $100, for significantdevelopment (greater than $100,000 in value) completed within the City; the valuesthat apply for calculating fees apply for calculating rebates; an applicant whocomplies with all the terms of an approval will be eligible for a rebate payable uponcompletion.

COMMENTS:

The current fee structure has generally been accepted by the local developmentindustry, particularly as the fee for major developments was reduced from $52,000 to$25,000. A review of the fees received in the last three years indicates that theoverall level of fees received by the City has remained constant since the adoption ofthe current fees when compared to the City’s previous fee schedule. The loss of feesfrom the larger developments has been compensated by an increase in the level offees for medium size projects. The fees for small scale projects did not changeappreciably with the adoption of the standard fee structure in November 2000.

User Pays Principle

It costs the City a minimum of $500,000 in direct costs to process approximately 430development applications received each year and to provide specialist statutory townplanning advice. If indirect costs were also considered then it is would cost the Cityapproximately $1,000,000 to provide these services.

The level of fees the City receives to provide this service is budgeted at $190,000and this level remains fairly constant despite fluctuations in the number and scale ofprojects received during the year. This represents only a minimal cost recovery forprocessing development applications and providing specialist town planning adviceat the City.

Whilst full cost recovery may not be possible to achieve under the standard feestructure that was adopted by the Western Australia Planning Commission inDecember 2000, it is possible for the Council to reconsider the various rebates andreductions offered in the current fee schedule and consider whether it wants tomaintain that approach.

The underlying principle behind the adoption of a fee in exchange for the serviceprovided is that the overall ratepaying community should not be expected to pay for aservice that it is not the primary beneficiary of. The development industry bycomparison are the primary beneficiary of local government planning decisions andspecialist advice and therefore this section of the community should contribute themajority of the cost of the service being provided.



It is recognised that town planning decisions are made in the interests of the overallwell being and benefit to the city and the community, however, the direct benefit to anindividual property means that this property owner should be responsible for themajority of the cost of processing development applications and providing specialisttown planning advice.

Given the discrepancy between the cost of providing the statutory town planningservice and the level of fees received by the City, it is considered that there is a needto modify the current fee structure to further improve efficiencies and cost recovery.The proposed improvements to the fee schedule involve charging full fees forrenewals, abolishing the planning fees rebate scheme and abolishing the 50%reduction for residential development.

Renewals

At present if an application is submitted seeking a renewal of a planning approvalbefore the two year approval period expires, a fee of only 15% of the scheduled feeapplies. If the development is for a renewal of a residential development (which isonly charged 50% of the scheduled fee), then the applicant only pays 15% of the50% fee charged for the development.

One recent example that illustrates this point was an application received for 105multiple dwellings worth $34.6 million. Normally the fee for such a developmentwould be $25,000, but as this application was for residential apartments, the fee washalved ($12,500) and because the application for renewal was lodged before theplanning approval had lapsed, the fee was then further reduced to 15% which wasonly $1,875.

The fact that an application is for a renewal of a planning approval does not legallyrequire or enable it to be processed in any way differently than as if it was the originalapplication. The amount of work for renewal of approvals varies significantlydepending on the length of time that has passed since the application was lastconsidered, particularly if legislation or policy changes have occurred in themeantime.

At the very least, most applications for renewal also require to be re-advertised forpublic comment and this requires sometimes in excess of 100 letters being sent tovarious owners and occupiers of apartments and commercial buildings seeking theircomments on the development application, as required by the City Planning Scheme.Dealing with the enquiries from various people is the most significant time factorexperienced by City officers in processing applications. This can involve initialtelephone enquiries, meetings to show people the plans and explain the proposal,assessing written submissions and incorporating the submissions into the report tothe Council.

It is considered that applications for renewal of development should be charged thefull rate given that the assessment of these applications must follow the sameprocess as required for the original application.



Should the Council, however, wish to continue with a reduced amount for renewals ofapplications receive whilst the planning approval remains valid, then it is consideredthat the fee be charged at a rate of 50% (as opposed to the 15% previously adoptedby the Council) of the scheduled fees, provided that no scheme amendments havebeen made to the City Planning Scheme since their planning approval. In this regardit is noted that since the gazettal of City Planning Scheme No.2 all current renewalswill be charged the full fee.

Residential Development

One of the incentives the Council introduced in 1995 to assist in encouraging innercity housing was to offer a 50% reduction in the planning fees for residentialdevelopment applications. This occurred when the City of Perth had a smallresidential population and was intended to increase the financial viability ofresidential planning applications for owners/developers.

The reduction has been used extensively since that time, however, it is nowconsidered that such an incentive is no longer required to be offered given thatresidential development is the primary form of development in the city centre andinner city areas. The City receives many such applications and many of theseproposals are subsequently developed successfully.

It is therefore proposed that the 50% reduction of the full scheduled fee for residentialdevelopment (including serviced apartments) be removed.

Rebates

Another incentive the Council adopted in 1995 to actively encourage developmentwithin the City was to allow a portion of the planning fees to be rebated upon thesuccessful completion of the development.

The rebate was only offered to development in excess of $100,000 for theconstruction of new buildings within the City, residential development, the substantialrefurbishment and recycling of existing buildings, or major urban developmentprojects which contributed significantly to the amenity and environment of the city.

An example of how the rebate system works is that a planning application to thevalue of $10 million for a new commercial building would result in total planning feesequalling $13,500. These fees are broken down into two parts, one being planningfees – non rebateable to the value of $6,750 which goes into operating funds and theother one being planning fees – rebateable to the value of $6,750 which goes into atrust fund.

The applicant can apply for the rebateable fee of $6,750 to be released when thebuilding is completed and all the planning conditions have been cleared.

This system has not proven to be popular, with very few applicants seeking therebate to be provided. For example in the year 1999, 69 applications worth $135,000qualified for the rebate, however, only six applicants applied for a rebate to the value



of $7,052. In the year 2000, 86 applications worth $173,000 qualified for the rebate,however, only one applicant applied for a rebate to the value of $1,190. In the year2001, 92 applications worth $202,000 qualified for the rebate with only one applicantapplying for the rebate to a value of $467. In the year 2002, 95 applications worth$192,000 qualified for the rebate, however, not one applicant applied for the rebate.

Year Number ofApplications

Value ofApplications

Number ofRebates Paid

Value ofRebates Paid

1999 69 $135,000 6 $7,0522000 86 $173,000 1 $1,1902001 92 $202,000 1 $4672002 95 $192,000 0 $0

These figures demonstrate that the City is maintaining an incentive system that is notbeing used. The rebate is listed on the Council’s schedule of fees and charges andon various information sheets advising applicants of their rights to seek a rebate. It isconsidered that the lack of success to date for the rebate system may be a result ofthe costs being seen as minor and incidental given the scale and cost of the overalldevelopment. It is therefore proposed that the rebate scheme should be abolishedwith all applicants who have an interest being informed to apply for their refundbefore 31 December 2005. This should give ample time to all current applicants toapply to the Council when their building works have been completed.


ACCOUNT NO: 116-197-6532BUDGET ITEM: Planning FeesBUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 8BUDGETED AMOUNT: $190,000AMOUNT RECEIVED TO DATE: $228,766BALANCE: $ 38,766

The impact of the proposed changes to planning fees will be significant on theamount of operating revenue that the City will receive for planning applications.Historically the City has received on average $175,000 each year that would beplaced into a trust account for applicants to later receive their planning fees rebateupon successful completion of their development. Under the new fee proposal thisrevenue would instantly become municipal funds and become available for theCouncil’s projects.

The abolition of the 50% reduction in fees for residential development would add afurther $100,000 of operating revenue for planning fees. This is based on theconservative estimate that the City would receive four residential planningapplications worth over $21.5 million each, four residential planning applicationsworth over $5 million each and ten residential planning applications worth over $2.5million each in a financial year.



The abolition of the 15% reduction in fees for renewal would not significantly increaseoperating revenue as compared to the two mentioned above but has been estimatedas generating an extra $25,000-$50,000 worth of income.

In summary, if all of the proposed changes are adopted, then the City can expect toreceive approximately $500,000 per annum for planning fees as opposed to the$190,000 budgeted for the 2003/04 financial year.

This amount would still not cover the shortfall in operating costs to provide a townplanning service, but would significantly reduce the current shortfall.

Conclusion

The change in the fee structure will recognise the increasing complexity required inassessing development applications and provide a stronger and direct relationshipbetween the fee charged and the level of work required to assess an application. Thechanges to the fee structure also recognise that residential development in the citycentre is now the dominant form of development and no longer requires the sameform of incentives offered previously.


That the Council:-

1. notes the Schedule of Planning Fees listed in Schedule 9 and theFees taking effect on 1 July 2004;

2. approves the following items of the Planning Fee structure beingdiscontinued from 1 July 2004:-

“2.1 Residential Development:-

applications for residential development are to be chargedplanning fees at a rate of 50% of the above scheduled fees;

2.2 Renewals:-

applications for renewal of development received within twoyears of the planning approval will be charged planning fees ata rate of 15% of the above scheduled fees, provided that noscheme amendments have been made to the City PlanningScheme since that planning approval. Any application forrenewal received two or more years from the planningapproval will be charged the full scheduled fee;

(Cont’d)



2.3 Rebate:-

2.3.1 a 50% rebate be given, on that portion of fees in excessof $100, for significant development (greater than$100,000 in value) completed within the City;

2.3.2 the values that apply for calculating fees apply forcalculating rebates;

2.3.3 an applicant who complies with all the terms of anapproval will be eligible for a rebate payable uponcompletion”.




Against: Nil

382/04 PERTH CONVENTION EXHIBITION CENTRE -COMMISSIONING AND SETTLEMENT

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1013095-18RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Doug Forster, Director Business UnitsDATE: 18 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 10 - letter from PCEC Centre Pty Ltd dated 13

May 2004

At the special meeting of Budget and Business Opportunities Committee held on 26May 2004 the following alternate recommendation to that of the administration wasadopted:-

That the Council notes:-

1. a probable variation to the acquisition agreements for the Perth ConventionExhibition Centre and Wellington Street sites, as detailed in the report dated 18May 2004;



2. that the Public Transport Authority has been requested to remove the portion ofrail footbridge which impacts on the Wellington Street car park land.

In accordance with Regulation 11(da) of the Local Government (Administration)Regulations 1996 the reason for the decision made being significantly differentto that recommended is because the Chief Executive Officer advised thatinformation had been received which indicated the State Government wouldnot indemnify the Wyllie Group or the City in relation to possible negativeimpacts of the Metrorail project on trading and financial performance of thePerth Convention Exhibition Centre car park.



1. a probable variation to the acquisition agreements for the Perth ConventionExhibition Centre and Wellington Street sites, as detailed in the report dated 18May 2004;

2. an intent to join with the Wyllie Group in an agreement and negotiation with theState Government in relation to possible negative impacts of the MetrorailProject on trading and financial performance of the Perth Convention ExhibitionCentre car park;

3. that the Public Transport Authority has been requested to remove the portion ofrail footbridge which impacts on the Wellington Street car park land.

The Perth Convention Exhibition Centre complex including the car park will not becompleted by 27 May 2004. The centre developer, PCEC Centre Pty Ltd (MultiplexConstructions Pty Ltd), is endeavouring to negotiate an agreed schedule of works tobe completed after commissioning.

Possible impacts of the Metrorail project on the function and performance of theConvention Centre and car park have been raised by the Wyllie Group. This matteris discussed further in the report.

An existing pedestrian rail bridge joining Roe Street to the CBD impinges theproposed Wellington Street car park. Arrangements have been made for the PublicTransport Authority to undertake modifications.


PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Budget Policy Statement - CS24.

LegislationLocal Government Act 1995; andPerth Parking Management Act 1999.



Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Economy.Objective No: E1.3 Objective: A financially healthy city.


DETAILS:

The progression of the complex towards commissioning and the opening of the carpark are discussed below:-

1. PCEC Commissioning Issues

PCEC Centre Pty Ltd (Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd) has indicated that they will beseeking commissioning on 27 May 2004. This date is the original CommissioningDate.

Multiplex has sought a variation to its contract agreement with the State Governmentin that there will be a number of works on the Convention Centre itself beingincomplete. The anticipated incomplete works have been listed as Excluded Works,detail of which is contained in the attached letter from PCEC Centre Pty Ltd dated 13May 2004 (Schedule 10).

The impact of the Excluded Works on the car park is continuing to be assessed asthe builder believes that the overall works will be far more advanced atcommissioning than they are at the time of writing this report.

If the Independent Certifier confirms on the 27 May 2004 that the works are in asuitable condition to be commissioned other than Excluded Works, then theexchange of lease and payment together with other associated paperwork will beconducted on Tuesday 8 June 2004 which is seven working days after theCommissioning Date as set out in the contractual documents.

From the City’s perspective, it will be a requirement of the builder to have completedall works apart from Excluded Works by commissioning.

While the car park is likely to be physically completed there are matters of waterleakage and pedestrian access still to be resolved. These two issues in particularhave the potential to significantly affect trading in the car park both in the short termand the long term.

Patrons will expect a fully undercover dry facility. Puddles of water or leaks from theroof will discourage business. The facility must be dry to also protect the City fromliability claims associated with slipping on a wet surface. Discussions are under waywith Multiplex in this regard.

When the City agreed to a payment of $45.18 million it did so on the basis that aparticular product would be provided including full pedestrian access. With the



construction of the Ernst & Young building on the north-east corner of the site theconnection to the corner of William Street and Mounts Bay Road to the Quadrantbuilding has yet to be reinstated and is unlikely to occur until late October 2004.

Negotiations are under way with Multiplex as to how they will recompense the Cityuntil such time as the access shortcomings are rectified. This is to minimise risk tothe City in terms of return on its investment and ensure that contractual obligationsare fully met.

It has been clearly indicated to Multiplex that settlement will not occur if any of theabove issues are not fully completed together with operational matters such asunconditional safety for patrons and staff, insurance cover, occupational safety andhealth risks, full access (apart from Excluded Works areas) both pedestrian andvehicular, and presentation of the facility (landscaping, cleanliness, uncluttered).

2. Other Issues

2.1 Metrorail Project Impact

The other major lessee, the Wyllie Group has expressed concern that the impacts ofthe Metrorail Project will adversely affect the Centre operation and viability for theconstruction period with the potential to have on-going vibration and other negativeimpacts in the longer term. The Wyllie Group has approached the City to join in anagreement and negotiate with the State Government. Matters to be included are thephysical issues of the work being timing, access, dust nuisance and the like for theconstruction period, and indemnity in terms of the construction and possibly long-term effects on trading and financial performance.

From the City’s perspective there are two divergent considerations being thepotential loss of income for the car park on one hand, and on the other the strategicand political support for wanting the rail to come into the city.

It might be argued that the City advocated the removal of the William Street overpassand therefore should suffer any consequence of that action upon the operation of thecar park - that is probably not an unreasonable position. However, the City’spreferred route was via West Perth and not along the river foreshore. It was theState Government that made the decision to utilise the foreshore route. Theseaspects of the rail alignment are clearly State Government decisions and if it can bedemonstrated to have a commercial impact on the facility then recourse forcompensation should be reasonably explored.

2.2 Wellington Street Land

The land at Wellington Street which will accommodate 300 parking bays, forms partof the PCEC acquisition and 99 year lease decision by the City. A rail foot bridgefrom Roe Street, lands within the lease area and will require structural modification toremove the encumbrance to the operation of the car park. This matter has beenreferred to the Public Transport Authority.



A Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) condition at the time theStadium and car park were contemplated, required vehicle access to the rear of theEntertainment Centre. This access will need to be provided by others outside theCity lease area.

All WAPC conditions relating to the Convention Centre and Wellington Street willrequire completion and sign-off before Settlement on Tuesday 8 June 2004.

COMMENT

There are two choices open to the City in terms of acceptance or non-acceptance onthe commissioning date of 27 May 2004, as follows:-

1. The City does not have to accept the arrangement which includes ExcludedWorks and would simply refuse to sign off the lease or make payment until allworks are complete.

If Multiplex does not deliver the project at the appointed commissioning datethen Liquidated Damages provisions are available within the agreement.Whether Liquidated Damages are applicable is subject to legal opinion.

OR

2. Alternatively, the City may accept the arrangement which includes ExcludedWorks with the proviso that the works value be to a maximum of $4million andthat work be finalised by 31 July 2004. It is anticipated that Multiplex willprovide a bank guarantee or other surety to protect the City, Wyllie and StateGovernment interests in this regard.

Liquidated damages may be somewhat difficult to apply given that the StateGovernment and the Wyllie Group are tentatively supportive of an ExcludedWorks approach however, the City is a major lessee and financial player andhas every right to protect its interests.

The timing of the loan take-up will reveal some interest saving if taken up later ratherthan earlier, however the disadvantage of the later take up is being able to occupyand operate the car park for several months prior to the major opening of theConvention Centre above. This time is anticipated to be used to lift the profile of thecar park in terms of commuter patrons and promote its availability.

It is recommended that the Excluded Works option be agreed to provided appropriatelegal and financial arrangements are in place.





1. a probable variation to the acquisition agreements for the PerthConvention Exhibition Centre and Wellington Street sites, asdetailed in the report dated 18 May 2004;

2. that the Public Transport Authority has been requested to removethe portion of rail footbridge which impacts on the Wellington Streetcar park land.




Against: Nil

383/04 PROPOSAL TO MANAGE THE CITY WEST CAR PARK

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1013246RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Douglas Forster, Director Business UnitsDATE: 7 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 11 – Business Case

The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by theBudget and Business Opportunities Committee at its special meeting held on 26 May2004.


CB Richard Ellis Pty Ltd on behalf of the City West Management has invited the Cityto manage the parking services at the City West complex in West Perth.

The project entails the management of approximately 750 car bays distributed overtwo properties in five distinct areas of which some one third of the total bays areunder cover.



City West is a long established retail complex with the added attraction of Sci-Techand a function centre. The role of the City West car park is to provide shopper andtenant parking.

The Centre car park is currently free and as such attracts CBD commuters who parkall day free of charge resulting in the unavailability of bays to the Centre’sbusinesses. Many shoppers at the new Harbour Town shopping complex nearbyalso apparently park at City West car park for free.


PolicyPolicy Name and Number: Budget Policies - CS24.

Legislation: Perth Parking Management Act 1999.

Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Economy.Objective No: E1.3 Objective: Recognise and acknowledge the City’s

role in the State’s economy. For theCity’s economic viability to be financiallyhealthy the City needs to develop afinancial plan which will take intoconsideration the following elements.


DETAILS:

1. COMMERCIAL APPROACH

Schedule 11 shows the Business Case for the proposed commercial arrangement.The purpose of the Business Case is to provide the basis upon which negotiationscan be conducted. Ultimately the viability of this project will depend on thenegotiation outcomes.

There are a number of alternative approaches that could be considered. Only thetwo arrangements described below have been tentatively discussed with the CentreManagement representatives:-

1. Shared income arrangement; or

2. Lease and operate by the City.



Shared Income

In a shared income arrangement, the City will provide remodelled second hand ticketmachines presently in storage, car park signage and parking operating costs andshare a percentage of revenue. City West will maintain the pavement, footpaths andphysical infrastructure and pay the Parking Levy.

Lease And Operate

Lease and operate may be a viable option depending on further feasibilityassessment and negotiations with the Centre Management. The risk is higher for theCity in this proposal as operating costs as well as lease costs need to be recovered.This option has not been further evaluated at this time given the higher risk aspectsand no advice from City West on possible lease charges.

2. FEE SETTING

The Centre has a diverse range of fifty tenants with varied requirements for bothshort term customer and long term staff parking. To accommodate the variation inpatron needs the rates below are proposed:-

Up to 1 hour $0.10 per hourMore than 1 – less than 4 hours $1.50 per hour4 hours & over $2.00 per hourAll Day rate $6.00 per day (250 Bays)

Motorists must display an appropriate paid ticket. To accommodate this requirement,a nominal fee of $0.10 is charged to facilitate the printing of a ticket.

Most shoppers and visitors to Sci-Tech and the centre stay less than four hours. Thefee proposal will discourage free parking by patrons intent on visiting other nearbyshopping complexes. Long term parkers will pay the All Day Rate.

An assumption is made that each tenant will be given one or two free parkingspaces. Ultimately such an arrangement will be a decision of the CentreManagement in conjunction with the City as an operator.

3. PROVISION OF EQUIPMENT

In a “Shared Income” arrangement, the City will recover operating costs, plus theinvestment in capital equipment, plus margin.

There are three alternative fee collecting systems available as follows:-

• second hand pay and display ticket machines without card readers;• new pay and display ticket machines with up to date card readers and reporting

communications; or• new pay on foot system with CCTV cameras.



These three alternatives are discussed in the Business Case over short (three year)and medium (five year) terms.

As demonstrated in the Business Case, using remodelled second hand ticketmachines, is the most attractive commercial arrangement due to relatively low capitalcost. Second hand ticket machines will be available from the replacement of parkingmachines capital works programme in 2004/05.

The Business Case indicates that a three year agreement with an option of a furthertwo years is satisfactory. Finalisation of the contract period will be a matter fornegotiation however from the City’s perspective either a three year or five year termwill provide a satisfactory financial return.


There are three streams of positive financial outcome from this proposal:-

• net income from a share of parking fees generated by operating the City Westparking area on a fee paying basis.

• net income generated in other City of Perth parking facilities through thedisplacement of vehicles currently using the existing free facilities.

The second source is not easily quantifiable and is not further discussed except tostate that a positive contribution is likely to be generated.

Net parking income is the major justification for this project.

Total Parking fees are estimated at $381,000but net of GST, per annum

$346,000

Less estimated default (8.2%) $28,000

Projected Gross Income (per annum) $318,000

Costs

Coin collection $26,000

Consumables $2,000

Maintenance $49,000

Depreciation (Cost of new machines $220,000 –refurbished existing machines $176,000 at rateof 11.7%)

$21,000

Internal cost of administration – share on bays750/16,500 x $2.3million

$104,000

Projected Gross Expenditure $202,000

“Net Income” $116,000



Note: Parking levy and all costs of maintaining and amortising the car park itself willbe carried by City West.

It is proposed that the City will negotiate to share in the Net income of $116,000. Forexample:-

15% share = $17,400 pa20% share = $23,200 pa30% share = $34,800 pa

A capital value of $176,000 has been placed on the 22 machines to be installedwhich represents a fair cost.

A notional rate of return at 15% on the capital investment equates to $26,400 perannum so any negotiation above 20% of share of profits is acceptable.

Revenue has been projected on a conservative base in the first year with 25%occupation of commuter bays and 7% occupation of short-term bays. Patronage isprojected to increase in future years which will flow through as additional profit.

Recovery of the cost of operating off-street parking is required. Management,administrative, and indirect costs have to be recovered and this car park will requirean administrative and management input proportionate to all other car parks of equalor similar size. There will be no change to City of Perth Off Street Parking staffinglevels as compliance can be managed within current staffing levels.

COMMENTS:

City West Management will benefit from an income source not previously existingplus a managed car park which supports its business and function activities.

The car park is already established therefore capital expenditure will be limited to feecollection equipment and CPP City of Perth signage. City West will continue to beresponsible for the cleaning and maintenance of pavements, line marking, footpaths,lights and payment of the Parking Levy.

There is minimal risk associated with the project. The risk assessment in thebusiness case shows that over three years the potential impacts and probability ofoccurrence are very low.


That the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the ChiefExecutive Officer being authorised to conduct negotiations with the CityWest Shopping Centre Management for a commercial arrangement tomanage the City West Car Park.

The motion was put and carried by an absolute majority





Against: Nil

GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE REPORTS

384/04 THE FUTURE OF ROYAL PERTH HOSPITAL

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1016095RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Ray Cross, Acting Director StrategyDATE: 30 April 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: N/A

The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by theGeneral Purposes Committee at its meeting held on 18 May 2004.


In a Media Statement dated 29 March 2004 the Minister for Health, Mr Jim McGintyMLA, outlined the State Government’s acceptance of all but one of the 86recommendations contained in the 140 page Health Reform Committee’s Report “AHealthy Future for Western Australians” (Chaired by Professor Michael Reid).

The Committee’s Report (dated March 2004), calls on the Government to implement,over the next 13 years, a massive reorganisation of the government hospital systemacross the Perth metropolitan area, estimated by the Committee to cost $1.5 billion(in 2004 dollars).

The Report, among its many far-reaching considerations, recommends the setting upof two large tertiary hospitals (one north and one south of the river), and four generalhospitals of 300 beds each at Joondalup, Swan Districts (Midland), Armadale andRockingham. Five smaller sub acute and/or special purpose hospitals will beretained at Osborne Park, Bentley, Kalamunda, Fremantle and Graylands (MentalHealth) (p48). Depending on the final site to be chosen for the northern tertiaryhospital, the possible creation of an inner Perth “see and treat centre” on the RPH



site (p50), or as alternatively described on p99 of the Report, an “Inner City PrimaryCare/Injury Centre” should be constructed.

The Report recommends the outright closure of Woodside Maternity Hospital EastFremantle, the Royal Perth Hospital’s Shenton Park Rehabilitation Annexe, and therelocation to the northern tertiary hospital campus of both King Edward Memorial andPrincess Margaret Hospitals.

The Minister for Health, in his Media Statement, has indicated that the StateGovernment wants Princess Margaret Hospital to be retained on its present site.


Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Leadership.Objective No: L1.4 Objective: To give the City clarity of direction.

Strategy: To be competitive within WesternAustralia.

Key Result Area: Economy.Objective No. E1.1 Objective: Recognise and acknowledge the City’s

role in the State’s economy.Strategy: Ensure long term viability of the

business centre of Perth by promotingand facilitating business opportunitieswithin the City.

DETAILS:

Of particular and immediate concern to the City of Perth is the future of Royal PerthHospital in the creation of the northern tertiary hospital.

The Health Reform Committee believes there should be only one major tertiaryhospital north of the river combining Royal Perth and Sir Charles Gairdner hospitals.Two options are presented for this final arrangement:-

Option 1 One tertiary hospital across the two sites of Royal Perth and SirCharles Gairdner hospitals.

Option 2 Select either the Royal Perth Hospital site or the QueenElizabeth 2 Medical Centre site as the single location for thenorthern tertiary hospital.

In their deliberations the Reform Committee favours Option 2. On balance theCommittee also favours the Queen Elizabeth 2 Medical Centre site over Royal Perthas the location for the new northern tertiary hospital. Their expressed preference forthe QE2 site was based on the following points:-



• It is geographically close to and has strong ties with the University of WesternAustralia.

• The State Government has already announced Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital asthe site for the State Cancer Centre.

• The submission from the Women’s and Children’s hospitals identified theQueen Elizabeth 2 Medical Centre site as their preferred site location.

• There is a close geographic link with a large private hospital (Hollywood PrivateHospital).

• The Lions Eye Institute and the Niche Building that houses health-relatedcommunity groups are already co-located on the Queen Elizabeth 2 MedicalCentre site, as is Crawford Lodge.

• The land is large enough to accommodate both the Women’s and Children’shospitals and relocated clinical services from Royal Perth Hospital.

• The infrastructure at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was originally designed for alarger facility.

• Much of the infrastructure on the site is newer than that at Royal Perth Hospital.• The site already houses the cyclotron and the State’s PET machine in purpose

designed buildings.

The four points advanced by the Reform Committee in favour of developing thenorthern tertiary hospital on the Royal Perth Hospital site included:-

• The site has a long and distinguished history (regardless of which site ispreferred, there are strong arguments for retaining the name Royal PerthHospital).

• It is located in the centre of the city with good public transport.• Some of its buildings are only twenty (20) years old (although others are

significantly older and require major refurbishment).• There is sufficient land available to accommodate a larger hospital.

The Reform Committee accepted that their list of points outlined above was notcomprehensive, and that further consideration and consultation is required. Theyproposed that ‘further consultation occur with community and staff at both hospitalsand a more detailed feasibility study of each site should be done to inform the finaldecision’. The Committee emphasised that any reconfiguration of Royal Perth andSir Charles Gairdner hospitals to a single site will be achieved over a number ofyears. They recommend that a single management and clinical staffing structureshould be implemented over the two facilities. Their recommendations read asfollows:-

Recommendation 29 (p51)

There should be one tertiary hospital site in the northern area health service. Thisshould be located on one site.While there are strong arguments for consolidation to either the Royal Perth Hospitalor the Queen Elizabeth 2 Medical Centre site, the preference is for this hospital to belocated on the Queen Elizabeth 2 Medical Centre site. A focussed and time limited



community and clinical consultative process should occur and a detailed businesscase developed by September 2004, before the final decision is made.

Recommendation 30 (p51)

To assist with the development of the Northern Tertiary Hospital, a singlemanagement and clinical staffing structure across Royal Perth and Sir CharlesGairdner hospitals should be implemented along with the formal establishment of theNorthern and Southern Area Health Services.

The Reform Committee believed that in the long term (the next 20 years), a thirdadult teaching hospital will probably be justified in the northern corridor of themetropolitan area (p51).


There are no financial implications from this report.

COMMENTS:

While the clinical opinion supporting the choice of the Queen Elizabeth 2 MedicalCentre site is not specified in the Reform Committee’s Report, many of the otherfactors they quote are highly subjective and open to challenge.

Already a decision has been made by the State Government not to allow PrincessMargaret Children’s Hospital to be relocated to the northern tertiary hospital site.

A superior case to that argued by the Reform Committee can be made out for theRoyal Perth Hospital site. For example, the creation of an integrated tertiary hospitalcampus on consolidated industrial land immediately to the north of Wellington Street,including land in that area that is already part of the RPH complex, provides frommany aspects, a superior physical location to the QE2 Medical Centre. The buildingof new hospital campus facilities on the above northern RPH site is notunreasonable. The Health Reform Committee’s Report has already emphasised theage and outmoded capability of much of the present metropolitan hospitalinfrastructure and that:-

‘Evidence suggests it is much more economical to invest in replacement hospitalinfrastructure, rather than directing resources towards improving and modifyingexisting facilities’ (pp79-80).

From a City of Perth perspective, the impact of the present 561 bed Royal PerthTeaching Hospital with its 4,000 employment positions has to be accepted as a loss,if the new tertiary hospital went elsewhere. The only offsetting development in thisscenario would be the creation of a 50 bed ‘see and treat centre/ Inner City PrimaryCare/ Injury Centre’ on the RPH site. Alternatively, the prospect of capturing up to3,000 additional employment positions if the northern tertiary hospital campus of 700+ 150 beds were secured for the inner city location, will have its own compensatingrewards.



If another government in the future decided to reverse the present StateGovernment’s position on the repositioning of Princess Margaret Hospital, it ispossible that a further 150 beds could be added to the inner city tertiary hospitalcampus site.

The central City should have a major teaching hospital. The City of Perth in all goodconscience cannot remain complacent or silent to the above moves.

Accordingly it is recommended that a written submission presenting a strong case forthe siting of the northern tertiary hospital campus in central Perth be preparedincluding consultation with a clinician’s panel and other supporter groups where theycan be identified.

Given the time constraints, an early decision by the Council is required on thismatter.

Moved by Cr Scaffidi, seconded by Cr Davidson

That:-

1. the Council advises the State Government that it views with extremeconcern the possible loss of the proposed new northern tertiaryhospital to a site outside of the central business precinct of the Cityof Perth;

2. a written submission be prepared on the Health Reform Committee’sReport “A Healthy Future for Western Australians”.

Motion to refer back to committee


That the item relating to the Future of Royal Perth Hospital, be referredback to the General Purposes Committee.

The motion to refer back to committee was put and carried



Against: Nil



385/04 AMENDMENTS TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTIONS)REGULATIONS 1997

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1009746RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Noelene Jennings, Director Corporate ServicesDATE: 6 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: N/A

At the General Purposes Committee meeting held on 18 May 2004 the followingalternate recommendation to that of the administration was adopted:-

That the Council supports the amendments to the Local Government Act 1995 andthe Local Government (Elections) Regulations 1997 as detailed in the report dated 6May 2004, with the exception of the proposals relating to body corporate nomineesas detailed under the heading ‘LGA S4.31(1)(g) – Rateable property: ownership andoccupation’.


That the Council supports the amendments to the Local Government Act 1995 andthe Local Government (Elections) Regulations 1997 as detailed in the report dated 6May 2004.

The Department of Local Government and Regional Development was recentlyapproached by the WA Electoral Commissioner seeking support for severalamendments to the Local Government (Elections) Regulations 1997, and for achange to the Electoral Act 1907 relating to privacy issues and the state electoral roll.The Department, in turn, asked the Western Australian Local GovernmentAssociation (WALGA) to seek the views of member Councils on the proposals, andthe purpose of this paper is to present the City of Perth’s views on the proposals forendorsement, and forwarding to WALGA.

At the same time it is proposed to re-present to WALGA the City’s view on othersections of the Local Government Act and Regulations which are in need ofamendment. These submissions have been made earlier but to date no change hasoccurred.


LegislationLocal Government Act 1995; andLocal Government (Elections) Regulations 1997.



DETAILS:

The new proposals are:-

1. That Regulation 20(1) of the Local Government (Elections) Regulations1997 be amended to allow the inclusion of a postal address on theresidents roll. Where a postal address is not provided by the elector, theresidential address would be included in lieu.

This is not considered to be a major issue. Currently regulation 20(3) requires apostal address to be provided for electors on the Owners and Occupiers roll whereasregulation 20(1) does not require the same for electors on the Residents roll. Whenpostal voting is used, providing a postal address for the Residents roll electors shouldmake the mailing out of election material more efficient. This proposal should besupported.

2. That form 13 of Schedule 1 of the Local Government (Elections)Regulations 1997 be amended to provide that electors with questionsabout the election direct them to the WA Electoral Commission instead ofthe Returning Officer.

Form 13 is only relevant for postal elections and they are conducted by the WAElectoral Commission. The change will enable the Electoral Commission to set up acall centre to deal with elector’s questions in the first instance. This is a more cost-effective way of handling common questions. Specific questions about a particularelection would be passed on to the returning officer. This proposal should besupported.

3. The third area relates to proposed changes to the Electoral Act relating tolimiting electoral roll information to inspection only, and removing theright for the data to be sold or used for inappropriate purposes.

This has implications for local governments and consequential changes may beneeded to the Local Government Act 1995. Currently Section 5.94 of the LocalGovernment Act 1995 lists all the information that is to be available for inspectionfree of charge at a local government office during normal working hours. Section5.95 of the Act puts some limits on the inspection process. Section 5.96 of the Actprovides that if the information can be inspected it can be sold.

The connection here with the Electoral Commission concerns about privacy is that alocal government’s electoral roll is required to be available for sale (LGA Section5.94(s)) and it contains resident elector’s information. Clearly if the ElectoralCommission is successful in having the Electoral Act amended to restrict the use ofthis personal data, this local government practice of selling rolls will have to becurtailed.

At the same time it is important that the local government roll remain a publicdocument. That is, while restrictions on selling data may be reasonable on groundsof privacy, it is not desirable to keep the roll as a secret document. It must remain



available for inspection by members of the public so that there can be no concernsabout the validity of the roll.

Currently the Electoral Commission will not provide local governments with a copy ofthe State electoral roll on the grounds of privacy. This limits the capacity of the Cityof Perth’s electoral team to check whether applicants for the Owners and Occupiersroll are on the State roll. This is not helpful. Whilst it may be appropriate to limit thesale of elector information it ought to be available for enrolment work.

Thus, while the proposal to limit the sale of information about electors can besupported, at the same time copies of the State roll ought to be available to localgovernments from time to time, to enable them to properly carry out their Owners andOccupiers enrolment work. This could be provided on the basis that the informationwas to be used for roll maintenance purposes only and not made available for anyother purpose or sold.

The proposal to limit access and a sale of roll information should be supported withtwo conditions:-

The electoral roll (Residents roll and Owners and Occupiers roll) should remainavailable for public inspection at the local government office.

Copies of the State roll should be made available to local governments fromtime to time for roll maintenance purposes only.

The re-submitted proposals are:-

LGA S 4.31(1)(g) – Rateable property: ownership and occupation

Section 4.31(1)(g) of the Act provides that a body corporate may nominate twopeople who are nominated as owners or occupiers by the body corporate.

Whilst it is reasonably straight forward to determine whether an occupying bodycorporate has a lease, tenancy agreement, or other legal instrument, it is not clearhow a local government determines whether those people nominated by the bodycorporate are actually associated with the body corporate.

It is suggested that the Regulations be amended to provide that a nominee of a bodycorporate must be able to establish a working link to the body corporate, in a similarmanner to a lease. In other words, the nominee must be for example, a director,partner, family representative, company representative, or employee of the bodycorporate.

LGA S4.32(1) – How to claim eligibility to enrol under section 4.30

It is recommended that a thorough review of the Enrolment Eligibility Claim Form 2be undertaken to make the form easier to comprehend and interpret.



It is a difficult task to get potential electors to complete the form due to its unfriendlynature. Modifications to the form, notes to assist in completion of the forms, and ahelp line, have not alleviated any of the difficulties being experienced by the City ofPerth in getting potential electors to complete the form correctly.

The City is required to follow-up on missing/wrong information on the majority ofapplications received, which is time consuming, and which makes the task of meetinga 14 day turnaround for enrolment eligibility even more difficult.

The form is viewed by electors as being overly bureaucratic. It is suggested that theWA Electoral Commission and Department of Local Government and RegionalDevelopment re-examine the format of Form 2, in conjunction with local governmentpractitioners, Elected Members, and potential electors. The City of Perth wouldprefer to have two enrolment forms, one for corporate nominees and one for all otherapplicants.


A 14 day turnaround is insufficient time to process applications, given that many ofthe forms are not completed correctly and particularly when large numbers ofapplications are received toward the close of the applications date. In most localgovernments the majority of electors are residents. At the City of Perth there is alarge number of Owners and Occupiers and therefore there is significant pressure toprocess enrolment applications in the several weeks before the close of enrolments.

A history of enrolment applications processed by the City is as follows:-

1997 election – 2,450 applications received, 670 of these on the last day forenrolments.

1999 election – 1,376 applications received. 2000 election – 1,290 applications received. 2001 election – 2,151 applications received. 2003 election – 1,511 applications received.

It is suggested that the processing time for applications should be, at a minimum, 21days.


It is considered that Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Elections) Regulations1997, relating to the Register, requiring that:-

details of each parcel of rateable property on the basis of which the person hasclaimed eligibility (Regulation (1)(d)(ii)); and

whether the person makes the claim as an owner or occupier or as a nomineeof joint owners or joint occupiers or of a body corporate (Regulation (1)(d)(iii));



is information, which is onerous and minor in relation to the purpose of a Register,that being to document applications, received and decisions made to accept/reject,within the legislative timeframe.

It is considered that the information in Regulations (1)(d)(ii) and (iii) merely duplicatesthat within the roll and serves no useful purpose within the Register.


The City finds that a number of enrolment applications need to be rejected becauseenrolment application information is either not supplied or requires clarification.Whilst the City does endeavour to contact those whose enrolment information isinsufficient, if they cannot be contacted within the 14 day time limit to accept or rejectenrolment applications, the application is rejected.

Appeals are subsequently made to the WA Electoral Commission based upon minorinformation requirements.

It is suggested that the WA Electoral Commission examine the legislation to establishwhether appeals regarding minor details may be made to the local government first,therefore preserving the formal appeal process for those instances where an electormay have a legitimate reason to appeal.

Division 9 of Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1995

Consideration needs to be given to amending the legislation to take into accountthose instances where a candidate is found to be ineligible following the close ofnominations.


There are no financial implications associated with this report.

COMMENTS:

The suggested amendments will improve the electoral process and clarify some ofthe aspects of the process that cause concern at present.

It is recommended that the Council approves the proposed amendments to the LocalGovernment Act 1995 and the Local Government (Elections) Regulations 1997 asdetailed in this report.



Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr Butler

That the Council supports the amendments to the Local Government Act1995 and the Local Government (Elections) Regulations 1997 as detailedin the report dated 6 May 2004, with the exception of the proposalsrelating to body corporate nominees as detailed under the heading ‘LGAS4.31(1)(g) - Rateable property: ownership and occupation’.




Against: Nil

386/04 DATE OF FUTURE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1010528-2RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Noelene Jennings, Director Corporate ServicesDATE: 27 April 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: N/A



The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA), following requestsfrom several zones, is conducting a survey of its members to see whether therewould be support to change the date for the ordinary Local Government electionsfrom May to September or October.

The basic argument provided by WALGA is that Councillors elected in September orOctober could participate fully in the budget process for the following year, ratherthan coming into the budget process part-way through as they do when elected inMay.



DETAILS:

For many years polling day for Local Government elections was the fourth Saturdayin May. Polling day was changed to the first Saturday in May when the LocalGovernment Act was amended in 1994 and continued as the day when the last majorrevision of the Act occurred in 1995. Local Government electors are very familiarwith and used to having Local Government elections in May.

The argument being advanced to change the month of voting from May to Septemberor October rests on the single premise that Councillors elected a number of monthsbefore the budget is finalised would be in a better position to participate fully in thebudget process. In particular, they would participate in determining budgetparameters, as well as being involved in the other phases of the budget process.

There are several reasons why the date should not be changed.

Firstly, Local Government election day has traditionally been held in May and thegeneral public is used to this tradition.

Secondly, the Royal Show and the Queen’s Birthday holiday are early in October andthere are two weeks of school holidays around the end of September and thebeginning of October. It would not be wise to hold an election at the beginning, endor during school holidays as families are often away from their normal residence.

Further, October is often a month when the Federal Government holds elections, andunder the Commonwealth Electoral Act no other elections can be held on the sameday as a federal election. A federal election can be announced and held within amonth, whereas the timetable for Local Government elections is longer. A LocalGovernment election due to be held in October and underway, would have to bepostponed if a federal election was later called for the same Saturday.

If the election were to be changed from May then it seems likely that the early part ofSeptember would be a possible time but October would be riskier owing to schoolholidays and possible federal elections.

Members elected in May are elected before the commencement of the new financialyear and can have some influence on the budget process for the year about to begin.If newly elected members commenced in September or October they would beginpart way through a financial period and have very little influence on the current yearalthough would be fully involved in the next year’s deliberations. It would appear thatif participation in the budget process is the main reason for suggesting a change, thepresent election time has advantages over the proposed election time.

On balance the case for changing the time of the Local Government elections fromMay to September or October does not seem to be strong when the disadvantages ofthe change are considered.




There are no financial implications related to this report.

COMMENTS:

It is suggested that WALGA be informed that the City of Perth does not support theproposal to change the Local Government election day from May to September orOctober.


That the Council does not support the proposal to change the LocalGovernment election day from May to September or October.



For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Butler, Davidson, Kay, McEvoy, Scaffidi,Sutherland and Tan

Against: Cr Tudori

387/04 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL – MINUTES OF ORDINARYCOUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 22 APRIL 2004

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1011112/23RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 3 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 12 – Minutes MRC Ordinary Council Meeting.



The Mindarie Regional Council is a legally constituted Regional Council formedunder the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995. The mission of the MindarieRegional Council is to provide effective and cost efficient waste disposal consistentwith safe-guarding all environmental elements for the benefit of the constituent local



governments and their residents, which form the regional district. The constituentlocal governments are the City of Joondalup, City of Wanneroo, City of Perth, City ofStirling, Town of Victoria Park, Town of Vincent and Town of Cambridge.

The Regional Council comprises 12 Councillors, with one representative from theCity of Perth, Town of Cambridge, Town of Victoria Park and Town of Vincent,two representatives from the Cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo and fourrepresentatives from the City of Stirling.

The City of Perth’s representative on the Mindarie Regional Council is CouncillorTan. The Technical Officer representative is the Director Service Units, GarryDunne.


Strategic PlanKey Result Area: Built Environment.Objective No: E2.4 Objective: Plan, integrate and implement sustainable

development for Perth to ensure itsliveability.

Strategy: Provide for the safe handling and disposalof wastes, minimising risk to public healthand the environment, and encourage theminimisation and recovery of wastesgenerally.

DETAILS:

The major issues of the Council Meeting of the Mindarie Regional held on 22 April2004 are detailed below:-

• The Council received a new draft Establishment Agreement and Deed andagreed that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to obtain endorsementand/or comment from Member Councils.

• The new Member tipping rate of $28 (excluding GST) per tonne was accepted,as was agreement to charge a marginal indicative cost of $7 per tonne(excluding GST) for disposal of bales from the City of Stirling. The Council alsoagreed to write off an amount of $219,574.28 owed by the City of Stirling forbaled waste delivered to Tamala Park between 15 August 2003 and 31 March2004.

• The Council approved the raising of a loan of $650,000 to undertakeconstruction works at Tamala Park.

• Approval was given for tenders to sell wooden pallets and recyclable heavy andlight metal. These tenders will provide additional unbudgeted income for theMindarie Regional Council.




There are no financial implications attached to this report.

COMMENTS:

It is therefore recommended that the Council notes the Minutes of Ordinary Meetingof the Mindarie Regional Council held on 22 April 2004, as detailed in Schedule 12.


That the Council notes the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of theMindarie Regional Council held on Thursday, 22 April 2004.




Against: Nil

OTHER REPORTS

388/04 GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE - MEETING HELD ON27 APRIL 2004

BACKGROUND:


DETAILS:

The role and function of the General Purposes Committee is as follows:-

To make recommendations to the Council on matters related to:-



1. Electoral, including the following:-

• The roles and functions of the WA Electoral Commission and the City ofPerth in the conduct of postal elections;

• The electoral provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 and LocalGovernment (Elections) Regulations 1996.

2. Safety and Security within the City of Perth including the following:-

• New initiatives with the State Government, WA Police Service and LocalCommittees;

• Community Police Post - public perceptions of safety and security;

• Security patrols.

3. Protocols and Procedures for Elected Members including the Dining Room,Civic Receptions and benefits and allowances.

4. Legislative issues including the Council’s Policies, Local Laws, Delegations ofAuthority, and reviews of the Local Government Act 1995.

5. General Operations and Maintenance.

6. Public Art and purchase o f Council Art.

COMMENTS:

The confirmed minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on27 April 2004 have previously been distributed to Elected Members.

Members of the public interested in viewing the document are advised they may doso at the Customer Service Centre on the ground floor of Council House or on theCity of Perth website at www.perth.wa.gov.au.


That the Council notes the confirmed minutes of the General PurposesCommittee meeting held on 27 April 2004.






Against: Nil

389/04 BUDGET AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES COMMITTEE –MEETING HELD ON 27 APRIL 2004

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE : P1014037-10RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Noelene Jennings, Director Corporate ServicesDATE: 26 May 2004MAP / SCHEDULE: N/A

DETAILS:

The role and function of the Budget and Business Opportunities Committee is asfollows:-


1. The Budget of the City of Perth for the upcoming financial year.

2. The progress of the current year's Budget and the Principal Activity Plan.

3. Business Opportunities/Proposals, which have the potential to achieve newincome or savings for the City.

4. The conduct of budget audits and appropriate actions taken in respect tofindings of audits.

5. Car Parking Operations.

6. Tenders, other than those for the Australia Day Celebrations.

7. Property Management matters.

COMMENTS:

The confirmed minutes of the 27 April 2004 meeting of the Budget and BusinessOpportunities Committee have previously been distributed to Elected Members.





That the Council notes the confirmed minutes of the Budget andBusiness Opportunities Committee meeting held on 27 April 2004.




Against: Nil

390/04 PLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE –MEETING HELD ON 4 MAY 2004

BACKGROUND:


DETAILS:

The role and function of the Planning and Urban Development Committee is asfollows:- .


1. Development applications.

2. The City Planning Scheme and Planning Policies.

3. Identification of long term planning opportunities.

4. The façade lighting of buildings.

5. Streetscape upgrades, landscaping, and the enhancement of public places.

6. The enhancement of the City Foreshore, and Foreshore Action Plan.



7. Heritage, including:-

• The City of Perth Municipal Inventory.

• The Register of Places of Cultural Heritage Significance referred to in CityPlanning Scheme No 2, and management of same.

• Heritage incentive initiatives.

8. The Perth Concert Hall, Perth Theatre Trust, and Performing Arts Precinctdevelopment.

9. Transport, traffic and carparking issues.

10. Environmental issues.

COMMENTS:

The confirmed minutes of the Planning and Urban Development Committee meetingheld on 4 May 2004 have previously been distributed to Elected Members.



That the Council notes the confirmed minutes of the Planning and UrbanDevelopment Committee meeting held on 4 May 2004.

The motion was put and carried As stipulated under the City of Perth Policy No.CS28 the votes were recordedas follows:-


Against: Nil



391/04 MARKETING, PROMOTIONS AND SPONSORSHIPCOMMITTEE – MEETING HELD ON 4 MAY 2004

BACKGROUND:


DETAILS:

The role and function of the Marketing, Promotions and Sponsorship Committee is asfollows:-

1. To oversee the management of the Australia Day Celebrations, including theauthority to:-

• Determine an appropriate name for the Australia Day Celebrations inassociation with the principal sponsor.

• Determine the location of selling points, and negotiate and issue exclusiveselling rights on the foreshore for food and catering, drinks, amusements,merchandising and ice creams.

• Engage the services of appropriate consultants to undertake actions in linewith Australia Day Celebrations and project budget.

• Determine the location and number of entertainment boxes to be locatedon the foreshore and arrange sponsorships accordingly.

• Negotiate the advertising and promotion campaign with the principalsponsors.

• Negotiate the rights to broadcasting the Australia Day Fireworks Eventwith a Radio Network.

• Make recommendations to the Council on tenders related to the AustraliaDay celebrations.

2. To provide advice on the planning of the New Years Eve Celebrations.

3. To make recommendations to the Council on the implementation of theChristmas Decorations Strategy.



4. To make recommendations to the Council on International Relations, includingthe following:-

• promotion and marketing of existing Sister City relationships;• determination of charters of mutual friendship;• determination of new international alliances and programs;

considered to meet the objectives of Policy CS4 – Sister City Relationships.

5. To assess requests for Donations and Sponsorship made to the Council, withauthority to approve or decline requests of $10,000 or less.

COMMENTS:

The confirmed minutes of the 4 May 2004 meeting of the Marketing, Promotions andSponsorship Committee have previously been distributed to Elected Members.



That the Council notes the confirmed minutes of the Marketing,Promotions and Sponsorship Committee meeting held on 4 May 2004.




Against: Nil

392/04 MOTION OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVENNil

393/04 REPRESENTATION ON STATUTORY AUTHORITIES ANDPUBLIC BODIES

Nil



394/04 URGENT BUSINESSNil

The Lord Mayor declared the meeting closed at 7.58pm with Councillors Butler,Davidson, Kay, McEvoy, Scaffidi, Sutherland, Tan and Tudori in attendance.

CITY OF PERTH INDEX 1113 357/04 419-447 WELLI NGTON STREET, PERTH - PROPOSED SEMI-PERMANENT...

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF PERTH INDEX 1113 357/04 419-447 WELLI NGTON STREET, PERTH - PROPOSED SEMI-PERMANENT...