MINUTES - Home | City of Fremantle · Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil RESPONSE TO...

MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 25 November 2015, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 2

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 4

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 5

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 5

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 5

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 6

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR 6

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS 7

TABLED DOCUMENTS 7

LATE ITEMS NOTED 7

COMMITTEE REPORTS 8

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 4 NOVEMBER 2015 8

PSC1511-5 SIMPER CRESCENT, NO. 49 (LOT 62), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0357/15 8

PSC1511-9 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2015 16

LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 11 NOVEMBER 2015 29

LAC1511-1 PRESIDING OFFICER AND DEPUTY PRESIDING OFFICER ELECTION 29

LAC1511-2 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICE REPORT - JULY - SEPTEMBER 2015 32

LAC1511-3 TOY LIBRARY QUARTERLY REPORT JULY - SEPTEMBER 2015 41

SPECIAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE 11 NOVEMBER 2015 45

SPC1511-1 FINAL ADOPTION REPORT - AMENDMENT 66 45

SPC1511-2 PRINCESS MAY PARK MASTERPLAN - ADOPTION OF FINAL PLAN 72

SPC1511-3 KNUTSFORD STREET DEPOT REDEVELOPMENT - TRUNK SERVICES COST SHARING PROPOSAL 78

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 19 NOVEMBER 2015 86

SGS1511-6 SCULPTURE GIFTING PROPOSAL FOR NAGASAKI PEACE PARK 86

SGS1511-11 FINES ENFORCEMENT REGISTER (FER) WRITE OFF - 3RD AND 4TH QUARTER OF THE 2014 -2015 FINANCIAL YEAR 91

SGS1511-12 COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE SCHEDULE FOR JANUARY 2016 TO DECEMBER 2016 94

SGS1511-13 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - OCTOBER 2015 97

SGS1511-14 WRITE OFF OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS NOVEMBER 2015 105

SGS1511-15 AMENDMENT TO POLICY SG43 - APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 108

SGS1511-16 REVIEW OF STANDING COMMITTEES 111

SGS1511-1 NORTH FREMANTLE ASSOCIATED CLUB SUB TENANT - NORTH FREMANTLE FITNESS 119

SGS1511-4 CANTONMENT HILL BUILDING AND LANDSCAPE WORKS 127

SGS1511-5 REQUEST TO WAIVE COUNCIL RATES - GEORGIE ADEANE T/A SUNSET MARKETS 137

SGS1511-7 2016-2020 ACCESS AND INCLUSION PLAN (DISABILITY) 141

SGS1511-8 NOTICE OF MOTION BY CR JOSH WILSON - APPROVAL TO ESTABLISH A WORKING GROUP ON REDUCING ALCOHOL-RELATED HARM 147

SGS1511-9 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE METROPOLITAN SOUTH-WEST JOINT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 151

SGS1511-10 ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF FREMANTLE ANNUAL REPORT 2014/15 153

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 159

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 159

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 159

COUNCIL ITEMS 159

C1511-2 REVIEW OF POLICY SY1 - RECORDS MANAGEMENT 159

C1511-3 INFORMATION REPORT - NOVEMBER 2015 165

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 167

CLOSURE OF MEETING 167

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council

25 November 2015

Page 1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council

held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council on 25 November 2015 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Deputy Mayor, Cr Josh Wilson declared the meeting open at 6.04 pm and welcomed members of the public to the meeting.

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT

"We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today."

IN ATTENDANCE

Cr Doug Thompson North Ward Cr Robert Fittock North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward Cr Simon Naber City Ward (arrived 6.19pm) Cr Dave Coggin East Ward (arrived 6.41pm) Cr Sam Wainwright Hilton Ward Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward Cr Jon Strachan South Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr David Hume Beaconsfield Ward Cr Josh Wilson Deputy Mayor / Beaconsfield Ward Mr Graeme Mackenzie Chief Executive Officer Mr Glen Dougall Director City Business Ms Marisa Spaziani Director Community Development Mr Paul Trotman Director Strategic Planning & Projects Mr Lionel Nicholson Acting Director Infrastructure & Project Delivery Mr Paul Garbett Manager Strategic Planning Ms Natalie Martin Goode Manager Development Approvals Ms Beverley Bone Manager Community Development Ms Louise Ainsworth Senior Strategic Projects Officer Mrs Linda Keys Minute Secretary Ms Chantelle Blight Public Relations Officer Ms Jenaya Shepherd Manager Strategic Projects


25 November 2015

Page 2

There were approximately 18 members of the public and 0 member/s of the press in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Dr Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Wednesday 14 October 2015 the following questions were taken on notice: Summary of Questions by L C Bugeja

Q1: Why did it take me 5 visits to council to find out that next door, 22 Ashburton Terrace, had not submitted plans of the construction of a 3.0m boundary wall and a retaining wall that exceeded building code heights? Summary of Response from Natalie Martin Goode, Manager Development Approvals

After the Planning Services Committee granted retrospective planning approval in June 2015, the City subsequently contacted the owner of 22 Ashburton Terrace about the submission of a Certificate of Building Compliance in June, September and November 2015. The requested information is required to be submitted to City by 5 December 2015. Q2: Was next door fined for his illegal construction of the aforementioned walls without permission as per Building Act 2011? Summary of Response from Natalie Martin Goode, Manager Development Approvals

It was determined that a letter should be sent rather than a $500 fine having regard to the minor nature of the variations. It is noted however that the planning fee however for retrospective applications is 3 times the normal cost which in this instance equated to over $500. Q3: When does 22 Ashburton have to a survey of his property submitted to Council by? Summary of Response from Natalie Martin Goode, Manager Development Approvals


25 November 2015

Page 3

Should the private building surveyor acting on behalf of the owner of 22 Ashburton Terrace determine that a new survey is required, this will be required by 5 December 2015. Q4: How long does 22 Ashburton have to obtain a Certificate of Compliance with the Building Code? Summary of Response from Natalie Martin Goode, Manager Development Approvals

The owner has until 5 December 2015 to submit the requested information.

Q5: If a neighbouring party removed an existing boundary fence for their construction purposes, who is responsible for its replacement? Summary of Response from Natalie Martin Goode, Manager Development Approvals

The Dividing Fences Act is not administered by local government. Please contact the Building Commission for further information.

Q6: Why does Council permit and accept the submission of retrospective plans without a certificate of compliance to Australian Building law?

Summary of Response from Natalie Martin Goode, Manager Development Approvals

The City requires the submission of the Certificate of Building Compliance by 5

Q7: Why is proof of compliance only sought after 36 months of harassment by affect neighbours? Summary of Response from Natalie Martin Goode, Manager Development Approvals

The City was only able to seek the submission of the Certificate of Building Compliance once the Planning Services Committee determined the retrospective planning application in June 2015. Q8: Why have I been forced to take these issues to the Supreme Court? Summary of Response from Natalie Martin Goode, Manager Development Approvals

The City did not initiate and was not party to the Supreme Court proceedings between the 2 neighbours.

Q 9: Why does Council treat a ratepayer of 28 years without nothing but contempt.


25 November 2015

Page 4

Summary of Response from Natalie Martin Goode, Manager Development Approvals

As advised above the City has been actively pursuing the owner of 22 Ashburton for the necessary building certification and will continue to do so until all compliance matters are resolved.

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item SPC1511-3: Warren Phillips The following member of the public spoke in relation to providing access to the Dog Beach area. Judy McLachlan The following member of the public spoke in relation to item SGS1511-4. Patrick Howard The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item SPC1511-1: Ben Doyle The following member of the public spoke in relation to the petition #13 Jewell Parade, North Fremantle which will be presented by Cr Bryn Jones. Rob Maughan The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item SGS1511-1: Graham Datson The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item SGS1511-1: Armando Dembrey Brenton Edwards The following member of the public spoke in relation to item PSC1511-5. Rebecca Palmer The following member of the public spoke in relation to item SGS1511-7. Janet Palmer


25 November 2015

Page 5

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Cr Andrew Sullivan declared a impartiality interest in item number SPC1511-2. Cr Andrew Sullivan was previously employed the by The City of Fremantle in the late 1990’s, and advised there is no financial interest. Cr Jeffrey McDonald declared a impartiality interest in item number SGS1511-7. Cr Jeffrey’s McDonald’s partner employment is within the disability services sector.

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

MOVED: Cr J Wilson Cr A Sullivan request for a leave of absence from 26 November 2015 to 4 January 2016 (inclusive) is approved. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeffrey McDonald

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Cr Bryn Jones presented a petition: To whom it may concern If the City of Fremantle was looking to demolition #13 Jewell Parade North Fremantle we would support the demolition approval based on the grounds.

The general risk to the community as a whole, in particular airborne asbestos

The unsightly and the deterioration of the building

Issues of vagrancy and the sudden spate of vehicles broken into in the street Cr S Wainwright attended the Stop Roe 8 Rally on Sunday 22 November.


25 November 2015

Page 6

The event was well attended. Cr Jeff McDonald thanked Cr Jon Strachan and the Community Development Unit by attending WALGA Cultural Development Forum. Cr Jeffrey McDonald advised the Council that the City of Fremantle is a well advanced and innovative Council that we should be proud of.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Cr J Wilson That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated Wednesday 14 October 2015 be confirmed as a true and accurate record with an amendment to item SGS1510-9 TO REFECT THE FOLLOWING:

The amendment to change the references from "street drinking/street drinkers" to "drinking in public places/people drinking in public places.

Parts 1 a), c) & g) and their corresponding actions in Part 2 ("Drinking in public places", Begging", & City of Fremantle Role") separately to allow Cr S Wainwright to vote against them without voting against the other actions in the report.

The remaining actions were then put and passed unanimously.

SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR

Nil


25 November 2015

Page 7

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS

Nil

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Additional Documents – Various Amendments Additional Information – SPC 1511-1 Final Adoption Report Amendment 2015

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Late Agenda Item – PSC1511-9 Planning and Development Regulations 2015


25 November 2015

Page 8

COMMITTEE REPORTS

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 4 NOVEMBER 2015

PSC1511-5 SIMPER CRESCENT, NO. 49 (LOT 62), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0357/15

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 November 2015 Responsible Officer: A/Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development plans

2 – Site photos Date Received: 28 July 2015 Owner Name: R & R Palmer Submitted by: R & R Palmer Scheme: Residential (R20) Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


25 November 2015

Page 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a two storey addition to an existing Single House at the corner of Simper Crescent and Wiluna Avenue, White Gum Valley. The proposal includes a new garage structure accessed, upper floor loft area and ground floor alterations. The proposal has been assessed against the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscape policy in regards to the setback of the upper floor from Simper Crescent. The surrounding streetscape is considered to consist of primarily single storey development and where two storey buildings exist, these are setback significantly to the street boundary. The report notes that there is a character of two storey or single storey with significant undercroft structures further removed from the subject site. However in the opinion of City officers, the proposal which will be highly visible at the street corner, represents a departure from the prevailing streetscape character in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. The application is not supported on this basis, however an alternative recommendation for approval is also provided. BACKGROUND The subject site exists at the south-western corner of Simper Crescent and Wiluna Avenue, White Gum Valley and measures approximately 812m2. A single storey Single House as well as associated outbuildings and structures exist on the subject site. The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ and coded ‘R20’ pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The subject site is not heritage listed or located in a Heritage Area. There is no relevant planning history pertaining to this application. Following community consultation of the application, the applicant was contacted and advised that City officers did not support the application. The applicant spent time reviewing the proposal but ultimately elected to proceed with the application as originally proposed. The application is now presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination. DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for two storey alterations and additions to the existing Single House contained on the site. The additions include a two storey garage and loft structure adjoining the eastern elevation of the existing dwelling. The structure includes three garage doors to Wiluna Avenue and accompanying crossovers. Minor alterations to the layout and external appearance of the existing dwelling are also proposed. Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1.


25 November 2015

Page 10

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions of LPS4, the Residential Design Codes 2013(R-Codes) and Council’s local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principle of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the deemed-to-comply or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the design principles:

Street setback (primary street – upper floor)

Lot boundary setback (south – boundary wall); The above matters will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report below. CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Council’s LPP1.3 – Public Notification of planning proposals as the proposal seeks the exercise of discretion under the R-Codes and Council’s LPP2.9 policy. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 24 August 2015, the City had not received any submissions.

PLANNING COMMENT 5.1.2 Street setback

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

Upper floor (wall height greater than 4m above

NGL)

10.0m 1.6-6.4m 3.6-8.4m

In relation to the upper floor elements, Table 1 of LPP2.9 establishes the prescribed setbacks for buildings within each local planning area. Clause 1.2(i) & (ii) states that the City has discretion to vary these criteria when;

‘(i) The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape; or (ii)The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land; or; (iii) The proposed setback of the building will facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthy of retention; or


25 November 2015

Page 11

(iv) Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or, (v) Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a corner lot, Council will consider a reduced setback that considers the setback of the corner lot in addition to buildings in the prevailing streetscape.’

These criteria are considered to be equivalent to the design principles of Design Element 5.1.2 (street setback) of the R-Codes. The proposal ought to be assessed against these design principles when determining the application. The surrounding streetscape contains a range of building forms. The diagram below highlights the extent of development surrounding the subject site containing development greater than a single storey;

Yellow stars denote properties that are two storey or that contain undercroft structures visible from the

street (and wall heights estimated to be greater than 4.0m).

The diagram above demonstrates a pattern of two storey development within the wider streetscape but not directly adjoining the subject site or, in particular, surrounding the Simper Crescent and Wiluna Avenue Street corner. It is noted that the design principle assessment is only sought in relation to the primary street setback (Simper Crescent) element of the proposal and not, as well, to the Wiluna Avenue elevation. This element is subject to a 1.5m secondary street setback criteria; which the proposal satisfies. Having regard to the above, the proposal is not considered on-balance, to meet the merit based criteria of LPP2.9 and the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons;


25 November 2015

Page 12

The proposal will represent a clear two storey building element. The immediate context of the subject site consists of single storey development;

While no assessment is made of the setback of the proposal to Wiluna Avenue, the proposal by virtue of its street corner position, will be highly visible and clearly of a larger scale and lesser setback than other buildings immediately adjoining. In this regard, the proposal is considered to represent a projecting element into the established streetscape pattern; and,

The majority of two storey buildings within proximity of the subject site, particularly to the west along Simper Crescent, consist of two storey development due to the significant fall in topography down the street.

Council may consider there to be a wider pattern of two storey or single storey with under croft dwellings in the surrounding streetscape (not the ‘prevailing streetscape) having regard to the diagram above. In that regard, Council could support the development as proposed pursuant to part (ii) as stated above. 5.1.3 Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)

Element Deemed-to-comply

Provided Merit based assessment

South - Patio 1.5m 900mm setback - 12.40m long (~5.8m of wall adjoins existing boundary wall) up to 3.0m above NGL

See comments.

The proposed reduced setback of this wall is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways;

The proposed patio wall will partially abut an existing enclosed garage structure on the southern adjoining site (No. 27 Wiluna Avenue), and be of a similar height;

The proposed patio structure appears similar in scale and position to a patio structure on the southern adjoining site. In that regard it is unlikely to have a significant impact on light or ventilation access to this area, which is noted as a likely primary outdoor living area,

The boundary wall does not impact on any views of significance or existing significant vegetation.

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

South - Garage Walls built up to or within 600mm of a boundary behind the front setback line within the following limits; (b) where the wall is proposed to abut an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary

Nil setback – (Wall dimensions being 8.3m long x up to 3.8m high)

See comments.


25 November 2015

Page 13

wall of similar or greater dimensions.

This portion of wall abuts an existing vehicle access way and street setback area of the adjoining property. The proposal is considered to clearly meet the design principles of the R-Codes in so far as it will not effect any outdoor living area or habitable room in terms of light access, building bulk, views of significance or ventilation access.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

The proposal has no strategic implications. CONCLUSION The application is not supported as the proposed primary street setback for the upper floor addition is not considered to satisfy the provisions of LPP2.9. However should Council consider the application to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and discretionary provisions of LPP2.9, the following alternative recommendation is provided; ‘That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 47 (Lot 62) Simper Crescent, White Gum Valley, as detailed on plans dated 7 September 2015, subject to the following conditions;

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 7 September 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year prior, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. All new vehicle driveways are required to be separated a minimum of 2.0

metres from verge trees. 4. The new/ modified vehicle crossover shall be separated from any verge

infrastructure by:

a minimum of 2.0 metres in the case of verge trees

a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic management devices, parking embayment’s or street furniture), and

a minimum of 1.0 metre in the case of power poles, road name and directional signs.

5. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary

shall be of a clean finish in either;

coloured sand render;

face brick;


25 November 2015

Page 14

painted surface; or,

other approved finish and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.’

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 47 (Lot 62) Simper Crescent, White Gum Valley, as detailed on plans dated 7 September 2015, for the following reasons; 1. The proposal is inconsistent with design principles of 5.1.2 Street setback of the

Residential Design Codes by reasons that the proposal is inconsistent with the established streetscape and will represent a projecting element into the existing streetscape character.

Lost: 2/4

For Against

Cr Jeff McDonald Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr Josh Wilson Cr Simon Naber

The above item is referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council for determination in accordance with 1.1 or 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register which requires that at least 5 members of the committee vote in favour of the Committee Recommendation in order to exercise its delegation.

Cr J Strachan MOVED the following alternative recommendation:

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 47 (Lot 62) Simper Crescent, White Gum Valley, as detailed on plans dated 7 September 2015, subject to the following conditions; 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 7 September 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year prior, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.


25 November 2015

Page 15

3. All new vehicle driveways are required to be separated a minimum of 2.0 metres from verge trees.

4. The new/ modified vehicle crossover shall be separated from any verge infrastructure by: · a minimum of 2.0 metres in the case of verge trees · a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic

management devices, parking embayment’s or street furniture), and · a minimum of 1.0 metre in the case of power poles, road name and

directional signs.

5. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary shall be of a clean finish in either; · coloured sand render; · face brick; · painted surface; or, · other approved finish and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.


For Against



25 November 2015

Page 16

PSC1511-9 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2015

ECM Reference: 102/009 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 November 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: 1. Previous item PSC1510-17

2. Summary of provisions for development permitted without planning approval under Regulations and Local Planning Scheme No. 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) were gazetted on 25 August and took effect on 19 October 2015, replacing the Town Planning Regulations 1967. The Regulations are a major part of the Government of Western Australia’s planning reform agenda. The Regulations affect the arrangements for local planning strategies, schemes and scheme amendments. In addition the Model Scheme Text has been updated and as part of the Regulations a set of deemed provisions have been introduced which are automatically ‘read into’ every local planning scheme in the State. The purpose of this report is to outline the proposed approach to integrating the Regulations into the City’s planning framework including review and amendment of the Local Planning Scheme and Local Planning Strategy that will be required. Key actions and the timeframe for those actions (immediate, short term or longer term future) are identified in the report. BACKGROUND

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) were gazetted on 25 August and took effect on 19 October 2015, replacing the Town Planning Regulations 1967. The previous Town Planning Regulations had been in operation for more than 40 years. The new Regulations represent a significant change to procedural aspects of the statutory and strategic planning regime in Western Australia. An information only report was presented to Planning Services Committee on 7 October 2015 (PSC1510-17 - refer to Attachment 1). This report briefly outlined the key categories of change including:

Track-based approach to Scheme amendments: Scheme amendments will be classified into three types (basic, standard or complex) and different timeframes


25 November 2015

Page 17

and processes, including community engagement requirements, will apply to each type.

New scheme review process: A less onerous ‘health check’ approach to reviewing local planning schemes every five years, replacing the previous requirement for an extensive review.

Deemed provisions: A schedule to the Regulations introduces a range of provisions which are automatically ‘read into’ every local planning scheme with immediate effect from 19 October 2015. Any provision in an existing scheme which covers a similar matter but is inconsistent with a deemed provision is overridden by the deemed provision and no longer has effect. The deemed provisions include categories of development permitted without planning approval, heritage provisions including powers to vary other scheme standards on heritage grounds, provisions relating to the statutory status of structure plans and their assessment and determination, and standardised development application forms.

Model provisions: An updated and revised version of the Model Scheme Text contained in the previous Regulations, setting out standardised wording for certain sections of local planning schemes which local governments will be expected to use the next time they prepare or significantly review/amend a scheme.

PLANNING COMMENT

Since the initial information report to Planning Services Committee on 7 October 2015, officers have undertaken a more detailed examination of the specific implications of the Regulations for the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and aspects of the statutory and strategic planning functions which are performed under the head of power provided by LPS4. Some of these implications are immediate, whilst others will have effect over time and will be triggered either by specific timeframes prescribed in the Regulations or by the timing of certain decisions made by the Council. Additional guidance on interpretation and operation of the Regulations has recently been issued by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in the form of a ‘Practitioners frequently asked questions’ document. Officers have had regard to information in this document in preparing this report.

The most significant implications of the Regulations, and action to address them which the City is either statutorily obliged to take or which officers recommend as an appropriate course of action, are set out below including the basis for the action (mandatory or recommended) and an indicative timeframe - immediate, short term (by 30 June 2016) or longer term (2016-17 financial year onwards). Specific actions are identified in the body of the report in bold italic text, and in the Officer’s Recommendation.

Deemed provisions (Schedule 2 of the 2015 Regulations) – overall implications The most significant and immediate impact of the Regulations is the introduction of the deemed provisions. As stated above, with effect from 19 October 2015 these are automatically ‘read into’ every local planning scheme in WA. The deemed provisions do not need to be assessed or gazetted as part of a scheme to take effect. Local governments are not permitted to vary or remove a deemed provision in order to maintain the statutory effect of an existing scheme provision which is inconsistent with a deemed provision. They may however include in a scheme a ‘supplemental provision’ which is consistent with but extends further a matter covered in a deemed provision. An


25 November 2015

Page 18

example might be types of development permitted without planning approval – a local government could in its local planning scheme specify types of development exempt from requiring planning approval over and above development permitted under the deemed provisions. The text of the gazetted version of any current scheme, including the City’s LPS4, is not physically changed by the deemed provisions taking effect; however, as stated above, any provision in an existing scheme which is inconsistent with a deemed provision is superseded by the deemed provision and no longer has effect. This is potentially confusing for readers of a scheme, because they now effectively need to read two documents – the scheme and the deemed provisions schedule of the Regulations – side-by-side in order to identify where similar but inconsistent clauses exist and circumstances where the deemed provisions now prevail. In order to minimise this scope for confusion the WAPC recommends that at the earliest opportunity local governments should audit their schemes to identify which provisions are now superseded by the deemed provisions, and then undertake a scheme amendment (which can be a ‘basic’ category amendment that does not require public advertising – see further explanation later in this report) to delete from the scheme all clauses which are superseded by deemed provisions. The City’s officers consider this is sound advice and in fact officers have already completed a preliminary audit of LPS4 to identify inconsistencies with the deemed provisions. This has been used to identify the matters discussed in the next section of this report. Recommended action: Officers complete an audit of LPS4 to identify all provisions which are now superseded by the deemed provisions, and use this to draft a ‘basic’ category amendment to LPS4 to delete from the scheme all text which is inconsistent with the deemed provisions. Timeframe: Short term – present report to Council by end of January 2016 for resolution to prepare scheme amendment Deemed provisions – specific implications for existing provisions in LPS4 Heritage provisions (Part 3 of deemed provisions; Part 7 of LPS4) The new deemed heritage provisions replace but in most respects do not materially change the purpose and application of current provisions in LPS4. There are two changes which are more significant. The first of these are the provisions relating to Heritage Conservation Notices. Although generally similar to the provision the City had already introduced through Scheme Amendment 59 (gazetted in August 2014) to serve a heritage conservation notice to address cases of ‘demolition by neglect’ where a place on the heritage list or in a heritage area has been allowed to deteriorate to a state where demolition would otherwise be practically unavoidable, the new deemed provision does not use the term ‘demolition by neglect’ but instead refers to failure to ‘properly maintain’ a heritage place. ‘Properly maintained’ is defined in clause 13(1) of the deemed provisions as:


25 November 2015

Page 19

Maintained in a way that ensures that there is no actual or imminent loss or deterioration of

a) the structural integrity of the heritage place; or b) an element of the heritage place that is integral to –

(i) the reason set out in the heritage list for the entry of the place in the heritage list; or

(ii) the heritage significance of the area in which it is located, as set out in a statement in the local planning policy for the area adopted in accordance with clause 9(2).

The preliminary view of officers is that this wording probably broadens the scope of circumstances in which a heritage conservation notice could be served, particularly due to the inclusion of part (b) of the definition. This appears to cover circumstances where inadequate maintenance is not likely to lead to demolition but adversely affects aspects of the place which contribute significantly to its overall heritage value, or in the case of (b) (ii) the contribution it makes to the heritage significance of the area in which it is located. An example might be failure to properly maintain external wall finishes or decorative elements such as moulded cornices or balustrades which are integral to the overall heritage significance of the place. The second relatively significant change is to the wording of a clause which provides a discretionary power to vary any site or development standard specified in the Scheme for heritage reasons. The provision within clause 7.5 of LPS4 is now replaced by clause 12 of the deemed provisions, subclauses (1) and (2) which read as follows:

(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in this Scheme to –

(a) facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the Register of

Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or listed in the heritage list; or

(b) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

(1) A variation under subclause (1) may be unconditional or subject to any conditions the local government considers appropriate.

The above clause does not include reference to exercise of this discretionary power only in circumstances where it is desirable to vary Scheme requirements for the stated reasons, as was previously the case under clause 7.5 of LPS4. This could potentially be interpreted as offering broader scope for discretionary decisions to vary Scheme development requirements in the determination of individual development applications. The Regulations do not permit local governments to delete or amend clause 12 of the deemed provisions. The terms ‘facilitate’, ‘enhance’ and ‘preserve’ are not defined elsewhere in either LPS4 or the Regulations, and the ordinary meanings of these words are quite broad and subjective. Consequently there is scope for different and possibly inappropriate interpretations of the intent and application of this clause. In order to provide a degree of certainty, consistency and transparency to decision-makers, developers and the broader community regarding the use of the discretionary power provided by this clause, officers recommend that a local planning policy should be


25 November 2015

Page 20

developed to provide guidance on the exercise of discretion based on this provision in assessing and determining development applications in the City of Fremantle. Recommended action: Officers to prepare a draft local planning policy to provide guidance on the use of clause 12 of the deemed provisions (discretion to vary Scheme site or development requirements based on heritage considerations) in the assessment and determination of development applications. Timeframe: Short term – present report to Council by end of March 2016 for consideration of a draft local planning policy. Structure plans (Part 4 of deemed provisions; Part 6 of LPS4) The new structure plan provisions under the Regulations are similar to the existing provisions in LPS4. The main points of difference are:

The Regulations unequivocally make the WAPC the sole determining authority for all structure plans. The purpose of this was to eliminate the need for dual approvals from the WAPC and local government which was previously the case under some schemes (including LPS4). Local governments still deal with the lodgement, community consultation and assessment stages of structure plans but now refer all structure plans, with a recommendation of approval or refusal, to the WAPC for determination. This mirrors the long-standing role of local governments in relation to subdivision applications.

Reduced timeframes for public consultation and assessment of structure plans by local governments. The required advertising period under the Regulations is restricted to a period of not less than 14 and not more than 28 days. Under LPS4 the minimum period was previously 21 days and under Local Planning Policy 1.3 (Public Notification of Planning Proposals) a 42 day consultation period is specified. The Regulations also specify that not more than 60 days after the closing date for submissions the local government must provide the WAPC with a report and recommendation on the structure plan including details of submissions received.

The status of structure plans within the statutory planning framework has also been reduced. Approved structure plans were previously regarded as carrying the same statutory weight as provisions in the local planning scheme for the purposes of assessing subdivision and development applications. Under the Regulations a decision-making authority is now required to have due regard to, but is not bound by, the content of an approved structure plan. This is the same status as is given to local planning policies.

Structure plans now have a specific duration of approval – 10 years (with provision for the WAPC to extend the period of approval). Under LPS4 there is no expiry date for approved structure plans. Structure plans approved prior to the Regulations coming into effect on 19 October 2015 are taken to have a 10 year approval period commencing on that date. There are currently 10 approved structure plans within the City of Fremantle to which this provision now applies. These approved plans apply to the following areas:

Knutsford Street East development area


25 November 2015

Page 21

Swanborne Street development area

Former Leighton marshalling yards (Leighton beach) area

174 Marine Terrace, South Fremantle (Sealanes and wool testing sites)

Mather Road/Butterworth Place, Beaconsfield

Lefroy Road quarry site, Beaconsfield

Former Taylors College site, South Street O’Connor

Former Kim Beazley School site, White Gum Valley

9-15 McCabe Street (former Taskers site), North Fremantle

140 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle Officers consider that information on the City’s website regarding structure plans should be updated immediately to reflect the changed provisions introduced by the Regulations. This can be done administratively. It is also recommended that Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals should be amended at the earliest opportunity to refer to the public consultation period prescribed by the deemed provisions. This will require a resolution of Council. Mandatory action:

1) Update information on the City’s website regarding structure plans to reflect the changes to assessment, consultation and determination procedures and timeframes introduced by the deemed provisions.

2) Officers to prepare a report on a minor amendment to Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals to refer to the public consultation and advertising period of not less than 14 and not more than 28 days prescribed by the deemed provisions.

Timeframe: 1) Immediate – administrative action. 2) Short term – present report to Council for a resolution to amend LPP 1.3 by

end of January 2016. Requirement for development approval (Part 7 of deemed provisions; Part 8 and Schedule 15 of LPS4) The Regulations permit some types of development without planning approval which were not previously permitted under LPS4. However in certain circumstances the exemptions from development approval provided under LPS4 are more permissive than the Regulations. The Regulations allow for the deemed provisions to be added to by way of supplementary provisions in a local planning scheme, but development exempt from requiring planning approval under the deemed provisions cannot be made subject to requiring planning approval under provisions elsewhere within a local planning scheme. A comparison of categories of development permitted without planning approval under the deemed provisions and under Part 8 and Schedule 15 of LPS4 (pre-19 October 2015) is provided in Attachment 2. The LPS4 permitted development provisions are generally consistent with, or extend further than, the deemed provisions and therefore are not superseded by the deemed provisions. The WAPC has advised that existing scheme provisions which are considered additional to the deemed provisions may be retained but should be moved into a Schedule of Supplemental Provisions as part of the ‘basic’ scheme amendment referred to elsewhere in this report.


25 November 2015

Page 22

The main changes the Regulations have introduced for development that does not require planning approval in the City of Fremantle are:

Demolition of a single house, ancillary dwelling or other structures ancillary to a house (e.g. patio, boundary fence, outbuildings) is now permitted without planning approval where the place is not on the heritage list or in a heritage area.

Construction or extension of a single house where the development complies with the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, except where the development is at a place on the heritage list or in a heritage area.

Construction or extension of an ancillary dwelling is also permitted without approval on the same basis as a single house as referred to above.

The Regulations also exempt from requiring planning approval minor forms of development associated with single and grouped dwellings (e.g. patio, pergola, car port/garage, boundary wall and swimming pool developments) where development complies with the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes unless the development relates to a place on the heritage list or in a heritage area. However the permitted development provisions in LPS4 already include these categories of development and indeed go further in some respects – for instance minor development such as a patio is permitted in heritage areas (but not at an individually heritage listed place) where the development is to the side or rear of the dwelling and satisfies the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes. This is an example of a scheme provision that the City can retain within LPS4 as a Supplemental Provision. As part of the auditing of LPS4 referred to earlier in this report, officers intend to identify all categories of permitted development that can be retained within LPS4, with appropriate re-formatting, as Supplemental Provisions. The deemed provision permitting demolition of a house which is not heritage listed or in a heritage area is the category of permitted development that will be of greatest significance in Fremantle. To date, the City has used the requirement to obtain planning approval for demolition as a trigger to undertake a heritage assessment of the place to determine whether it is of sufficient heritage significance to warrant inclusion on the heritage list under LPS4, and to consider the heritage implications of the demolition proposal. Removal of the requirement to obtain planning approval by-passes this system. Nevertheless, the City undertakes a rolling program of review and updating of its Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and Heritage List on a suburb-by-suburb basis (the next phase of the review, relating to North Fremantle, is commencing December 2015) and through this process officers will continue to identify places considered to be of sufficient heritage significance to be recommended to Council for consideration for inclusion on the MHI and heritage list.

The City very rarely receives development applications proposing single houses which fully satisfy all the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, and therefore the deemed provision permitting this type of development outside of heritage areas and heritage listed places is not considered likely to have a major impact within the City of Fremantle.

Recommended action: Officers to compile a schedule of all categories of development permitted without planning approval under provisions within LPS4 which are additional to the deemed provisions, and include this as a Schedule of Supplemental Provisions in the drafting of a ‘basic’ category amendment to LPS4.


25 November 2015

Page 23

Timeframe: Short term – present report to Council by end of January 2016 for resolution to prepare scheme amendment.

Applications for development approval including forms (Parts 8 and 11 of deemed provisions; Part 9 and Schedule 6 of LPS4)

The deemed provisions include clauses covering the administrative aspects of the submission of applications for development approval, including requirements for the plans and other information to be submitted with applications. The Regulations also include standardised forms to be used by all local governments. These provisions supersede but are not significantly different from equivalent contents of LPS4. Officers have already administratively taken the necessary action to give effect to the deemed provisions.

Mandatory action: Forms used for applications for development approval, advertisement of applications and notice of determination of applications must be in the form prescribed in the deemed provisions. Timeframe: Immediate – action already completed. City’s forms amended to conform with deemed provisions requirements on 19 October 2015.

Changes to procedures for preparation, review and amendment of local planning strategies and local planning schemes

The Regulations introduce new processes for local planning strategies, local planning schemes and scheme amendments, and new model provisions for planning schemes (previously called Model Scheme Text). The key implications of these aspects of the Regulations for the City’s planning framework are discussed below. Local Planning Scheme – preparation and review (Parts 4 and 6 of Regulations) and Local Planning Strategies (Part 3 of Regulations) The Regulations state that local planning schemes are to be reviewed within six months of the five year anniversary of the date the scheme is approved. In the case of schemes gazetted more than five years prior to the Regulations coming into effect – which applies to the City’s LPS4 – the Regulations require the review to be commenced by October 2017 and a report on the review to be provided to the WAPC within six months of that date. The scheme review process and report content requirements under the new Regulations are less onerous than the requirements under the previous 1967 Regulations. The review is intended to function as a ‘health check’ on the current scheme’s fitness for purpose, and whether it is still considered to be up-to-date. The report on the scheme review must include an overview of development activity and population change in the scheme area since the scheme was gazetted, and details of all amendments to the scheme since its original gazettal. The report on the review must include a recommendation to the WAPC on whether the scheme –

is satisfactory in its current form; or

should be amended; or


25 November 2015

Page 24

should be repealed and a new scheme prepared in its place. Within 90 days of receiving the local government’s review report, the WAPC is required to decide whether to agree or disagree with the report recommendations and notify the local government of the Commission’s decision on action to be taken as a result of the review. Even if the new Regulations had not been introduced, given the current age of LPS4 (gazetted in March 2007) it would have been timely for the City to start considering a review of the scheme within the next 1-2 years. Consequently officers have in any event recently started to give preliminary consideration to the planning of this task as a major project to be undertaken in 2016/17 – 2017/18. The Regulations require a local planning strategy to be reviewed at the same time as the local planning scheme. The purpose of a local planning strategy is to support the preparation of a local planning scheme by setting out the long-term directions for the local government, identify and apply relevant State or regional planning policy and provide a rationale for zoning of land under the scheme. The current Fremantle Planning Strategy was published in 2001 and was prepared to support the preparation of LPS4: it is also one of the six Corporate Strategies that underpins the forthcoming Strategic Plan. Due to a number of factors affecting the preparation and gazettal of LPS4 there is a significant time gap between the publication dates of the two documents, and given the age of the Strategy, some of its content is significantly outdated. A review/replacement is considered to be a matter of some priority. As stated above the new Regulations require a local planning strategy to be reviewed concurrently with the five-yearly scheme review. This will require the City to commence a review of both documents by October 2017. This review, which fits well with resource availability, will be a Strategic Project: a Project Initiation Document will be brought to Council in the first part of the 2016 calendar year. Mandatory action: Undertake a review of the Fremantle Planning Strategy 2001 and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, commencing not later than October 2017. Timeframe: Long term – 2016/17 and 2017/18. Recommended action: Officers to prepare a Project Initiation Document relating to review of the local planning strategy and local planning scheme for Council approval. Timeframe: Short term – present Project initiation Document to Council before the end of June 2016 for approval. Local Planning Scheme – amendments (Part 5 of Regulations) The new Regulations provide different ‘streams’ for scheme amendments (called basic, standard and complex) that correspond with the level of assessment required to make an appropriately informed decision. The previous Town Planning Regulations 1967


25 November 2015

Page 25

prescribed one process for all types of local planning scheme amendments, meaning a simple amendment (e.g. a minor change to scheme text) was subject to the same assessment and consultation requirements as a major re-zoning proposal and frequently minor amendments took a very long time to be determined and involved a disproportionate and inefficient allocation of resources. The new Regulations seek to address this by adopting a risk and impact-based approach to procedural and consultation stages of the scheme amendment process, and by prescribing different timeframes and requirements based on the amendment’s complexity. A comparison of the different scheme amendment streams (basic, standard and complex) including the different statutory requirements and timeframes is provided in table 1 below. Table 1. Overview of the different amendment types

Amendment type

Basic Standard Complex

Example of use The amendment corrects an administrative error; is consistent with the Model Scheme Text, other Acts, the MRS or State Planning Policy; deletes provisions that have been superseded by the Regulations’ deemed provisions; includes map changes consistent with a structure plan.

The amendment is consistent with the objectives of the scheme and local planning strategy; relates to a structure plan and include zones not currently provided for in the Scheme; would have minimal impact and does not result in significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land.

The amendment is not consistent or addressed by a local planning strategy; relates to development of a scale that will have a significant impact in the locality; relates to preparing or amending a development contribution area.

Council adopt amendment

Required Required Required

WAPC approval for amendment to be advertised

Not required Not required Required

Advertising period

None required At least 42 days At least 60 days

Council to consider submissions

N/A 60 days after submission period

90 days after submission period

LG to forward amendment to WAPC

Within 21 days of passing the resolution to prepare or adopt a basic amendment

21 days of passing the resolution to support/not support amendment

21 days of passing the resolution to support/not support amendment

WAPC to consider amendment

Within 42 days. Can direct Local Government to advertise amendment as standard or complex

Within 60 days Within 90 days

The local government is responsible for determining the level of an amendment (i.e. basic, standard, or complex) at the start of the process. The WAPC can subsequently direct the local government to pursue a different type of amendment process. For example, an amendment the local government considered ‘basic’ and had not been


25 November 2015

Page 26

advertised could be considered ‘standard’ by the WAPC and be referred back to the local government for advertising. Scheme amendments in the course of preparation/approval when the Regulations came into effect have to comply with the new requirements of the Regulations from that point onwards. The City of Fremantle currently has three scheme amendments in progress – Amendments 64, 65 and 66 which all propose changes to density and development standards in local centres along the South Street public transport corridor. These amendments are currently undergoing or have just completed their public advertising stage and are considered by officers to be compliant with the requirements for the ‘standard’ level of scheme amendment. It is therefore proposed to continue to deal with these amendments on this basis. However to seek reassurance regarding the level of assessment and to avoid possible delays at later stages of the process, officers propose to request immediate confirmation from the WAPC that it agrees with this level of assessment. Recommended action: Officers to request confirmation from the WAPC that Amendment No.’s 64, 65 and 66 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 should be dealt with under the provisions applying to standard amendments in Part 5 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the remaining stages of the scheme amendment process. Timeframe: Immediate. Model provisions (Schedule 1 of the 2015 Regulations) – overall implications The Model Provisions provide an updated version of the Model Scheme Text (MST) contained in the 1967 Regulations. The intent of the model provisions (as with the previous MST) is to set out a consistent framework for all new local planning schemes and to ensure uniformity in content and terminology in schemes on matters such as land use definitions and categories of land use zones. Unlike the deemed provisions the model provisions do not automatically apply from the commencement date of the Regulations, but local governments will be expected to apply the model provisions to their scheme at the next scheme review or may choose to amend relevant sections of their scheme to introduce the model provisions sooner through a scheme amendment. The model provisions do not affect ‘local’ aspects of scheme content such as development standards which apply to particular areas (in the case of LPS4, these are primarily contained in Schedule 12). At this stage, officers consider that there are no compelling reasons to introduce the model provisions into LPS4 until the scheme review referred to above is commenced in 2017 and therefore no specific recommendation is made on this matter. CONCLUSION The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 took effect on 19 October 2015. The Regulations are a major part of the Government of Western Australia’s planning reform agenda. The Regulations affect the arrangements for local planning strategies,


25 November 2015

Page 27

schemes and scheme amendments. In addition the Model Scheme Text has been updated and as part of the Regulations a set of deemed provisions have been introduced which are automatically ‘read into’ every local planning scheme in the State. This report outlines the major implications of the Regulations for the City of Fremantle and identifies appropriate actions to integrate the Regulations into the City’s planning framework, both immediately and in the longer term. Council is recommended to note and where relevant approve these actions. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan

1. That Council notes for information the following actions already undertaken or planned to be undertaken in the near future by officers to ensure compliance with requirements of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015:

i. Updating of content on the City’s website to provide information

about the effects of the Regulations, including information on structure plans reflecting the changes to assessment, consultation and determination procedures and timeframes introduced by the deemed provisions.

ii. Preparation of a report on a minor amendment to Local Planning

Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals, to refer to the public consultation and advertising period for structure plans being not less than 14 days and not more than 28 days as prescribed by the deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, for consideration by Council by the end of January 2016

iii. Production of updated forms which comply with the format prescribed

in the deemed provisions for use within the City of Fremantle for applications for development approval, advertisement of applications and notice of determination of applications.

iv. Request confirmation from the Western Australian Planning

Commission that Amendment No.’s 64, 65 and 66 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 should be dealt with under the provisions applying to standard amendments in Part 5 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the remaining stages of the scheme amendment process.

2. That Council approve the following recommended actions to ensure

compliance with requirements of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015:

i. Officers are to complete an audit of Local Planning Scheme No. 4

(LPS4) to identify all provisions which are now superseded by the


25 November 2015

Page 28

deemed provisions of the Regulations, and use the audit to draft a ‘basic’ category amendment to the Local Planning Scheme to delete from the scheme all text which is inconsistent with the deemed provisions. The scheme amendment is to be reported to Council by the end of January 2016 for consideration to commence the formal scheme amendment process.

ii. Officers are to prepare a draft local planning policy to provide

guidance on the use of clause 12 of the deemed provisions (discretion to vary Scheme site or development requirements based on heritage considerations) in the assessment and determination of development applications. The draft policy is to be reported to Council for consideration by the end of March 2016.

iii. Officers are to compile a schedule of all categories of development

permitted without planning approval under provisions within LPS4 which are additional to the deemed provisions of the Regulations, for inclusion as a Schedule of Supplemental Provisions in the drafting of the scheme amendment referred to in recommendation 2(i) above.

iv. Concurrent reviews of the Fremantle Planning Strategy (2001) and

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 are to be undertaken, commencing not later than October 2017.

v. To guide the local planning strategy and scheme reviews referred to

in recommendation 2(iv) above, officers are to prepare a Project Initiation Document for Council approval before the end of June 2016.

SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



25 November 2015

Page 29

LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 11 NOVEMBER 2015

LAC1511-1 PRESIDING OFFICER AND DEPUTY PRESIDING OFFICER ELECTION

ECM Reference: 039/007 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 11 November 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Julie Caddy, Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Library Advisory Committee Local Law states that "The Chairperson shall be elected at the first meeting of the Committee after each local government ordinary election". An election must be held for a Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer for the following two years

BACKGROUND

The Library Advisory Committee comprises representatives of the City of Fremantle, the Town of East Fremantle and the library membership. As per the Local Law, the Committee is appointed "for the purpose of advising the Council regarding the management and control of the Library".

COMMENT

Election of a Chairperson is required at the first meeting of the Committee after each local government ordinary election

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Nil Legal

This recommendation is in accordance with the Local Law. Operational

Nil Organisational


25 November 2015

Page 30

Nil

CONCLUSION

Election of a Presiding Officer and a Deputy Presiding Officer for the next two years must be completed

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Not applicable

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

1. a) That a Presiding Officer be appointed for the Library Advisory

Committee for the period through October 2017

b) That a Deputy Presiding Officer be appointed for the Library Advisory Committee for the period through October 2017

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr David Hume 1. a) That Cr David Hume be appointed Presiding Officer for the Library

Advisory Committee for the period through October 2017

b) That Cr Tony Watkins be appointed Deputy Presiding Officer for the Library Advisory Committee for the period through October 2017

SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton


25 November 2015

Page 31

Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeffrey McDonald


25 November 2015

Page 32

LAC1511-2 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICE REPORT - JULY - SEPTEMBER 2015

DataWorks Reference: 039/007 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 11 November 2015 Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Julie Caddy, Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Previous Item: N/A Agenda Attachments: Vision 2025 and Framework for Strategic Action -

WALGA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To provide information to the two Councils on the operation and performance of the Fremantle City Library during the previous quarter. This item reports on Library operations, issues and achievements for the quarter July to September 2015

STATISTICS (a) Membership - July - September 2015 Performance Indicators

Members per capita:

Fremantle .28

East Fremantle .19

% of total Membership:

New Members 5.3%

Expired Members 5.1%

Statistics

Population

City of Fremantle 29,471

Town of East Fremantle 7,595

Membership

Fremantle (residents, workers, students)

8,388

East Fremantle (residents, workers, students)

1,459


25 November 2015

Page 33

Melville residents 1,096

Cockburn residents 1,750

Cottesloe residents 305

Kwinana residents 39

Rockingham residents 81

Other WA residents 941

Temporary members 401

Total 14,460

New members Expired members

783 755

(b) Library Access - July - September 2015 Performance Indicators

Per hour open Per staff FTE Per library member

Circulation transactions 151 8,649 7.5

Visitors 61.5 2,698 3

Active borrowers 43.3 2,482 2

Reference enquiries 8 458 0.4

Local History enquiries 1.9 366 0.05

Fre-info enquiries 47 1,740 0.1

Internet use within library 14.6 837 0.7

% of loans

Requests for items in stock

6.4%

Items borrowed from other libraries

1.6%

Overdue notices sent 2.6%

Statistics

Library access

Hours open 728

Visitors *44,793

Active borrowers 31,519

Staff (FTE) 16.6

In House Internet Use 6,415

Wifi Use 4,225

*Counter malfunctions over several weeks.

Circulation transactions

Loans and renewals 61,405

Returns 48,438

Items on loan 13,374

Reservations 3,943


25 November 2015

Page 34

Requests sent to other libraries

1,105

Requests received from other libraries

1,377

(c) Access to Information and Resources - July - September 2015 Performance Indicators

% of total stock

Total loans and renewals 128%

Items on loan 28%

New stock received 4.6%

Statistics

User assistance

Service desk reference enquiries

5,824

Fre-info enquiries 1,740

History Centre enquiries 714

Online catalogue searches

19,362

Library web page hits 12,900

Use of Online Databases

Fre-info 11,312

History Centre online photographs

3,118

Britannica Online 11,033

Health and Wellness 5

ANZ Reference Centre 173

Novelist 11

Popular Magazines 55

Ancestry.com 3,204

Carters Antiques 115

Freegal 630

Other

East Fremantle Parking permits issued

11

New Local stock items received

647

New SLWA stock items received

1,582

Total new stock items received

2,229


25 November 2015

Page 35

COMMENT

The July to September quarter saw the usual high standard of services continue for members and other customers. New members exceeded cancelled members, increasing the total membership. Unfortunately the device used to count library visitors malfunctioned, so recordings are incomplete and not reflective of true usage of the library. Review of existing workflows saw the introduction of changes to improve services going forward. The endorsement of the Vision 2025 and Framework for Strategic Action for Public Library Services report by the WALGA State Council is welcomed as a positive direction for future governance and operation of public libraries. Promotions and events Library events attracted almost 500 people and included:

Leonard Thorne sharing information on bush tucker, bush medicine and Nyoongar culture as part of NAIDOC week celebrations

Scitech Adults Only evening

A future planning session on wills, powers of attorney, etc by the Public Trustee

New book launch for scientist and author, Tim Flannery

Library book clubs

Technical help information workshops

The library also participated in the City’s Park(ing) day initiative, occupying a parking bay with seating and reading material. Librarians remained at the promotion during the day to answer questions and talk to people about the library. The One Stop Shop requested use of the library for some pilates classes and these attracted a lot of positive comment and interest from library users. Inspired by an increasing worldwide trend for Makespaces in libraries (community places for making, brainstorming and creating which encourage learning and community connections), plus the current adult colouring in craze, a space was set up for customers to de-stress and relax whilst engaging in art therapy. Copyright free drawings are available with coloured pencils. A post announcing its creation on the Library’s Facebook reached over 3700 views. Young People’s Services Four presentations promoting the Better Beginnings kindergarten program were well received by both students and teachers at Hazel Orme, Lance Holt, North Fremantle and Samson Primary schools. Work has begun to offer the kindergarten program to home school families in the coming year. Attendance numbers have dropped for some in house story sessions and a review will be conducted to assess the continuing need for current programs or introduction of alternative sessions. During the July holidays children enjoyed Lego activity sessions as well as a Balloon Artistry presentation.


25 November 2015

Page 36

As part of National Science Week, an exhibit from Scitech enabled an after school session for primary children to precede an evening one for adults. The children’s session was fully booked. Children’s Book Week was a success with six groups from St Patrick’s, White Gum Valley, East Fremantle and Hilton Primary Schools visiting the library. Three daily sessions were run over two days. The children were actively engaged in Sam Hughes illustration demonstration and enjoyed creating their own characters and stories; and author H.Y Hanna captivated the children with stories of her dog Honey, on whom her stories are based. Program Number of

sessions Children attending Total attendance

Baby Rhyme Time 22 309 630

New Parent’s Groups 2 20 40

Toddler Tales 9 150 280

Storytime 13 94 180

Class visits to the library 11 428 438

Outreach sessions to schools, playgroups, day care centres etc

4 85 94

Total 61 1086 1662

Community Information The project to collect, organise and collate data on human services across the Cities of Fremantle, Melville and Cockburn was completed. This undertaking formed a part of the “mapping and gapping” project of the Social Planning group of the South West Metropolitan Partnership Forum. The Department of Local Government and Communities (DLGC) have completed the mapping of the services using this data and the searchable map will be available online in the near future. Ongoing review, evaluation and development of this service is planned. The Community Information Librarian visited the Alma Street Centre to share information on the library, recreation and leisure activities patients could access in the Fremantle area. Many did not have any idea where to find such information, and were very interested in the fact that the library provides free wifi and internet access to members. A number of patients have visited the library since to make use of the service. Visits will continue bi-monthly in 2016. Another outreach visit was to a new Employment Service for people with disabilities in Fremantle, to outline the Fre-info service and capacity to support staff and clientele. A major project was inputting data for the City’s new website which offers a much improved portal for information access. Fre-info produced four online documents to assist regular information queries: school holiday guide, employment agency listing, over 55 services, and children’s services. History Centre Digitisation projects continued, forty hours of oral history interviews were digitised with another twenty in process. Images available on the online photograph database are


25 November 2015

Page 37

increasing and now number 5692, including the historical postcard collection. Many positive comments were received about the database and uploading new data is a priority. Negotiations commenced with the State Library of Western Australia Foundation to assist with funding towards the digitisation of several series of Fremantle’s historical newspapers to make them available on the National Library’s Trove database. Donations received included the records of Druid organisations in Fremantle which had been stored in the North Fremantle Community Hall but it was considered they would be safer in the History Centre. The materials include minutes of meetings and a range of ephemera. A series of photographs relating to the Lee family will also be valuable resources for the History Centre. The photographs are of contemporaries and descendants of Bruce Lee who was a Fremantle City Councillor from 1940 to 1967. The donation includes images of functions and people associated with St John’s Church with which Bruce Lee had a long association. History Librarians attended a Local History Practitioners meeting at the new Kwinana library. Many ideas were shared regarding the management of collections with an emphasis on promoting the history of local areas. Viewing a new library provided new ideas towards planning for Fremantle’s new Library. Operations Following an upgrade by the City of Melville libraries to a radio frequency (RFID) stock control and security system, their previous security mechanism for audio visual material was offered to Fremantle. This will allow items to be secure on the open shelves and will result in more efficient workflows and faster customer service as people borrow them. The old wooden shelves housing current information reports and documents, was upgraded as part of a plan to introduce additional public access computers to the library. The library manager met with colleagues from other libraries in the South West Zone. Ideas canvassed included shared customer protocols and zone representation on the Public Libraries WA executive committee. The coffee cart that had become very popular in the library was withdrawn following a change in personnel availability for the company that provided the service. Staff Following the Public Libraries WA conference earlier in the year, an all staff workshop on library futures was held to explore and develop some of the inspiring ideas presented at the conference’. This workshop has resulted in an internal project plan that will allow development of improved services at Fremantle. An internal review of work practices and procedures was undertaken resulting in some significant change to behind the scenes workflows and customer service provision. Most notable was the introduction of ‘roaming customer service’ which provides a staff member who can be available for customer assistance on the floor, rather than requiring people to approach the service desk.


25 November 2015

Page 38

All staff completed training in dealing with aggressive customers. Four senior positions were recruited during the quarter following the completion of temporary contracts, resignation and a request for extended leave. New appointees are now in place for: Librarian Acquisitions and Programs, Project Officer Children and Young People, Library Operations Supervisor and Assistant Librarian Local History. Library Board of WA The City was advised of the ministerial decision regarding its representative on the Library Board of WA following the submission of three potential candidate names. Congratulations go to Helen Ayers who will represent the City on the Board for the next four years. Helen is a member of the Library Advisory Committee and an active library member who is strong in her support for public libraries. State issues Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) State Council endorsed a consultant report on the Vision 2025 for public libraries produced by a review of public library operations and governance. Their summary is:

‘WALGA has undertaken comprehensive review of the public library service delivery in Western Australia, both as they currently stand and how they may evolve over the next 10 years.

WALGA appointed the AEC Group, to lead extensive consultation with Local Government Elected Members, Chief Executive Officers, Librarians and other key stakeholders to develop a vision for public libraries in 2025.

The development of the Vision for Public Libraries in 2025 and Framework for Strategic Action for Public Library Services in Western Australia is underpinned by the Public Library Services in Western Australia in 2025 Research and Consultation Findings Report. Together these provide the policy context for the current and future role of Local Government in the provision of public library services.’

The recommendations were:

1. ‘That:

a. The Vision 2025 and Framework for Strategic Action for Public Library Services in Western Australia be endorsed.

b. WALGA seeks the Minister for Culture and Arts and Minister for Local Government

and Communities’ support for:

i. the Vision 2025 and Framework for Strategic Action for Public Library Services in Western Australia;

ii. development of a Public Libraries 2025 Strategic Plan; and iii. the establishment of a Public Libraries Taskforce, as a matter of priority, to

lead the development and implementation of the strategic plan.


25 November 2015

Page 39

2. That WALGA coordinate and conduct a second phase of research to further develop the strategies and actions outlined in the Framework for Strategic Action and identify the legislative, funding and service models required to achieve the Vision 2025. ‘ The City has participated in the consultation and research process at every opportunity and the recommendations are supported. It is considered that clear time frames need to be in place for actions and outcomes, given the number of years this process has been discussed at all government levels, and that Vision 2025 has not been the first consultation process to recommend changes to the public library services provision model and governance. Short term resolution of some core operational processes required by State Government, that are unproductive and labour intensive for many public libraries would enable increased service levels, more customer focussed use of staff time, and also clear the way for improved acceptance and adoption of strategic change. The proposed Public Libraries Taskforce membership is suggested as ‘Directors General from the Department of Culture and the Arts Department of Education, Department of Local Government and Communities and the Department for Regional Development would be represented on the Taskforce. Other members also could include early year’s literacy leaders, private sector and not for profit organisations that invest in public library services.’


Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The July to September quarter was another busy quarter for the library, with a number of initiatives and projects undertaken to improve customer service and streamline workflows. Strategic projects such as Vision 2025 offer exciting possibilities for public library futures


25 November 2015

Page 40


Nil


Nil


Information only no decision required.


That the information be received.


MOVED: Cr David Hume 1. That the information be received. 2. a) That Council request WALGA support for inclusion of Local

Government representation on the Public Libraries Taskforce.

b) That the City seek the support of other South West Zone Council members in attaining Local Government representation on the Public Libraries Taskforce.


For Against



25 November 2015

Page 41

LAC1511-3 TOY LIBRARY QUARTERLY REPORT JULY - SEPTEMBER 2015

DataWorks Reference: 023/013 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 11 November 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Julie Caddy, Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A summary of the operation and performance of the Fremantle Toy Library for the quarter is provided.

BACKGROUND

The Fremantle Toy Library is jointly funded by the City of Fremantle and Town of East Fremantle and a quarterly report is presented to the two Councils.

COMMENT

Membership

Fremantle Residents

East Fremantle Residents

Total

Individuals 780 94 874

Families 536 76 612

New Members

Fremantle Residents


Total

42 6 48

Deleted Members


Fremantle Residents

Total

9 38 68

Visitors

July 665

August 625

September 576

Loans


25 November 2015

Page 42

East Fremantle residents

Fremantle residents

Total

Toys

188 1973 2161

Books

48 1823 1871

Audio Visual Items

2 173 175

Total

238 3969 4207

Income

6 month concession

12 month concession

6 month full fees

12 month full fees

Party hire

Total

July $0 $170.00 $649.00 $1,202.00 $90.00 $2111.00

August $0 $87.50 $864.50 $1115.00 $0 $2067.00

September $0 $87.50 $598.00 $892.00 $49.00 $1627.00

The Toy Library party hire equipment was hired for a children’s party in the adjoining Progress Hall. Fundraiser Christmas toy catalogues were very popular with members, many of whom made purchases and appreciated prompt delivery from the company. The Toy Library will benefit from this promotion with the capacity to acquire complimentary toys based on total sales. The assistance of the Toy Library volunteers was very much appreciated with the new stock purchased during the quarter. Their help in assembling ,and labelling new toys enabled these to be available for loan in a relatively short time. This quarterly story time to celebrate Children’s Book Week was a huge success with a total of 30 children and19 adults attending. Most of the children were dressed in costume, some from the Toy Library’s range of book themed costumes. The Hilton playgroup brought a group of children to the session. The day was very successful, and the atmosphere was incredible with a lot of happy participants! The outside toys are now being borrowed again, relieving some of the space pressure due to congestion. Thanks to the warmer weather and lovely sunny days, more members are taking advantage of the weather and playing outside. Formal advice was received from the Department of Social Services that the Toy Library Grant, provided under a Budget Based Funding program, will not be continued into the future following a review of that program. A meeting with the Department has been requested to discuss possible alternative funding options and a report will be provided on the outcomes of that discussion.


25 November 2015

Page 43


Financial

Grant funding loss potential. Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The Toy Library continues to be well appreciated and used by the community. The advice of funding loss is of concern and will be followed up.


Nil


Nil


Information only no decision required.


That the information be received.


MOVED: Cr David Hume 1. That the City expresses concern regarding loss of Federal funding and

potential impact on the viability of the service. 2. That the City explores alternate funding options to support the Toy Library

operation. SECONDED: Cr D Thompson


25 November 2015

Page 44

CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



25 November 2015

Page 45

SPECIAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE 11 NOVEMBER 2015

SPC1511-1 FINAL ADOPTION REPORT - AMENDMENT 66

DataWorks Reference: 218/073 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 11 November 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: SPC1505-2 (27 May 2015)

SPC1505-2 (13 May 2015) SPC1403-47 (26 March 2015) SPC1409-03 (24 September 2014) PSC 1403-47 (26 March 2014)

Attachments: 1 – Report to Ordinary Council Meeting SPC1505-2 (27 May 2015) 2 – Scheme Amendment Report 3 – Schedule of Submissions 4 – Submission on behalf of the owners of 69 South Street


25 November 2015

Page 46

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Proposed scheme amendment 66 (Change to the residential density and modification to the associated development controls to part of the Local Centre and Mixed Use zones on Hampton Road, South Fremantle) was initiated by Council for public consultation in May 2015. The purpose of this item is to report on the submissions received during the consultation period, and to recommend that Council adopt the amendment without modification. Scheme amendment 66 introduces new provisions to Schedule 12 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) that provide for higher density development coding to specific sites on the western side of Hampton Road, at the South Street intersection. The amendment increases the density coding of Local Centre and Mixed Use zoned properties within the amendment area from R25 and R30 to R80 and provides for an increase in maximum building height from 7.0m (external wall height) to 15.0m (overall building height). A minimum building height of 7.0m to street boundaries is also proposed. The City received a number of submissions during the public consultation period. Concerns raised in the submissions relate to building height and density, vehicle traffic and parking. The City also received a submission from a representative of the owner of a property at the south-eastern corner of South Street and Hampton Road. The submission requests inclusion in the amendment area for a number of reasons. Officers do not support the inclusion of the additional site as a modification to the amendment, primarily because of its limited size and the existence of a heritage listed place on part of the site. It is recommended that the Council adopts the amendment without modification. BACKGROUND

During 2014 the City undertook a review of land adjoining and near to South Street to identify potential opportunities for higher density development. South Street has been identified as an important transport corridor connecting a number of employment and service areas between Fremantle and Murdoch. At its Ordinary Council Meeting of 26 March 2014 (refer to PSC1403-47) Council adopted an initiative to amend LPS4 to provide for higher density development along South Street. Subsequently a number of specific areas adjoining South Street were identified, which were formally considered in a report to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 24 September 2014. One of these areas was land on the west side of the Hampton Road/South Street intersection. At its meeting of 27 May 2015 (see Attachment 1), the Council resolved to adopt scheme amendment 66 for public advertising. The amendment relates to the location referred to above.


25 November 2015

Page 47

The advertising period for the amendment concluded on 12 October 2015. The scheme amendment is now presented to Council for final adoption. DETAIL Scheme amendment 66 proposes modification to a number of existing built form controls to Local Centre and Mixed Use zoned sites on the western side of Hampton Road including;

A maximum building height of 15.0m above natural ground level – increased from a current limit of 7.0m (wall height);

A minimum building height of 7.0m with activated facades and uses to the ground and first floor;

A street setback of between a zero setback and 2.0m;

Vehicle access being restricted to a maximum of 4.0m wide;

Access to certain lots fronting Hampton Road being limited and restricted to certain locations;

The need for buildings to incorporate active ground floor frontages to Hampton Road and South Street; and,

Criteria specifying a minimum ground floor plate height (4.0m) and floor level (not more than 600mm above the adjacent footpath) to ensure pedestrian amenity and scale at footpath level and to ensure suitability for active non-residential ground floor uses.

A full description of all proposed provisions is included in Attachment 2 of this report. CONSULTATION

The amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for confirmation that a formal environmental assessment was not required, in accordance with section 82 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. Written advice was received from the EPA on 27 July 2015 confirming that no assessment was required. Community consultation was undertaken from 24 August 2015 to 12 October 2015 – 45 days in total. Advertising consisted of:

Public advertising notices in the Fremantle Gazette local newspaper – 25 & 29 August 2015;

Preparation of an ‘information sheet’ made available with the public inspection of the amendment documents;

Notice being placed on the City of Fremantle website for the duration of consultation period;

Notification of the amendment in the public area of City of Fremantle administration building;

Letters of notification and inviting comment on the proposal to various service agencies and government organisations; and,

Letters of notification and inviting comment to all precinct groups and to all landowners and tenants within 100m of the sites affected by the amendment.


25 November 2015

Page 48

A total of 22 submissions were received at the close of the consultation period. 10 of the submissions were supportive, raised no objection or expressed conditional support to the proposed amendment, while 12 submissions provided clear objections. The comments raised by the objectors are summarised as follows:

The proposed height limit will result in buildings up to 5 storeys in height. This is inconsistent with local character;

The amendment will allow for higher density development that will increase traffic and result in more congestion;

The amendment will result in redevelopment of sites in the area which will remove the current availability of parking for members of the public.

Attachment 3 (Schedule of Submissions) provides a full list of the submissions with officer comments in response. Following the conclusion of the advertising period, the City received a submission from a planning consultant on behalf of the owners of No. 69 South Street, Beaconsfield. The submission is included in this report at Attachment 4 and seeks to include lots 16, 17 and 18 (Volume: 223, Folio: 61A on Diagram 286) in the amendment (the additional site). PLANNING COMMENT

South Street transit corridor & planning review During 2014 the City identified the opportunity for higher density mixed use and residential development along South Street, one of the City’s key public transport routes. The rationale for the initiative was based upon a number of State Government planning and transport strategies. Further consideration of the applicable strategies is made in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of Attachment 1. The City reviewed the South Street area and identified the land on the western side of Hampton Road, near to the intersection with South Street, South Fremantle, as being suitable for higher density development. Western side of the South Street and Hampton Road, South Fremantle intersection The Hampton Road and South Street intersection (refer Figure 1 below) consist of a small commercial precinct, 1 kilometre from the Fremantle City Centre. The precinct was identified as a suitable location to accommodate more intensive redevelopment, given the area’s appropriate zoning under the MRS and LPS4, relatively large lot sizes, well serviced existing development, surrounding level of amenity and location on the South Street transit corridor. Development height A number of submissions received by the City noted the potential impact on local amenity arising from the proposed height of buildings. Some submissions note the potential for a five storey development. Having regard to the 4.0m ground floor plate height requirement, it is considered that the most likely development outcome would be a four storey building (owing to the remaining


25 November 2015

Page 49

11.0m of building height potential being divided into three storeys). The proposed 15.0m maximum building height and four storey development potential is considered to accord with the City’s original intent to allow for higher density development at a scale complimentary to the existing smaller scale, mostly residential development nearby to the scheme amendment area. It is noted that the draft scheme amendment as originally proposed to Council set a maximum height of 12.0m; the Council resolved to adopt a 15.0m maximum height. Vehicle parking A number of submissions received by the City raised concern about the potential impact on the availability of vehicle parking in the area. Specific concern was raised about the potential loss of informal parking at the current Shell Petrol Station site (No. 101, Lot 21, Hampton Road). It is recognised that redevelopment of sites within the scheme amendment area may reduce the availability of ‘off-site’ parking on private land that is currently available to some occupants of premises in the area on an informal basis. Preserving this existing situation is not considered to be within the scope of this amendment, or the control of the City, given the arrangements could be halted by landowners at any time in the future. The provision of on-site vehicle parking, more generally, is a matter of assessment at the point of a development application; and the particular circumstances of the precinct are to be assessed at such a time, having regard to changes over time. It is anticipated that the scheme amendment will result in the creation of substantially more on-site vehicle parking within the precinct, albeit as a result of a coincidental intensification of activity. Submission on behalf of the owners of No. 69 South Street Following the public consultation period, the City received a submission on behalf of the landowners of the additional site seeking inclusion in the amendment (see Attachment 4). The area forming the additional site is depicted in the figure below; edged yellow.


25 November 2015

Page 50

The current amendment area shown in red with the additional sites shown in yellow.

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 24 September 2014, the City identified a number of considerations in considering the various amendments adjoining the South Street transport corridor. The table below summarises these considerations and specifies how the additional site addresses these elements.

Matter Officers response

Appropriate zoning under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and LPS4

The additional site is zoned Urban under the MRS and Mixed Use under LPS4. Sites already included in the amendment area attract this zoning.

Large development area (+1000m2)

The additional site measures 614m2 across 3 lots.

Access to alternative roads to South Street

The additional site has access to Hampton Road and a rear right of way from South Street.

Development of an area that would have limited impact on surrounding low density residential dwellings.

The characteristics of the additional site are considered very similar to other sites already included in the amendment area.

Sufficient services in the area to support increased density.

The characteristics of the additional site are considered very similar to other sites already included in the amendment area.

Identified heritage listing constraints which would encroach upon comprehensive development.

The additional site is heritage listed but has external areas that may allow for development to be integrated into the heritage place.

On balance, the additional site is not considered by officers to sufficiently meet the characteristics identified earlier by the City largely on the basis of the limited lot size, the


25 November 2015

Page 51

fact the site contains a heritage listed place and the direct southern interface with a residential zoned lot. On the basis of the above, it is not considered appropriate to include the additional site in the amendment area. It is noted that in August 2014 scheme amendment 53 was gazetted which rezoned the additional site from ‘Residential R25’ to ‘Mixed Use R25’. This zoning allows for a density increase, up to the R60 density code, pursuant to clause 5.2.5 of LPS4 where a ‘mixed use development’ is proposed. This development potential is considered generally equivalent to that proposed in the amendment, being a density of R80 with provisions for active ground floor uses. As has been demonstrated in a number of development approvals granted by the City, the prevailing 7.0m external wall height limit that applies to this site can result in a mixed use development of two storeys with a loft third storey. This form of development is considered compatible with the likely four storey potential specified in the scheme amendment and with the smaller scale residential development directly adjacent to No. 69 South Street. For the reasons specified above, the inclusion of the additional site into the amendment area is not recommended. It is also the view of officers that inclusion of the additional site would not constitute a minor modification to the scheme amendment. This view is based on the following reasons:

The additional site is isolated from the rest of the amendment area by Hampton Road;

This separation may have also contributed to the nature of submissions received from landowners/submitters on the eastern side of Hampton Road;

Inclusion of the site may require additional specific provisions relating to height, setbacks and the interface with the surrounding low density residential area which have not been fully considered by the City.

Consequently the scheme amendment would require re-advertising if it was to be modified to include the additional site. Amendment process On 19 October 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 came into effect, replacing certain process provisions under the City’s LPS4. This includes provisions relating to scheme amendments. The Regulations apply a tiered approach to scheme amendments; basic, standard and complex amendments. This scheme amendment is considered to be a ‘standard’ amendment, because it matches key characteristics described in the definition of a standard amendment in the new Regulations as follows:

Amendment provisions are consistent with the objectives in the scheme for the zoning applying to the area subject to the amendment;

Minimal impact on land outside the area the subject of the amendment;

Amendment does not have any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts.


25 November 2015

Page 52

The City has followed a process to date that reflects the process now applicable to a standard amendment (including advertising and consultation requirements). CONCLUSION Scheme amendment 66 has been prepared to allow for higher density development on land on the western side of the Hampton Road and South Street intersection. The amendment provides for development up to 15.0m and applies a density code of R80. The amendment also includes new provisions to be included in Schedule 12 of LPS4 that ensure minimum building heights at street frontages and the provision of active uses to lower and ground levels fronting streets. Following the public consultation period, the City received a submission on behalf of the landowners of an additional site on the east side of Hampton Road seeking inclusion in the amendment. It is not recommended that the additional site be included for the reasons set out earlier in this report. It is recommended the amendment be adopted as originally recommended. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That Council – 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

Attachment 3; 2. Resolve pursuant to regulation 50(3) of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, to adopt the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4;

a) As shown on the map below, amend the Scheme map to apply a

residential density coding of R80 to 95 (Lot 14), 97 (Lot 15), 99 (Lots 16 & 17) and 101 (Lot 22), 103 (Lot 400), 109A (Lot 1) and 109B (Lot 2) Hampton Road, South Fremantle


25 November 2015

Page 53

b) Inset title ‘4.3 Specific Development Controls for Sub Areas’ within Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle.

c) Insert an amended map of Sub Area 4.3.3 as shown below into Schedule

12: Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle as a result of the removal of properties at 95, 97, 99, 101, 103 and 105B Hampton Road from Sub Area 4.3.3 and there inclusion in a new Sub Area 4.3.6.


25 November 2015

Page 54

d) Insert new Sub Area 4.3.6 below, into Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle.

Sub Area 4.3.6

1. Within Sub area 4.3.6 provisions of clause 5.2.5 do not apply.

Building Height and Setbacks -

2. Clause 4.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height

controls’ does not apply to Sub Area 4.3.6.

Building height shall be limited to a minimum of 7 metres with two levels of active building use and a maximum of 15 metres as measured from ground level.

3. A minimum street setback of nil and a maximum street setback of 2 metres to

Hampton Road and South Street, South Fremantle.

4. Buildings setback from boundaries or adjacent buildings may be reduced to 1 metre except where the building adjoins No 63-65 (Lots 1 and 2) South Street, and No 111 and 111A (Lots 1 and 2) Hampton Road, South Fremantle. Development adjoining these properties must be in accordance with the Residential Design Codes.

Vehicle Access -

5. Vehicle parking shall only be provided at the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.


25 November 2015

Page 55

6. Vehicular access points must be no more than 4 metres in width.

7. Vehicular access shall be coordinated for No 99 (Lots 16 and 17) order to limit the number of crossovers to one along Hampton Road.

8. No 97 (Lot 15) South Street is required to locate its vehicular access point on the southern boundary.

Other Development Standards -

9. Buildings shall incorporate active ground level frontages to Hampton Road

and South Street.

10. Open space can be reduced up to 30% where development respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

3. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant

documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

4. Request the Minister for Planning to grant final consent to Scheme

Amendment No. 66 as referred to in (2) above.

5. Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that pursuant to the Planning and Development Regulations (Local Planning Schemes) 2015, the amendment hereby submitted is considered to be a ‘standard amendment’ for the purpose of the regulations.

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording to part 2 and Clause 4.2: 2. Resolve pursuant to regulation 50(3) of the Planning and Development

(Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, to adopt with minor modification the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning scheme No. 4:




Building height shall be limited to a minimum of 7 metres with two levels of active building use and a maximum of 15 metres as measured from ground level, except on No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road where the maximum building height permitted shall be as follows:

i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the western lot

boundary adjoining No. 70 South Street;

ii. 10 metres on the part of the lot within 15 metres but more than 5 metres

from the western lot boundary adjoining No. 70 South Street; and

iii. 15 metres on all parts of the lot other than the parts referred to in (i) and

(ii) above.


25 November 2015

Page 56

CARRIED: 13/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeffery McDonald

Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording to condition 3: 3. A minimum street setback of 2 and a maximum street setback of 3 metres to

Hampton Road and South Street, South Fremantle. CARRIED: 13/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeffery McDonald


25 November 2015

Page 57

COMMITTEE DECISION

That Council – 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and Attachment 3; 2. Resolve pursuant to regulation 50(3) of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, to adopt with minor modification the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4;

a) As shown on the map below, amend the Scheme map to apply a residential

density coding of R80 to 95 (Lot 14), 97 (Lot 15), 99 (Lots 16 & 17) and 101 (Lot 22), 103 (Lot 400), 109A (Lot 1) and 109B (Lot 2) Hampton Road, South Fremantle

b) Inset title ‘4.3 Specific Development Controls for Sub Areas’ within Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle.

c) Insert an amended map of Sub Area 4.3.3 as shown below into Schedule 12:

Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle as a result of the removal of properties at 95, 97, 99, 101, 103 and 105B Hampton Road from Sub Area 4.3.3 and there inclusion in a new Sub Area 4.3.6.


25 November 2015

Page 58

d) Insert new Sub Area 4.3.6 below, into Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 4 –

South Fremantle.

Sub Area 4.3.6



25 November 2015

Page 59




Building height shall be limited to a minimum of 7 metres with two levels of active building use and a maximum of 15 metres as measured from ground level, except on No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road where the maximum building height permitted shall be as follows:

i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the western lot

boundary adjoining No. 70 South Street;

ii. 10 metres on the part of the lot within 15 metres but more than 5 metres

from the western lot boundary adjoining No. 70 South Street; and

iii. 15 metres on all parts of the lot other than the parts referred to in (i) and

(ii) above.

3. A minimum street setback of 2 and a maximum street setback of 3 metres to

Hampton Road and South Street, South Fremantle. 4. Buildings setback from boundaries or adjacent buildings may be reduced to 1

metre except where the building adjoins No 63-65 (Lots 1 and 2) South Street, and No 111 and 111A (Lots 1 and 2) Hampton Road, South Fremantle. Development adjoining these properties must be in accordance with the Residential Design Codes.

Vehicle Access -

5. Vehicle parking shall only be provided at the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.

6. Vehicular access points must be no more than 4 metres in width. 7. Vehicular access shall be coordinated for No 99 (Lots 16 and 17) order to limit the

number of crossovers to one along Hampton Road. 8. No 97 (Lot 15) South Street is required to locate its vehicular access point on the

southern boundary.


9. Buildings shall incorporate active ground level frontages to Hampton Road and South Street.

10. Open space can be reduced up to 30% where development respects the existing

or preferred neighbourhood character.

3. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant

documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

4. Request the Minister for Planning to grant final consent to Scheme Amendment

No. 66 as referred to in (2) above.


25 November 2015

Page 60

5. Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that pursuant to the Planning and Development Regulations (Local Planning Schemes) 2015, the amendment hereby submitted is considered to be a ‘standard amendment’ for the purpose of the regulations.

AMENDED OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Council –

1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and Attachment 3;

2. Resolve pursuant to regulation 51 of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to advertise modifications to Amendment No. 66 to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as follows prior to consideration of the amendment for final adoption:

a) As shown on the map below, amend the Scheme map to apply a

residential density coding of R80 to 95 (Lot 14), 97 (Lot 15), 99 (Lots 16 and 17) and 101 (Lot 22), 103 (Lot 400), 109A (Lot 1) and 109B (Lot 2) Hampton Road, and 61 (Lot 6), 63-65 (Lots 1 and 2) South Street and 69 South Street/146-148 Hampton Road (Lots 16, 17 and 18), South Fremantle;

b) Insert title ‘4.3 Specific Development Controls for Sub Areas’ within Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle.

c) Insert an amended map of Sub Area 4.3.3 as shown below into Schedule

12: Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle as a result of the removal of properties at 95, 97, 99, 101, 103 and 105B Hampton Road and 61 (Lot 6),


25 November 2015

Page 61

and 63-65 (Lots 1 and 2) South Street from Sub Area 4.3.3 and their inclusion in a new Sub Area 4.3.6.

d) Insert new Sub Area 4.3.6 below, into Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle.


25 November 2015

Page 62

Sub Area 4.3.6



2. Clause 4.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height controls’ does not apply to Sub Area 4.3.6.

3. Building height shall be limited to a minimum of 7 metres with two

levels of active building use and a maximum of 15 metres as measured from ground level, except for No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road, 61 (Lot 6), 63-65 (Lots 1 and 2) South Street and 69 South Street/146-148 Hampton Road (Lots 16, 17 and 18), where the maximum building height permitted shall be as specified in the table below:

Property address Maximum building height

No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the western lot boundary adjoining No. 70 South


25 November 2015

Page 63

Street; ii. 10 metres on the part of the

lot within 15 metres but more than 5 metres from the western lot boundary adjoining No. 70 South Street; and

iii. 15 metres on all parts of the lot other than the parts referred to in (i) and (ii) above.

No. 61 (Lot 6) South Street i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the western lot boundary adjoining No. 59 South Street;

ii. 10 metres on the part of the lot within 15 metres but more than 5 metres from the western lot boundary adjoining No. 59 South Street; and

iii. 15 metres on all parts of the lot other than the parts referred to in (i) and (ii) above.

No. 63-65 (Lots 1 and 2) South Street

15 metres on all parts of both lots

No. 69 South Street/146-148 Hampton Road (Lots 16, 17 and 18)

i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the southern lot boundary adjoining No. 150 Hampton Road;

ii. 12 metres on all parts of the lot other than the parts referred to in (i) above.

4. A minimum street setback of 2 metres and a maximum street

setback of 3 metres to Hampton Road and South Street, South Fremantle.

5. Buildings setback from boundaries or adjacent buildings may be

reduced to 1 metre except where the building adjoins No 59 (Lot 5) South Street, and No 111 and 111A (Lots 1 and 2) Hampton Road, South Fremantle. Development adjoining these properties must be in accordance with the Residential Design Codes.

Vehicle Access -


25 November 2015

Page 64

6. Vehicle parking shall only be provided at the rear of buildings and /

or below ground level.


8. Vehicular access shall be coordinated for No 99 (Lots 16 and 17) order to limit the number of crossovers to one along Hampton Road.

9. No 97 (Lot 15) South Street is required to locate its vehicular access

point on the southern boundary. Other Development Standards -

10. Buildings shall incorporate active ground level frontages to Hampton Road and South Street.

11. Open space can be reduced up to 30% where development respects

the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

12. In the part of all development with frontage to Hampton Road and/or South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

Cr J Strachan MOVED an amendment to the Amended Officer’s Recommendation to include the following wording: To delete Part 3 of Amended Officer’s Recommendation “ No 69 South Street/146-148 Hampton Road 9Lots 16,17 and 18)” only. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright LOST: 1/10

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan


25 November 2015

Page 65

Cr A Sullivan MOVED a minor amendment to Part 2 d of the Amended Officer's Recommendation as shown in bold and italics:





3. Building height shall be limited to a minimum of 7 metres with two levels of

active building use and a maximum of 15 metres as measured from ground

level, except for No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road, 61 (Lot 6), 63-65 (Lots 1 and

2) South Street and 69 South Street/146-148 Hampton Road (Lots 16, 17 and

18), where the maximum building height permitted shall be as specified in the

table below:


No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road iv. 7 metres on the part of the lot

within 5 metres of the

western lot boundary

adjoining No. 70 South

Street;

v. 10 metres on the part of the

lot within 15 metres but more

than 5 metres from the



Street; and

vi. 15 metres on all parts of the

lot other than the parts

referred to in (i) and (ii)

above.

No. 61 (Lot 6) South Street iv. 7 metres on the part of the lot



adjoining No. 59 South Street

and/or within 5 metres of the

southern lot boundary

adjoining No. 2 Lilly Street;

v. 10 metres on the part of the



25 November 2015

Page 66







and

vi. 15 metres on all parts of the



above.


i. 7 metres on the part of the lot



adjoining No. 111 and 111A

Hampton Road;

ii. 10 metres on the part of the





Hampton Road; and

iii. 15 metres on all parts of the



above.




4. A minimum street setback of 2 metres and a maximum street setback of 3

metres to Hampton Road and South Street, South Fremantle, in all locations

except for the following: (i) No. 61 (Lot 6) South Street where the minimum

street setback shall be 2 metres and the minimum average street setback shall

be 5 metres; and (ii) the part of No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road at the junction

of the lot boundaries to Hampton Road and South Street where the street

setback shall be a 10 metre x 10 metre truncation. In all locations the

applicable setback shall apply to all parts of any development including

basements and external balconies.


25 November 2015

Page 67

5. Buildings setback from boundaries or adjacent buildings may be reduced to 1

metre except where the building adjoins No 59 (Lot 5) South Street, and No

111 and 111A (Lots 1 and 2) Hampton Road, South Fremantle. Development

adjoining these properties must be in accordance with the Residential Design

Codes.

Vehicle Access -

6. Vehicle parking shall only be provided at the rear of buildings and / or below

ground level.


8. Vehicular access shall be coordinated for No 99 (Lots 16 and 17) order to limit

the number of crossovers to one along Hampton Road.

9. No 97 (Lot 15) South Street is required to locate its vehicular access point on

the southern boundary.



and South Street.

11. Open space can be reduced up to 30% where development respects the

existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

12. In the part of all development with frontage to Hampton Road and/or South

Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level

of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres

above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

13. Notwithstanding the Deemed-to-comply provisions of Parts 5.4.2 and 6.4.2

(Solar access for adjoining sites) of the Residential Design Codes, the local

government shall assess whether a development complies with the Design

Principles of those parts of the Residential Design Codes on the same basis,

irrespective of whether any dwelling on an adjoining property is defined in the

Scheme and/or Residential Design Codes as a Single House or a Grouped

Dwelling.



25 November 2015

Page 68

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The provision to progressively graduate the change in building scale to lessen the impact of new development on adjacent properties outside the scheme amendment area should apply to No’s. 2 Lily Street and 111 and 111A Hampton Road as well as the properties already referred to in the maximum building height table in the recommendation. An amended setback requirement on the corner of the lot at No. 101 Hampton Road to increase the setback in this location would secure an improved urban design outcome. Similarly the minimum setback to the front of No. 61 South Street should allow for averaging of the setback to graduate the difference in street setbacks between the existing house at No. 59 South Street (7m setback) and new development to the east which may have a minimum 2m and maximum 3m setback. New provision no. 13 is intended to ensure that neighbouring properties are afforded the same consideration in the assessment of overshadowing impacts regardless of whether they are strata properties on a larger ‘parent’ lot or individual green title lots. The standard R-Codes Deemed-to-Comply provisions do not provide this equality. COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That Council –





3. Building height shall be limited to a minimum of 7 metres with two levels of

active building use and a maximum of 15 metres as measured from ground

level, except for No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road, 61 (Lot 6), 63-65 (Lots 1 and


25 November 2015

Page 69

2) South Street and 69 South Street/146-148 Hampton Road (Lots 16, 17 and

18), where the maximum building height permitted shall be as specified in the

table below:


No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road i. 7 metres on the part of the lot

within 5 metres of the western

lot boundary adjoining No. 70

South Street;






Street; and




above.

No. 61 (Lot 6) South Street i. 7 metres on the part of the lot















and




above.


i. 7 metres on the part of the lot


25 November 2015

Page 70




Hampton Road;






Hampton Road; and




above.




4. A minimum street setback of 2 metres and a maximum street setback of 3

metres to Hampton Road and South Street, South Fremantle, in all locations

except for the following: (i) No. 61 (Lot 6) South Street where the minimum

street setback shall be 2 metres and the minimum average street setback shall

be 5 metres; and (ii) the part of No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road at the junction

of the lot boundaries to Hampton Road and South Street where the street

setback shall be a 10 metre x 10 metre truncation. In all locations the

applicable setback shall apply to all parts of any development including

basements and external balconies.

5. Buildings setback from boundaries or adjacent buildings may be reduced to 1

metre except where the building adjoins No 59 (Lot 5) South Street, and No

111 and 111A (Lots 1 and 2) Hampton Road, South Fremantle. Development

adjoining these properties must be in accordance with the Residential Design

Codes.

Vehicle Access -

6. Vehicle parking shall only be provided at the rear of buildings and / or below

ground level.



25 November 2015

Page 71

8. Vehicular access shall be coordinated for No 99 (Lots 16 and 17) order to limit

the number of crossovers to one along Hampton Road.

9. No 97 (Lot 15) South Street is required to locate its vehicular access point on

the southern boundary.



and South Street.

11. Open space can be reduced up to 30% where development respects the

existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

12. In the part of all development with frontage to Hampton Road and/or South

Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level

of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres

above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

13. Notwithstanding the Deemed-to-comply provisions of Parts 5.4.2 and 6.4.2

(Solar access for adjoining sites) of the Residential Design Codes, the local

government shall assess whether a development complies with the Design

Principles of those parts of the Residential Design Codes on the same basis,

irrespective of whether any dwelling on an adjoining property is defined in the

Scheme and/or Residential Design Codes as a Single House or a Grouped

Dwelling.


For Against



25 November 2015

Page 72

At 7.26 pm Cr A Sullivan declared a impartiality interest in item number SPC1511-2 and stayed during discussion and voting of this item.

SPC1511-2 PRINCESS MAY PARK MASTERPLAN - ADOPTION OF FINAL PLAN

ECM Reference: 148/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Special Projects Committee 11 November 2015 Previous Item: SPC1507-3 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Urban Designer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Princess May Park Draft Masterplan Consultation

Report, 29 October 2015 2. Recommended Princess May Park Masterplan, dated 28 October 2015

PROJECT BACKGROUND At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 29 July 2015 it was agreed that the draft reviewed Princess May Park Masterplan (the masterplan) dated 09 July 2015 be released for public comment for a period of six (6) weeks and that the final masterplan, together with a report on the submissions received, be presented to the Special Projects Committee following the comment period. The comment period closed on 21 October 2015 and a report on the consultation process is attached and full copies of all submissions can be viewed by elected members in the councillors lounge. At the close of the comment period and there had been 262 visits to the masterplan on the ‘Have My Say’ website and 12 parties had engaged in the on-line comment forum. Seven (7) written submissions were also received and 23 people attended the open day held on site on 26 September 2015. The purpose of this report is to address the issues raised during the comment period and to recommend the final masterplan for adoption. KEY ISSUES Responses during the comment period indicate that there is significant community support for the proposals in the draft masterplan, however the following issues were raised:

The balance between paved and grassed/planted areas.

Provision of a new pedestrian entry and treatment of the boundary wall to the

north.

The addition of more recreation facilities.


25 November 2015

Page 73

Opportunities to improve connectivity and integration with key land uses,

particularly along Adelaide Street and Cantonment Street.

These issues have been addressed in a review of the draft masterplan and are

discussed in more detail below.

The Princess May Reserve (the reserve) is included on the State Register of Heritage Places and accordingly the draft masterplan was also referred to the State Heritage Office (SHO) for comment during the consultation period. The SHO subsequently advised that the draft masterplan “demonstrates a positive approach to enhancing the cultural significance of the place and is supported”. The balance between paved and grassed/planted areas The draft masterplan sought to achieve a balance between paved and planted areas that adequately accommodates:

Pathways for safe and universal pedestrian access into and across the reserve.

Grassed and planted areas for various active and passive recreation uses.

The activity spine to provide a major pedestrian link between the reserve’s buildings and associated activities and to accommodate the more intensive park activities such as al fresco dining and weekly markets, displays and other small cultural, entertainment and commercial events to aid the preservation and management of the grassed areas.

Pathways for maintenance vehicles and authorised event vehicles at controlled locations.

The masterplan proposals support the objectives of the draft Green Plan with regard to green space design and water security. It also supports the policies of the reserve’s conservation plan that promote a generally open setting and sparing use of planting to reflect the character of the reserve’s former schoolyard. Four (4) respondents requested that there should be more grass by reducing the extent of pathways and gravel paved areas and while there was significant support for the concept of the central activity spine, several submissions proposed that it be reduced in width, relocated or deleted. There was also one (1) response that the number of shade trees along the activity spine should be reduced to improve visibility to and from adjacent buildings. Accordingly, the paved areas proposed in the draft masterplan have been reviewed and refined where possible to maximise grassed and planted areas while still achieving the above objectives. Currently within the reserve there is approximately 4650sqm of planted and turfed areas. The draft plan reduced this to 4160sqm. Following the review, the recommended layout has increased the total planted area to 4790sqm. This has been achieved by reducing the extent of gravelled area within the north-east quadrant and by reducing the width of the east-west pedestrian paths adjacent to the former Fremantle Boys School building. The extent and location of the central activity spine was also reviewed, however it is considered that anything less than what is proposed would not be effective in protecting the grassed areas from deterioration. The spine needs to be an adequate width, location


25 November 2015

Page 74

and alignment to ensure that the major pedestrian and vehicle movements and events can be kept off grassed areas to enable maintenance of high quality turf. The spine also needs to be well shaded to make it comfortable and attractive as a high use location. As such it is proposed to delete two trees only, adjacent to Clancys where there is already sufficient shade from existing trees. The exact number and location of trees will be determined during the detailed design stage depending on the final tree species selected. It is therefore recommended that the draft masterplan be modified by:

Increasing grassed and planted areas; and

Deleting two trees proposed for the central activity spine adjacent to Clancys outdoor area.

Provision of a new pedestrian entry and treatment of the boundary wall to the north. The draft masterplan proposed two self-closing gates be installed to replace the existing fence grill at the reserve’s northern end. This is to provide more convenient, safe access into the reserve for pedestrians approaching from the north. While there is an existing gate in front of the former Princess May Girls School building, the new location would be more visible and better connected to the central pedestrian spine. There were five (5) comments relating to the proposed new pedestrian entries at the reserve’s northern end and/or the treatment of the boundary wall in that area. One (1) respondent did not support the new entries as they could be dangerous for children who may run out of the reserve and onto the roadway while another submission suggested a roadside guardrail adjacent to the entries to protect pedestrians at that location. There was also concern that the additional access would attract skateboarders to traverse the reserve via the central pedestrian spine. It is considered that a self-closing gate would provide a reasonable level of security for children playing in the area and one of the proposed gates has been removed as a consequence of the reduced extent of paving, as discussed above. With regard to the limestone wall one (1) respondent recommended that the entire wall along the Adelaide Street boundary should be removed to improve access into the reserve, while another recommended that the solid stone wall should be continued to replace the open section of fence at the wall’s northern end, and without the additional entries, so that a continuous wall envelopes the space. The original fabric of the limestone boundary wall is graded as having ‘exceptional significance’ in the reserve’s conservation plan and therefore removal of the wall cannot be supported from a conservation point of view. The wall also provides a unique sense of enclosure to this area of the reserve. The short length of metal grill fence where the new access is proposed provides a glimpse into the reserve for passers-by but does not significantly reduce the sense of refuge within the reserve. This section of metal fence also identifies where a section of original wall was removed as part of roadworks at some stage in the past. It is therefore recommended that the draft masterplan be modified by:


25 November 2015

Page 75

Retaining one self-closing gate proposed for the existing section of metal grill fence at the reserve’s northern end.

The current arrangement of stone wall and metal fence would remain. Additional recreation facilities and public amenities Respondents proposed a range of recreation facilities that could be provided within the reserve to attract a greater number and wider range of users. A number of these suggestions had been included in the draft masterplan, or will be addressed during the detailed design stage. These items include provision of 3-phase power and adequate power outlets for markets and events, a play area, drinking fountains, good lighting, seats and tables (incorporating chess boards). Other suggested facilities included an amphitheatre, skate park, half-court basketball court, volley ball and badminton nets, bocce pit, public BBQs, and a water feature in the play area. While some, or even all, of these types of facilities may be appropriate for an inner city park, it is considered that the open space available within the reserve is too limited to accommodate fixed recreation facilities other than for the proposed play area. The reserve is unique as it accommodates the three heritage buildings that occupy almost a third of the reserve and new active edges through planned development i.e. Doubletree Hilton. The masterplan aims to accommodate an increasing range of outdoor activities that will be generated by the uses within these buildings while also meeting the local needs for passive recreation and small community events. It is important to maintain the flexibility of the limited open space by providing a simple and uncluttered environment. The permanent location of any major fixed infrastructure in the reserve is not considered appropriate. One (1) respondent suggested an additional café in the reserve. This may be a possibility as a potential new use within the former Fremantle Boys School building, however this would be subject to a separate process that is planned to identify proposals for the future of the building. The possibility of free public wifi could also be pursued with current and future tenants within the reserve. Two (2) respondents requested the provision of public toilets, and in particular baby change facilities. Public toilets in the reserve were removed around 20 years ago. Presently users have access to toilets in the surrounding businesses, and options will increase through the planned development, however if a strong need is demonstrated an opportunity may exist to provide facilities as part of the future use of the former Fremantle Boys School building. Opportunities to improve connectivity and integration with key land uses, particularly along Adelaide Street and Cantonment Street. While generally supportive of the draft masterplan, one (1) written submission encouraged that consideration be given to better integration of the reserve with adjoining major land uses, in particular the Adelaide Street Shopping Plaza and the potential redevelopment of the Goldsborough Woolstores in Cantonment Street.


25 November 2015

Page 76

The submission proposed the addition of a new path diagonally across the south-east corner of the park to provide a more direct pedestrian connection between the Adelaide Street Shopping Plaza and the proposed Doubletree Hilton. The submission also recommends that the streetscapes of Adelaide and Cantonment Streets be upgraded to include safe and legible pedestrian connections between the park and these nearby major land uses, threshold treatments at appropriate locations and improved street furniture, paving and landscaping. While the need to improve pedestrian and visual connections between the reserve and adjoining land uses is strongly supported, officers consider it would be preferable to reinforce this connectivity outside the boundaries of the reserve by treatments in Adelaide and Cantonment Streets to avoid additional paths and paved areas within the reserve. The proposed network of paths within the reserve will provide a number of access locations which can be extended across Adelaide and Cantonment Streets to enhance pedestrian connectivity within the precinct. It is also considered important to maintain the orthogonal layout of paths and pedestrian areas within the park as a reference to the former schoolyard layout, rather than adding diagonal or curved paths. Therefore an additional diagonal pathway through the park is not supported. Adelaide Street and Point Street upgrades are identified in Freo 2029 Transformational Moves and confirmed as a high priority project in a presentation to the Special Projects Committee in September 2015. It is anticipated this work will be prepared early 2016 for consideration by Council and affected stakeholders. It will address the need to provide improved integration between Princess May Park and major nearby land uses. Implementation and estimated costs Funding has been provided in the 2015/16 budget for the preparation of detailed designs and documentation that will commence following adoption of a final masterplan. The estimated cost to implement the capital works proposed in the recommended final masterplan is in the order of $1.5 million. Implementation of the plan would be subject to the Council’s normal budget process, however it is recommended that the works be undertaken over the 2016/17 and 2017/18 budget years in order for the landscape improvements to be completed prior to the opening of the adjacent Point Street development.


Simple Majority


25 November 2015

Page 77

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That Council: 1. Note the report on community consultation on the draft Princess May Park

Masterplan. 2. Adopt the final Princess May Park Masterplan dated 28 October 2015. 3. Confirm funding of $1.5 million of municipal funds (split equally across

2016/17 and 2017/18 financial years) for the capital works to implement the adopted Princess May Park Masterplan as part of the preparation of budgets for 2016/17 and 2017/18.


For Against



25 November 2015

Page 78

SPC1511-3 KNUTSFORD STREET DEPOT REDEVELOPMENT - TRUNK SERVICES COST SHARING PROPOSAL

ECM Reference: 115/084 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: SPC 11 November 2015; Council 25 November 2015 Previous Item: PSC 1106 -117 22 June 2011 Responsible Officer: Paul Garbett, Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Louise Ainsworth, Senior Strategic Projects Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Plan of precincts and land ownership

2. Summary of servicing requirements and cost estimates 3. Sketch plans of service upgrade works

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 27 February 2008 Council resolved to adopt the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan as a guiding document to facilitate redevelopment within the designated area. Various options for sharing the costs of upgrades to infrastructure (trunk services) to support redevelopment were subsequently explored with landowners across the 5 precincts however LandCorp is the only owner willing to enter into a cost sharing arrangement. On 10 July 2015, LandCorp wrote to the City with a formal cost sharing proposal. Council is requested to authorise the CEO to finalise arrangements for the City to enter into a cost sharing agreement with LandCorp whereby key trunk service costs are shared pro-rata based on land area (City 62.47% LandCorp 37.53%) and project management and Knutsford St road and drainage costs would be shared 50/50. Timing and work packaging would be agreed under the authority of the CEO. PROJECT BACKGROUND On 27 February 2008 Council resolved to adopt the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan as a guiding document to facilitate redevelopment within the designated area. The structure plan broadly identifies overall development intentions across 5 precincts (Refer Attachment 1) including built form, building heights, residential density and land use. The structure plan also identifies in general terms the services and infrastructure requiring upgrading in order to support more intensive infill development. On 23 September 2009 Council considered a report on the general principles and scope of infrastructure works to be included in a developer contribution plan for the key precincts in the Structure Plan area. More detailed scope and cost estimates were presented to the Planning Services Committee on 4 August 2010. The Committee resolved that the City should consult with landowners on the scope and cost apportionment arrangements. Consultation occurred in September and October 2010. A series of meetings were held with landowners and owners were also invited to submit written comments. Owners of


25 November 2015

Page 79

the larger lots (north end of precinct 5 /parcel 1 on the diagram below) and precinct 2/parcel 3 (LandCorp) supported the principle of a developer contribution scheme although they opposed some components relating to public open space and drainage. Owners of smaller parcels were opposed in principle to the inclusion of their land in such a scheme.

Knutsford St Land Parcels While some degree of disagreement would not have been unexpected, the extent of opposition called into question the value of proceeding. As a result on 22 June 2011 Council resolved not to proceed with the formulation of development contribution provisions for the whole of the development area. Instead it resolved to proceed with an alternative approach of providing upgraded infrastructure to service only parcels 1 to 4 in the diagram above by means of a voluntary legal agreement between the owners of the land. The resolution instructed officers to undertake further discussion and to report back on the outcomes. Pursuant to the 2011 Council resolution, City officers contacted the owners. The owners of parcels 1 & 2 advised they were not prepared to participate in a cost sharing arrangement as they had no near term plans for redevelopment. LandCorp (parcel 3) was the only owner willing to proceed with the proposal. As a result the City and LandCorp have proceeded to identify infrastructure requirements, assess costs and discuss the principles of a cost sharing agreement. Initial explorations identified the upgrades required were potentially very expensive, particularly a requirement from the Water Corporation for a significant upgrade to the mains sewer right back to Marmion Avenue.

OFFICER COMMENT

In 2010 the City commissioned a report to identify the requirements for the construction of a potential new depot facility to replace the existing City Works depot in Knutsford Street. A site for a new depot was identified in Jones St, O’Connor and the City has now acquired the site and appointed architects. Operations are expected to be transferred to the new site early in 2017 and so it is now timely to resolve the servicing issues ready for re-development of the Knutsford Street site.


25 November 2015

Page 80

With relocation of the Council depot to O'Connor there is an opportunity to make better use of a council asset in a prime location i.e. the existing City Works depot in Knutsford Street. The Knutsford St East Structure Plan allows for a change of use and redevelopment from industrial to residential with some local commercial ‘mixed use’ elements. The potential sale of the site also provides an opportunity to see a return that contributes to meeting the cost of the new depot. A core objective of the City is to use more sustainable development approaches, including carbon neutral service technologies, to develop the site. It was suggested that using alternative or off grid technologies might help to avert (some of) the trunk service costs. The City has been working with LandCorp to explore ways to do this. However work by City-commissioned consultants GHD advised that although alternative technologies may be integrated into new development and offer benefits in terms of reduced energy and water consumption and carbon emissions from occupation of a completed development, even with the use of such technologies connections to mains were needed for resilience reasons (i.e. as back-up), and to meet statutory agency requirements. For example, Water Corporation and Department of Health require all residential development in urban area to be connected to mains sewer (and in this case the highest ‘trunk’ cost is for sewer upgrades). In a recent valuation of the depot site, the valuer suggests that there is strong demand for infill sites (within major state government redevelopment precincts) and as a result some purchaser/developers may be willing to pay the trunk service costs for this site. It could be argued however that as this is not a major state redevelopment precinct, the market may not be as strong as predicted; however there is little doubt that provision of the trunk services prior to disposal of the site would increase the value of the land. The City has continued to work jointly with LandCorp in exploring servicing alternatives and concepts for development. Development concepts were prepared across both the City’s site (depot) and LandCorp’s ex-WA Museum Service site. The alternative technologies were used to inform the spatial requirements and as the design drivers for the concepts. Assumptions arising from this work have been used to update trunk services cost estimates as well as inform the business case for development of the depot site. The business case is expected to be presented to Council in February 2016. The implications of sustainable development objectives on the potential sale value of the site are currently being investigated as part of the business case for the disposal of the site. The work is also being used to help define desired development outcomes and inform criteria to help protect these outcomes as well as financial return through the business case and future disposal of the site. The agreement and assumptions with regard to trunk services will also feed into the business case. On 10 July 2015, LandCorp wrote to the City with a formal cost sharing proposal covering upgrades to trunk services. LandCorp acknowledges that the outcomes of the City’s business case may see the City disposing of the site to a third party however LandCorp propose that the cost sharing arrangement be set up in a manner which will provide certainty regarding the availability of shared funding for service upgrades regardless of who may be the ultimate owner/developer of the City’s depot site. LandCorp has similar design and sustainability aspirations for their own site, but also recognise the need to provide the trunk services regardless of the ‘off grid’ potential.


25 November 2015

Page 81

It is likely that some or all of the works could be undertaken prior to depot operations being moved or prior to a sale of the site being settled. It is possible that works could be undertaken concurrently with a land sale process so it will be important to provide a clear understanding of the scope of trunk services to potential development proponents. A summary of LandCorp’s proposal is as follows:

Costs be shared pro rata based on land area (City 2.53ha - 62.47%; LandCorp 1.52ha - 37.53%).

LandCorp to project manage the procurement of all consultants and contractors based on an hourly charge out rate ($180/hr development manager, $260/hr business manager).

City to reimburse LandCorp pro rata on land area for consultants and contractors costs and 50/50 for project management costs.

LandCorp would invoice the City periodically at agreed intervals. LandCorp has since agreed that Knutsford St road, footpath and drainage upgrade costs should be shared 50/50 rather than pro-rata according to land area. Since this proposal was received, a review of costs has been undertaken by GHD and a breakdown of estimated costs and cost share for each item is attached (refer to Attachment 2). Current estimates are lower than previous as successful negotiations with Water Corporation allowed for a scaling back of sewer requirements. Diagrams to illustrate the scope of each item are also attached (refer to Attachment 3). The total cost is currently estimated at $2,938,800. The City’s share is $1, 673,811 and LandCorp’s share $1,264,989. It is important to note that these sums are estimates to give an order of likely costs. The actual costs will vary. The size of work packages will also affect the costs. It will be most efficient to do all the work in one package possibly contracted as part of the development works for one or other of the sites. However this may not be possible depending on the timing of development, the relocation of depot operations and the clean–up of the depot site. Other possible variances include contingencies and provisional sums included to cover such items as traffic management and the possibility of contaminated soils in service trenches. While work packages and staging is yet to be resolved, provision for the City’s share of the costs will need to be made in 2016/17 and/or 2017/18 and/or in the long term financial plan until work packaging is resolved.

CONCLUSION

The cost sharing agreement proposed is consistent with negotiations with LandCorp over a number of years. While the outcomes of the business case may see the City disposing of its site to a third party, LandCorp is happy for the cost sharing arrangement to withstand that eventuality. The City does not have the resources (or the capability) to manage such an undertaking so there is a benefit in engaging LandCorp’s skills in this area. Certainty attached to the completion or intention to complete these services will add to the saleability of the depot site. The works do not preclude the opportunity for the services to be extended at some future date to service the smaller lots in the area if the


25 November 2015

Page 82

owners of those lots are willing to make their own arrangements to fund and procure such works for their own redevelopment. ADDITIONAL OFFICER COMMENT In discussion of the item at the Special Projects Committee on 11 November 2015, elected members requested additional information on: power upgrades in light of the ARENA proposal; the need/desirability of including gas mains in the trunk services works; alternatives to mains sewer; and the scope and coordination of streetscape enhancement works. Other issues relating to cost sharing and the scope of works were also raised via email prior to the meeting. The following additional information and officer comment is provided to address the queries raised. Cost sharing and recovery Queries were raised as to whether there was any potential to reconsider cost sharing with other landowners when works are carried out, and/or cost recovery from other owners at a future date. Whilst it would be desirable to have a broader approach involving other landowners, the City has attempted to do this twice before - firstly through an abortive developer contribution scheme under Local Planning Scheme 4 in 2010/11 and secondly through a voluntary approach as referred to in the agenda item. LandCorp was the only owner willing to participate in a voluntary approach. To go back to other landowners in the area now to see if they have had a change of mind regarding contribution to infrastructure costs would result in a significant delay in commencing the first package of works. Depending on which owners if any wished to participate, and on what terms, the scope of works could change and engineering design, cost estimates and apportionment arrangements would have to be re-done. The only enforceable mechanism through which the City could retrospectively recover a share of the cost of trunk services works already carried out from owners who develop at a later date would be by bringing in a Development Contribution Plan (DCP) under the Local Planning Scheme. This would convert an owner's share into a $x per lot or dwelling contribution payable when they develop. This was the approach the City initially pursued in 2010, but there was such strong opposition from most landowners that Council decided it would just be too controversial to proceed; with a high risk that such a scheme amendment would not be approved by the Minister for Planning if there was a high level of objection from affected landowners. LandCorp has indicated it would like to commence infrastructure works in the first half of 2016, based on LandCorp funding the works and recovering an agreed share of costs from the City. This would enable development and release of product on LandCorp’s site prior to the City’s depot site. The City’s site is likely to be ready for development late in 2017 or early 2018 following relocation of operations and clean-up of the site. LandCorp and the City’s sites are seen as the catalyst to broader redevelopment in the area. The approach proposed does not preclude other owners undertaking their own service connections at a later date at their own cost.

Scope of Work Sewer The section of sewer main in the vicinity of Marmion Street would not require upgrading if redevelopment of the City’s depot site and LandCorp’s site did not occur. Water


25 November 2015

Page 83

Corporation expects the developers to meet the cost of this upgrade as a direct consequence of redevelopment of these sites. There is no prospect of Water Corporation agreeing to share the costs. Initially WaterCorp were expecting the developers of the City and LandCorp sites to pay the whole cost of an upgraded sewer main all the way from Montreal Street/High Street along Stirling Highway to Marmion Street. However the City and its consulting engineers, through negotiation over a long period, have secured a significant reduction in the scope whereby upgrading only a ‘pinch point’ on the sewer network at the intersection of Stirling Hwy/Marmion St is required to enable development on the City and LandCorp’s sites. If development proceeds in the rest of the precinct the remainder of the connection along Stirling Highway will need to be upgraded. The City and LandCorp would aim to structure work packages so that only sewer upgrade works in the immediate vicinity of the two sites would be undertaken until the route and form of Perth Freight Link (PFL) is resolved. Part of the final resolution of these work packages would involve further discussion with Water Corporation as to how/under what conditions the Marmion St upgrade (and future Stirling Highway connection) might be deferred pending final resolution of the PFL including requirements for services to be reinstated/upgraded as part of that project. Alternatives to mains sewer Consultant advice provided as part of the work undertaken on alternative technologies, as referred to in the original agenda item, suggests that the entire waste water stream could be recycled through a central propriety system at a precinct-wide scale. This could meet non-drinking water demand all year. Such a system could have a pay-back period of only 3 years. However excess water would still need to be discharged to sewer (or local environment) in winter. Also both Water Corporation and the WA Department of Health require all residential development in the Perth metropolitan area to be connected to mains sewer. Power Upgrade of power to meet change of use and increases in density is a site development cost and not part of trunk services. Even with extensive use of Solar PVs, mains connection is likely to be required to allow power to be imported/exported. In any event Western Power does not recognise PV in lowering the standard power allocation to each lot. The electrical infrastructure covered by the proposed cost sharing arrangement only includes relevant Western Power headwork charges and replacement of associated overhead power lines. The City’s component is only $22,000. Alternatives to mains power If successful, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) project will see solar PV replace mains power, and battery storage replace the need for access to mains power when the sun isn’t shining. The outcome of the ARENA proposal will not be known until December. The ARENA project will still require the agreement of the ultimate developer to participate. While every effort will be made to encourage developer participation through the disposal of the land, the feasibility of full reliance on solar PV and batteries will be uncertain for some time yet. Gas


25 November 2015

Page 84

Gas reticulation is not compulsory; however the gas main already is close to the sites so it is considered prudent to include gas as an optional energy source which future development may or may not utilise given the relatively small cost of the gas main works involved. Alternatives to mains gas The aim of the development of the two sites is to show leadership in sustainable development including optimum use of renewable energy technologies. However total reliance on renewable (electricity) energies remains largely un-tested at this scale of development, hence the interest of Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). Until battery storage technologies are more developed, gas is likely to remain a relevant component in the energy mix in supplementing total energy needs. If renewable energy needs to be supplemented across a number of uses (e.g. cooking, heating, hot water), it is likely gas is a more efficient supplement for these purposes than electricity from non-renewable sources. Notwithstanding LandCorp and the City can discuss alternatives to gas as work packages are refined. Roads and street scaping The current scope only includes resurfacing of existing roads and paths. It does not allow for any street scaping improvements such as landscaping or on street parking bays. Street scaping for the precinct as a whole (including Montreal St) will be determined through a joint design initiative already being undertaken by the City, LandCorp and the Australian Urban Design Research Centre (AUDRC); and in the future by the preferred developer(s). Overall precinct design and place making concepts are currently being explored by AUDRC and will be presented to elected members when they are more developed. Drainage Solutions for site and street drainage will be considered as part of the overall street scape concepts and through detailed site design. It is expected that a solution for removal of the Montreal Street sump adjacent to the City depot site will be part of this process. Knutsford Business case The Knutsford depot site business case currently being prepared will explore development options and recommend a preferred way forward which protects the sustainability and innovation aspirations for the site as well as the coordinated approach to design and place making. Design and sustainability objectives will be considered alongside land value and financial evaluations as part of the assessment of options in the business case. A working group including elected members is in place to oversee this process. Land Value There is an argument that a developer might be prepared to pay the trunk services costs for a prime infill site. However if the market is not strong the provision of services by the current landowner(s) prior to site disposal to a developer is likely to add to the value of the land. The extent of the added value is difficult to quantify at this stage; it could be none or it could range up to the value (cost) of the trunk services plus a factor which represents the risk were a future developer/owner required to undertake the work itself


25 November 2015

Page 85

(i.e. a developer would pay more for land which has been ‘de-risked’ by the provision of services in advance).

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That Council:

1. Note the total costs for trunk services at Knutsford being in the order of $2.94m, subject to work packaging and contingencies such as ground contamination.

2. Confirm the City’s share of costs for trunk service provision at Knutsford as up to $1.67m, which may be increased by 20% by the Chief Executive Officer when negotiating a cost sharing agreement.

3. Authorise the CEO to enter into a cost sharing agreement whereby service costs are shared pro rata based on land area (City 2.53ha - 62.47%; LandCorp 1.52ha - 37.53%) with Knutsford St roads and drainage costs and project management costs split 50/50.

4. Authorise the CEO to agree timing, work packaging and final costs for actual works.

5. Request the likely requirement to include provision for the City’s share of costs within the draft 2016/17 and/or 2017/18 budget and /or in the long term financial plan subject to resolutions 1-4 above.

. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



25 November 2015

Page 86

Cr A Sullivan MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered SGS1511-6, SGS1511-11, SGS1511-12, SGS1511-13, SGS1511-14, SGS1511-15 AND SGS1511-16. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 19 NOVEMBER 2015

The following item number SGS1511-6 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SGS1511-6 SCULPTURE GIFTING PROPOSAL FOR NAGASAKI PEACE PARK

ECM Reference: 013/001, 101/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 November 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Nagasaki City Peace Monument Proposal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Australian Mayors for Peace (MFP) network has requested a donation towards the sculptural gifting for Nagasaki Peace Park in 2016.

BACKGROUND

The City of Fremantle joined Mayors for Peace a decade ago as part of a push from cities around the world to make sure nuclear disarmament is front and centre of the global agenda. In 2014, Fremantle became the lead city in the Australian Mayors for Peace (MFP) network.


25 November 2015

Page 87

COMMENT

It has been requested that the City of Fremantle financially support an international sculpture gifting for Nagasaki Peace Park planned for early 2016. This is an initiative of MFP (Australia) and partners that commenced in 2014. The proposal is outlined in attachments and the donation would go toward delivering an Indigenous inspired sculpture designed by Yalata Men’s Sculpture Group.


Financial

The project is not-for-profit and is administered by arts company Alphaville, as part of the three-year international arts and cultural program ‘Nuclear Futures’, working with atomic survivor communities through creative arts (www.nuclearfutures.org). The project budget is $131,000, with the final fundraising phase underway to raise the remaining $30,000 budget gap. The current donations policy has a limit of $300. There is an elected member’s donations budget that could be used to fund the request. The MFP budget is $1,000 of which $400 has already been expended. The shortfall does not cover the gifting request. Legal

Nil. Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the City make a donation of $2,000 towards the sculpture gifting project.


Nil.


Nil


Absolute Majority Required

http://www.nuclearfutures.org)/


25 November 2015

Page 88


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. The City of Fremantle endorses the project for the City of Fremantle to be named

on the sculpture plaque and promotion documentation. 2. A financial donation of $2,000 to go towards installation costs in Nagasaki. 3. Support for MFP (Australia)/City of Fremantle to be represented at the official

unveiling in Nagasaki (2016). Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the wording as shown in italics:

1. The City of Fremantle proposes and endorses the project for the City of Fremantle to be named on the sculpture plaque and promotion documentation.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

REASONS FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To clarify that the City proposes and endorses the project. Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to amend part 3 as follows, as shown in italics:

3. Provision be made at mid year budget review for the City of Fremantle to be represented at the official unveiling in Nagasaki (2016).

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



25 November 2015

Page 89

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To make provision for the cost of a representative of the City of Fremantle to attend the official unveiling ceremony in Nagasaki. Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include part 4 as follows:

4. That council request WALGA to support the Mayors for Peace request. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To encourage WALGA to support the Mayors for Peace


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan

1. The City of Fremantle proposes and endorses the project for the City of Fremantle to be named on the sculpture plaque and promotion documentation.

2. A financial donation of $2,000 to go towards installation costs in Nagasaki. 3. Provision be made at mid year budget review for the City of Fremantle to be

represented at the official unveiling in Nagasaki (2016). 4. That council request WALGA to support the Mayors for Peace request.


25 November 2015

Page 90


For Against



25 November 2015

Page 91


SGS1511-11 FINES ENFORCEMENT REGISTER (FER) WRITE OFF - 3RD AND 4TH QUARTER OF THE 2014 -2015 FINANCIAL YEAR

ECM Reference: 122/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 November 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Matthew Piggott, Manager Field Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: FER List of write-offs, schedule number 51510

(Confidential attachment - under separate cover) FER List of write-offs, schedule number 51890 (Confidential attachment - under separate cover) FER List of write-offs, schedule number 53340 (Confidential attachment - under separate cover) FER List of write-offs, schedule number 52720 (Confidential attachment - under separate cover)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For the third and fourth quarter of the immediate past financial year, ended 30 June 2015, the Fines Enforcement Registry is advising its intention to write-off $45,217.16 of unpaid fines and collection costs, dating back to some matters registered in year 2006. Of this amount, approximately $17,182.52 is associated with the cost of registering the case for enforcement. The remainder is the original modified penalty of the infringement notice, plus statutory fees chargeable by City of Fremantle during the statutory enforcement process. The amount for write-off represents approximately 14.05 per cent of the amount received by City of Fremantle from the Registry for recovered fines during the same period. These matters are regarded by the Registry as unenforceable, due to factors including death, uneconomical to enforce due to amount owing, insufficient details, time elapsed since registration. The Registry operates pursuant to the Fines Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994. By this statute, the Registry is the sole provider of the service enabled under this legislation.

BACKGROUND

The City of Fremantle uses the FER to assist in the recovery of unpaid parking fines. This registry is the sole provider of a service which is able to cancel driver and vehicle licences and undertake recovery action. This service comes at a cost which can be greater that the fine itself and these costs are recoverable once the alleged offender is located. The City receives recovery payments from FER to the value of $321,737.60 from the third and fourth quarter of the immediate past financial year. The amount


25 November 2015

Page 92

sought to be written-off represents approximately 14.05 per cent of that amount, over the same period. Each year, FER identifies those registrations for which it has exhausted all avenues of enforcement, removing those records from the Registry. Consequently, writing-off by FER ends further recovery on those records. The City uses data provided by the Department of Transport to identify the registered owner of vehicles when enforcing unpaid penalties. This data is used to provide written notification to owners, using regulatory final demand notices and subsequent registration with FER to assist in the recovery of unpaid parking fines. There continues to be moves by the Western Australia Local Government Association to seek additional information from the Department of Transport so as to minimise the number of records found to be unenforceable due to insufficient details.

COMMENT

FER has advised the City that $45,217.16 is to be written-off as unrecoverable. Of this amount, approximately $17,182.50 is associated with the cost of registering the case for enforcement, the remainder is the original modified penalty of the infringement notice, plus statutory fees chargeable by the City during the statutory enforcement process. These registrations date back to 2006. The City received recovery payments from FER to the value of $321,737.60 from the third and fourth quarter of the immediate past financial year. The amount being considered for write-off in this item represents approximately 14.05 per cent of the collections over this period. FER has exhausted all avenues of the recovery for these registered infringement notices for which writing-off is advised. The list of affected records is shown under separate confidential cover in order to regard privacy considerations.


Financial

The amounts stated in the advice from FER are not included on Council’s balance sheet as debtors. The City records any money recovered as revenue in the year it is recovered and as a result no impact will be made upon Council’s financial statement. Legal

The operation of the Fines Enforcement Registry is provided for by Fines Penalties and Infringement Notice Enforcement Act 1994 Operational

Nil


25 November 2015

Page 93

Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council supports the advice from Fines Enforcement Registry.


As the actions listed at the FER represent a write-off of debt for the City, it is necessary for Council to formally recognise the write-off.


Nil



COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council writes off $45217.16 in unpaid fines and associated recovery costs with the Department of Attorney General’s Fines Enforcement Registry's schedules 51510, 51890, 53340, and 52720 as shown in confidential attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



25 November 2015

Page 94


SGS1511-12 COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE SCHEDULE FOR JANUARY 2016 TO DECEMBER 2016

ECM Reference: 096/009 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 25 November 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Meeting Schedule

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This item seeks Council's approval to adopt the meeting schedule for the standing committees and Ordinary Meeting of Council for the period of January 2016 to December 2016.

BACKGROUND

Each year, Council is requested to approve the meeting dates prior to being advertised in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995. Meeting dates proposed are in accordance with current schedules.

COMMENT

The new schedule provides a monthly cycle of meeting dates. Planning Services Committee meetings are to be held on the first Wednesday of each month. Special Projects Committee meetings are to be held on the second Wednesday of each month. Strategic and General Services Committee meetings are to be held every third Wednesday of each month. The Ordinary Meeting of Council is to be held on the fourth Wednesday of each month. Library Advisory Committee meetings are to be held on a Wednesday evening, every quarter, prior to the Special Projects Committee meeting. All committee and council meetings will be held in the Council Chamber at the Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street Fremantle at 6.00 pm.


25 November 2015

Page 95


Financial

Nil Legal

Section 5.25 (g) of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 12 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 199 require that local public notice of meeting dates are to be advertised in advance. Operational

The meeting schedule is to be set in advance for operational planning purposes. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

As per comment.


Nil


Nil




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council adopts the meeting schedule as shown on Attachment 1 of the Ordinary Meeting of Council agenda 25 November 2015, for the period of January 2016 to December 2016, to be held in the City of Fremantle Council Chambers at the Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street Fremantle.


25 November 2015

Page 96


For Against


Note: Library Advisory Committee start times on the attachment should read 5.30pm.


25 November 2015

Page 97


SGS1511-13 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - OCTOBER 2015

ECM Reference: 087/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 November 2015 Previous Item: C1510-7 of 14 October 2015 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Alan Carmichael, Finance Manager Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement of Financial Activity by Nature to 31 October

2015 Statement of Financial Position as at 31 October 2015 Determination of Closing Funds (Net Current Assets) as at 31 October 2015 Schedule of Accounts Paid October 2015 Investment Report to 31 October 2015 Debtors Outstanding as at 31 October 2015 Payment Report (EFT & Cheque) for October 2015 (viewed electronically) Payment Report (Purchasing Cards) for September 2015 (viewed electronically) Payment Report (Purchasing Cards) for October 2015 (viewed electronically)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City adopted its annual budget for 2015/2016 on 24 June 2015 with an estimated municipal surplus brought forward from 30 June 2015 of $3 563 186 and estimated municipal surplus at 30 June 2016 of $100 000. At the 24 June 2015 ordinary council meeting $125,395 of budget funding was approved for the continuation of the Financial Counselling Service (C1506-2 refers). As a consequence the estimated municipal surplus to 30 June 2016 was amended to a deficit of $25,395.

BACKGROUND

The 2015/16 budget was adopted on 24 June 2015 with an estimated municipal surplus brought forward from 30 June 2015 of $3 563 186 and estimated municipal surplus at 30 June 2016 of $100 000. At its meeting on 29 July 2015 (Item SGS1507-9 refers), Council adopted nature and type as the preferred reporting format with 2.5% and a threshold of $300 000 as the level for explanation of variances. At the 24 June 2015 ordinary council meeting $125,395 of budget funding was approved for the continuation of the Financial Counselling Service (C1506-2 refers). As a


25 November 2015

Page 98

consequence the estimated municipal surplus to 30 June 2016 was amended to a deficit of $25,395.

COMMENT

In finalising the 2015/16 budget, it was estimated that we would have a closing municipal surplus at 30 June 2015 of $3 563 186 which in turn became the opening municipal surplus in the 2015/16 budget. However after the 2015-16 budget was adopted the Department of Local Government and Communities advised on 29 June 2015 that on 30 June 2015 $526,024 would be deposited in the city’s bank account as an advance on the 2015-16 Grants Commission grant. The amount of the advance payment will need to be adjusted at the budget review to be held in the first quarter of the 2016 calendar year and effectively means a closing surplus at 30 June 2015 of $4,089,210 is needed to meet our opening budget target. With the audit of the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2015 now finalised, the closing position surplus was $3,934,439 which is $154,771 less than the adjusted target budget. The major reason for the variation was increased capital expenditure to 30 June 2015 to that predicted by officers when finalising the 2015/16 Budget. Organisational Revenue Below is a graph for actual operating revenue by month versus the revised budget. Rates have been excluded as $40 million is brought to account in one month and distorts the picture as does capital grants and profit on sale of assets which have also been excluded. The total revenue to date is marginally behind the year to date estimate.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Operating Revenue Budget versus Actual (excluding rates, capital grants and profit on sale of assets)

Operating Revenue - Revised Budget Operating Revenue - Actual


25 November 2015

Page 99

Organisational Expenses Below is a graph for actual operating expenditure by month versus the revised budget. The non-cash entries of depreciation and loss on sale of assets have been excluded from the graph as they can distort the picture. Despite material fluctuations in the monthly comparisons, the total expenditure to date is materially under year to date budget and relates to phasing of various activity budgets.

Nature and/or Type Comments With a third of the financial year elapsed there are no major trends that have emerged. Comments on variances are as follows:- Employee Costs Employee costs are $1,100,000 under year to date budget with the major reason being:-

There are unfilled positions in a number of groups due to the staff moratorium. However, with agency labour which is expensed under Materials and Contracts it is $200,000 over its year to date budget and effectively reduces the savings from unfilled positions.

City Works is $434 000 under year to date budget and most of that would relate to unfilled wages positions however they do not necessarily translate to budget savings as the work is likely to be undertaken by contractors and expensed under Materials and Contracts.

The second and final instalment of the workers compensation insurance is normally due at the end of October but had not been received by the reporting date and produces a $300,000 under expenditure to year to the date budget.

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Operating Expenditure Budget versus Actual (excluding depreciation and loss on sale of assets)

Operating Expenditure - Revised Budget Operating Expenditure - Actual


25 November 2015

Page 100

Insurance Expenses The second and final instalment of the insurance policies is normally due at the end of October but the invoices had not been received by the reporting date. Capital Program As can be seen from the following graphs capital expenditure to date is well under what the project budgets indicate:-

The Executive Management Team and project based officers are currently reviewing the implementation of the capital works program to ensure that it is completed targets by end of the financial year. Several major projects have been budgeted in full but will not be acvhieved within the financial year and the review will ensure these are appropriately provided for. Examples of these projects are the redevelopment of 2 Jones Street for the new Operations Centre which will likely be completed in December 2016 but has been provided for in full in this budget and the re-design works for the public golf course and Fremantle Environmental Resource Network associated with the Perth Freight Link requirements. Perth Freight Link works are no considered to be applied by the state government this financial year. A full report will be provided once mid-year budget review is completed in December.

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

Monthly Capital Expenditure verus Budget

Budgeted Capital Expenditure - Prior to Budget Review

Budgeted Capital Expenditure - Post Budget Review

Actual Capital Expenditure


25 November 2015

Page 101

Cash Investments Note: Reference for financial institutions not supporting the unlocking of carbon is (http://www.marketforces.org.au/). Below is a graph of the maturity profile of our investments with the green coloured bars representing investments with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon. The graph shows longer term investments are all with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon.

Below is a graph showing the cash investment situation at 31 October 2015 and the carbon support/non-support position by financial institution.

0.00

1,000,000.00

2,000,000.00

3,000,000.00

4,000,000.00

5,000,000.00

6,000,000.00

7,000,000.00

8,000,000.00

9,000,000.00

10,000,000.00$9,213,093

$2,500,000

$5,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,095,916

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$4,034,521

$2,000,000

$1,500,000

$1,000,000

$990,000

$2,077,000 $1,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000 $3,000,000

$2,500,000

$1,000,000

$1,000,000

Maturity Profile of Investment Portfolio


25 November 2015

Page 102

Total funds invested increased marginally during the month and the percentage of funds invested with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon increased by 1%. In the absence of any major asset sales funds invested will generally decrease in the coming months as the works program is delivered and that should see the percentage invested with financials listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon move even higher. The current investment profile, the investment policy counter party limits and maintaining interest returns produces a challenging environment in placing additional funds with suitable financial institutions that do not support the unlocking of carbon. Purchase Card Expenditure Reports This agenda includes the September 2015 and October 2015 purchase card transaction reports.


Financial

This report is provided to enable Council to keep track of how the allocation of costs and receipt of revenues is tracking against the budget. It is also provided to identify any issues against budget which Council should be informed of. Legal

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 34 requires a monthly financial activity statement along with explanation of any material variances to be prepared and presented to an ordinary meeting of council.

AMP, $5,095,916 , 8%

ANZ, $7,787,990 , 13%

BOQ, $9,000,000 ,

15%

ME Bank, $3,077,000 , 5%

NAB, $5,925,103 , 10%

Rural Bank, $9,034,521 ,

15%

Wide Bay Bank, $2,000,000 , 3%

Beyond Bank, $990,000 , 2%

Suncorp, $9,000,000 , 15%

Bendigo & Adelaide , $8,500,000 , 14%

Other, $41,601,521 ,

69%

Counterparty Exposure


25 November 2015

Page 103

Under section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 12(1);

a) Council has delegated authority to the CEO under item 3.2, Accounts for Payment - Authorisation Of, to make payments from the municipal fund and trust fund.

The lists of accounts paid are presented in accordance with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 13(1) and (3) Operational

This report is provided to Council to keep track of the operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities provided for under the 2015/16 adopted budget by reporting actual revenue and expenditure against budget. Organisational

No direct impact but results year to date may highlight matters that have arisen or may need to be addressed in the future.

CONCLUSION

The financial statements as attached for further review of payments made during October 2015, purchase card transactions during September and October 2015 plus cash deposits at the end of October 2015. Also attached is the year to date statement of financial activity and statement of financial position for information.


Nil.


Nil.





1. The City of Fremantle Financial Report including the Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Closing position for the period ended 31 October 2015 is received,

2. Council receives the payments authorised under delegated authority and

detailed in the list of invoices for October 2015 plus purchase cards for


25 November 2015

Page 104

September and October 2015, presented as per the summaries set out in the attached schedules and include creditors that have been paid in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.


For Against



25 November 2015

Page 105


SGS1511-14 WRITE OFF OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS NOVEMBER 2015

ECM Reference: 085/002; 085/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 November 2015 Previous Item: SGS1509-3 of 16 September 2015 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Alan Carmichael, Finance Manager Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Debts for Write off November 2015 (Confidential Report)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The $3,124.18 of debts listed is considered unrecoverable and have been submitted for approval to write off.

BACKGROUND

Where credit is extended to debtors, some debts can become unrecoverable due to a variety of circumstances. Under the Local Government Act 1961 (section 6.12(1) (c)) a local government may write off any amount of money.

COMMENT

The confidential attachment provides additional comment against each debt. The comments have been provided by relevant business unit officers and finance officers who maintain the sundry debtors control account. The values of debts listed are GST inclusive and if the debt is approved for write off any GST component is recoverable from the Australian Taxation Office. Any rate debts listed relate to government land leased from the City of Fremantle where the city as the rating authority has no lien over the land concerned. In instances where individuals have gone into bankruptcy or incorporated entities into liquidation, any future distribution that the city might receive from the liquidator will be credited to revenue at the time it is received. Any such distributions are only likely to be minor, as the debts are only submitted for approval to write off where it appears unlikely that any distribution will be received by the city.


Financial

The budget implications can be addressed in two parts:-


25 November 2015

Page 106

1. Cost of Credit Management. If an organisation does not have good credit management then it will have negative budgetary impacts as cash will not be collected for the sales of goods and services made. It should be noted that even with good credit management, bad debts can still be incurred, but they normally arise within an environment where the risk and reward factors have been balanced to try and achieve the best outcome for the organisation. It is a requirement for completing annual financial statements that any potential bad debts are provisioned for and that is a cost to the budget in the year in which the provision is made. 2. Cost to Budget of Writing off Bad Debts. Generally this is budget neutral as the city provisions for potential bad and unrecoverable debts and the city has been doing so for many years in accordance with accounting standards. As a consequence, approvals to write off bad debts will generally result in the cost being written back against the provision with no net impact to the current budget. Legal

Section 6.12 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1995 provides authority for the Council to write off outstanding monies. Operational

The invoice detail is generated by the relevant business unit who manage the service and provide the detail of client(s) to be invoiced. The Finance section generates the invoices from the information provided and sends out statements for outstanding accounts and maintains the Debtors Control Account. For most categories of debtors Finance also handles referral of debts to the debt collection agency. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

It is considered the debts should be written off.


Nil


Nil




25 November 2015

Page 107


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council write off debts of $3,124.18 detailed below as they are considered unrecoverable:-

Reference Number Debtor Name Amount Service

2092216 Jason Stanley Andrew Hyde $164.00 Parking 2014/15

2092302 Gourmet Pie Company $300.00 Marketing Promotion 2015

2092305 Carat Australia $2.70 Marketing Promotion 2015

2091981 Public & Co $2,657.48 Commercial Waste-14/15

Total $3,124.18


For Against



25 November 2015

Page 108


SGS1511-15 AMENDMENT TO POLICY SG43 - APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

ECM Reference: 035/005 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 November 2015 Previous Item: C0907-2 Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: SG43 Appointment of Acting Chief Executive Officer

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approval is sought to amend policy SG43 - Appointment of Acting Chief Executive Officer. The policy states the names and position titles of the officers who Council authorise to act in the Chief Executive Officer position during periods of leave from employment or absence by the Chief Executive Officer. The amendments seek to update the obsolete position titles Director Corporate Services and Director Planning and Development with the current titles, Director City Business and Director Strategic Planning and Projects respectively, and to include the names of the current incumbents of those positions in the policy. The Director Community Development position and incumbent has also been included as an officer who Council authorise to Act as the Chief Executive Officer.

BACKGROUND

The appointment of the Acting Chief Executive Officer during periods of leave or absence by the Chief Executive Officer has been undertaken through this policy since September 2005. The policy was updated in July 2009. This policy is again due for review and needs to be amended to reflect current officers employed by the City and their correct position titles. Appointment of an acting officer is exclusively the power of the local government and not a power that may be delegated. As a policy is determined by the Council, this is considered an appropriate way of choosing the circumstance for an Acting Chief Executive Officer and is consistent with good management practice.

COMMENT

This policy was first adopted by Council in September 2005 and updated in 2009. The intent of this policy is that the Director City Business, Director Community Development and the Director Strategic Planning and Projects be appointed as Acting Chief Executive Officer during periods of leave or absence by the Chief Executive Officer. This policy is not intended for the appointment to occur for a period of longer than six continuous weeks in any one period without prior Council approval. This policy may only be invoked by written confirmation from the Chief Executive Officer to the Director City Business, Director Community Development or the Director Strategic Planning and Projects, on each occasion that it is required, with confirmation of the period to which it will cover.


25 November 2015

Page 109

In accordance with good governance the policy should be reviewed regularly and every four years is considered reasonable.


Financial

Nil Legal

Section 5.36 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides for a local government to employ a person as Chief Executive Officer of the local government. Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The appointment of an Acting Chief Executive Officer during periods of leave or absence by the Chief Executive Officer will enable the City to maintain its executive function and powers during these periods. The Act states that a person is to be appointed, therefore the officer’s name must also be included in the policy.


Nil


Nil




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council adopt policy SG43 - Appointment of Acting Chief Executive Officer, as amended and shown in attachment 1 of the Strategic and General Services Committee agenda 18 November 2015.


25 November 2015

Page 110


For Against



25 November 2015

Page 111


SGS1511-16 REVIEW OF STANDING COMMITTEES

ECM Reference: 039/035 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 November Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To consider a re-structure of the Council standing committees and review the purpose of each committee.

BACKGROUND

In mid-2014 Council adopted a revised standing committee structure by introducing a Special Projects Committee. The new committee was implemented to support local government reform and specific project outcomes during the period of proposed reform.

COMMENT

Current Structure The Council currently operates with three standing committees;

Planning Services Committee

Special Projects Committee, and

Strategic and General Services Committee. With the addition of the Special Projects Committee in 2014 there has been some duplication in responsibility with Strategic and General Services and Planning Services. As Special Projects was established in a local government reform environment it is considered appropriate to re-structure the standing committees to ensure it reflects the ongoing needs for decision making and to provide greater clarity around the purpose of each committee. The current purpose of each committee is as follows; Planning Services Committee 1. To exercise delegated authority and make recommendations to council in relation to

the integrated assessment of development proposals.


25 November 2015

Page 112

2. To exercise delegated authority, develop policy and make recommendations to

council on strategic trends and needs analysis and integrated forward planning in

relation to:

(a) land use policy

(b) structure plans

(c) architecture and heritage policy.

Strategic and General Services Committee 1. To exercise delegated authority, develop policy and make recommendations to

council on strategic trends and needs analysis, integrated forward planning and

asset facility planning in relation to:

(a) annual budgets and principal activities plan

(b) the Fremantle city plan

(c) economic development and tourism

(d) urban design

(e) transport planning

(f) asset and land planning and management

(g) social planning

(h) recreation and leisure planning

(i) cultural planning

(j) demographic analysis

(k) environmental planning

(l) long range staffing needs

(m) architecture and heritage projects.


council in relation to service provision including the delivery of services, projects

and facilities consistent with the annual budget.

3. To undertake quarterly reviews of the City of Fremantle’s performance against the

Fremantle City Plan.

4. To undertake quarterly budget reviews.


25 November 2015

Page 113

5. To monitor the City of Fremantle’s financial and overall performance against global

performance indicators.

6. To establish a program for the regular review of services provided by the City of

Fremantle.

7. To consider recommendations from officers arising from the service review program

and make recommendations to council.

8. Receive reports as required by council policies where committee consideration is

warranted.

9. To recommend broad goals and principles for public consultation and community

liaison.

Special Projects Committee The purpose of the Committee is to consider and make recommendations to the Council on the following priority projects:

Local Government Reform process

City Centre (Activity Centre) Structure Plan

City Vision 2029 Plan

Integrated Transport Strategy

Green Plan

One Planet Council Strategy

Kings Square Redevelopment

Planning Scheme Amendment - development controls relating to former Gas & Coke site and Woolstores Shopping Centre site

Planning Scheme Amendment to promote housing diversity

Victoria Quay precinct planning process

Stan Reilly Precinct

Esplanade Master Plan Review

Knutsford Street Depot site disposal/redevelopment process

Cantonment Hill Master Plan implementation projects

High Street upgrading

Waste Management Strategy

Any other matter outside the terms of reference of existing standing committees referred to the Committee by resolution of Council.

Some of the projects identified under the purpose of the Special Projects Committee could also fit under the purpose of either the Planning or Strategic and General Services committees. The Special Projects committee was added in June 2014 under the local


25 November 2015

Page 114

government reform agenda and with the purpose of providing an avenue for council to spend time on some of the bigger projects and reform needs prior to the reform process taking place in July, 2015. When first presented it was anticipated this committee would not have any delegation and receive draft level reports. After reform was abandoned by the state government in March, 2015, officers considered the purpose of the Special Projects committee needed amending to ensure greater clarity around the purpose of each of the standing committees. With further review leading up to this report, attention was also placed on whether delegations could be expanded to each of the committees to improve turnaround times. As there is an ability (under clause 141 of Standing Orders) for two elected members on a committee to withdraw delegation for individual items and refer to council for consideration, it may be appropriate to consider expansion of delegations and allow the committee to determine when items may need further review by Council. If the proposed change to the standing committees is approved by council a further report will be brought back considering expansion of delegations. Proposed Structure The current format of three standing committees appears to be working well and is providing a rounded opportunity to present issues for consideration in a manner which suits the openness that the committee process provides. The main value which can be added with amending the structure is to provide greater clarity around what each committee will consider. Below is the proposed structure for the standing committees and the proposed purpose for each; Planning Committee (formerly Planning Services Committee) 1. To exercise delegated authority and make recommendations to council in relation to

the integrated assessment of:

(a) Development proposals

(b) Planning and building compliance matters

(c) Subdivision approvals

(d) Local Planning Scheme amendments

(e) Structure and Local Development Plans

(f) Heritage matters


council on strategic trends and needs analysis and integrated forward planning in

relation to:

(a) Land use strategy

(b) Land use policy and guidelines

(c) Structure and local development plans


25 November 2015

Page 115

(d) Local Planning Scheme creation, amendment and revision

(e) Architecture and heritage policy.

Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation (F-POL) (replaces Strategic and General Services) To exercise delegated authority and make recommendations to council in relation to the following: 1. Budget and Financial matters 2. Compliance, Governance and Legislative matters 3. Organisation matters including general operations, services reviews, agreements

and structure 4. Policy setting and Policy positions 5. Procurement and Contracts 6. Commercial and Property Leasing 7. Appeals under Part 9 of Local Government Act 1995 8. Appointment of Authorised Officers 9. Community engagement and advertising 10. Asset management 11. Social and Cultural Planning 12. Business Plans under Local Government Act 1995 13. Operational Projects 14. Economic Development 15. Tourism 16. Festivals and Events 17. Transport design, planning and maintenance 18. Asset planning and maintenance 19. Social, recreation and leisure matters 20. Review financial, organisational and service performance.

Strategy and Project Development Committee (formerly Special Projects Committee) To exercise delegated authority and make recommendations to council in relation to the following: 1. Strategic and Corporate Plans and associated planning 2. Development of all strategic projects 3. Long Term Financial Planning 4. Development of Conservation, Master and Urban Design Plans 5. Community engagement and advertising of any matters listed in 1-4 above.


Financial

Nil. Legal


25 November 2015

Page 116

Section 5.8 of the Local Government Act, 1995, provides for the establishment of committees to assist council and exercise the powers and duties of the local government. Operational

The proposed reviewed purpose for each of the City’s standing committees provide greater clarity in the exercise of business for each of the committees. It sets out a clear framework and allows officers to better manage reports through to council. The committee membership for each will remain the same, one ward representative and the Mayor for Planning and F-POL and all of council for Strategy and Project Development (SPD). SPD will now only require consideration at the project conception and development stage, then will be passed onto F-POL for implementation and monitoring. SPD will be able to advertise and approve community engagement and is anticipated to also receive delegated authority to make decisions which do not require an absolute or special majority as it contains a membership of all elected members and should be able to make final decisions where appropriate. This will be considered in a separate report on delegations in the near future. All committees will remain open to the public to ensure the community has absolute access to the decision making process of council. Organisational

The proposed change in the standing committee structure and purpose should ensure better clarity around the decision making process of council.

CONCLUSION

As the City moves on from the local government reform agenda it is appropriate to review the purpose for the standing committee structure. Council introduced the Special Projects Committee during the period of the reform agenda and developed specific outcomes for that committee. The review and recommended changes creates better clarity for each committee and allows for better understanding of the decision making process of council.


Nil.


Nil.




25 November 2015

Page 117

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Appendix 1 of the City of Fremantle Standing Orders Policy is amended for the City of Fremantle Standing Committees to reflect the following three Standing Committees; Planning Committee (formerly Planning Services Committee) 1. To exercise delegated authority and make recommendations to council in

relation to the integrated assessment of:

(a) Development proposals

(b) Planning and building compliance matters

(c) Subdivision approvals

(d) Local Planning Scheme amendments

(e) Structure and Local Development Plans

(f) Heritage matters

2. To exercise delegated authority, develop policy and make recommendations

to council on strategic trends and needs analysis and integrated forward

planning in relation to:

(a) Land use strategy

(b) Land use policy and guidelines

(c) Structure and local development plans

(d) Local Planning Scheme creation, amendment and revision

(e) Architecture and heritage policy.

Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation (F-POL) (replaces Strategic and General Services) To exercise delegated authority and make recommendations to council in relation to the following: 1. Budget and Financial matters 2. Compliance, Governance and Legislative matters 3. Organisation matters including general operations, services reviews,

agreements and structure 4. Policy setting and Policy positions 5. Procurement and Contracts 6. Commercial and Property Leasing 7. Appeals under Part 9 of Local Government Act 1995


25 November 2015

Page 118

8. Appointment of Authorised Officers 9. Community engagement and advertising 10. Asset management 11. Social and Cultural Planning 12. Business Plans under Local Government Act 1995 13. Operational Projects 14. Economic Development 15. Tourism 16. Festivals and Events 17. Transport design, planning and maintenance 18. Asset planning and maintenance 19. Social, recreation and leisure matters 20. Review financial, organisational and service performance.

Strategy and Project Development Committee (formerly Special Projects Committee) To exercise delegated authority and make recommendations to council in relation to the following: 1. Strategic and Corporate Plans and associated planning 2. Development of all strategic projects 3. Long Term Financial Planning 4. Development of Conservation, Master and Urban Design Plans 5. Community engagement and advertising of any matters listed in 1-4 above. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



25 November 2015

Page 119

SGS1511-1 NORTH FREMANTLE ASSOCIATED CLUB SUB TENANT - NORTH FREMANTLE FITNESS

ECM Reference: 049/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 November 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Tom Griffiths, Manager Economic Development and

Marketing Actioning Officer: Nadine Hume, Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Committee Agenda Attachments: North Fremantle Fitness Results Consultation Report

Proposed Parking Areas North Fremantle Associated Club Income/Expenditure (under confidential cover)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This item is for the Strategic and General Services Committee to consider the operational aspects of Fitness Results North Fremantle operating at Gilbert Fraser Reserve under the lease of North Fremantle Associated Clubs Inc.

BACKGROUND

The City of Fremantle entered into a Lease for Gilbert Fraser Reserve with the North Fremantle Amateur Football Club Inc, North Fremantle Metropolitan Sunday League Club Inc and North Fremantle Cricket Club Inc effective from 1 July 1989 for a term of ten (10) years. Due to a change of management by the Clubs, the City then entered into a Lease for Gilbert Fraser Reserve with the North Fremantle Associated Clubs Incorporated effective from 1 July 1994 for a term of twenty (20) years and 364 days with the expiry being 29 June 2015. To facilitate a sustainable Lease and ensure that the Clubs could maintain an income other than membership fees the committee put arrangements in place to allow other users to use the Reserve such as the North Fremantle Primary School, Department of Fire and Emergency Services, Dragon boat racers and the gymnasium located in the old “stables”. North Fremantle Associated Clubs has the largest diversity of use of any of the City’s Reserves. Gilbert Fraser Reserve caters to cricket, football, hockey, soccer and veterans football. The income retained by the agreements put in place by the committee allow them to maintain the outgoings associated with the Lease and put funds in place for future projects in conjunction with the City or standalone projects. Without the business plan the committee has put in place the burden of costs associated with the Lease arrangement may have been passed to the City as has been the case in the past with other sporting club lease arrangements.


25 November 2015

Page 120

The gymnasium commenced in approximately June 2011. The City received the first noise complaint regarding the gymnasiums activities in 2012.

COMMENT

A formal agreement exists between the North Fremantle Associated Clubs with the Department of Education and DEFES for use of the Reserve. The Dragon boat racers and gym operator have an informal agreement. The gyms operators’ current arrangement allows either party to give six (6) months’ notice to vacate and the operator to provide all appropriate insurances for the operation of the gym. Given that North Fremantle Associated Clubs Lease expired as of 29 June 2015 discussions will soon commence for a new Lease between the City and the Club in line with the City’s Sporting Club Lease Policy. This process will also ensure that any informal arrangements put in place by the Club are formalised. The City manages the Reserve under a Management Order vested by Minister for Lands with the permitted use of the Reserve being “Recreation”. The City is entitled to lease or licence any portion of the land to a maximum of twenty one (21) years subject to Ministerial approval. Given that both formal agreements meet the requirements of the permitted use advise received from the Department of Lands indicates that the formalising these agreements under sub licences would receive “in principal” support. Under the terms of the Lease the Club is responsible for all outgoings in association with the grounds and building. Attachment 3 (Confidential) under this item shows the Clubs income and expenditure for 2014/15 the year to date. Without the income obtained from the sub agreements put in place the Club they would be unable to maintain the costs of the facility and grounds. Since the initial complaint the City’s Environmental Health Department did request permission from the complainant to install noise monitoring equipment at their residence but this request was denied. The complainant recognised that the installation of such equipment would not solve the issue as the noise being emitted would not be considered above acceptable noise regulations (car doors slamming, people running on pavement, the sounds of weights being dropped) but rather it was the times in which the noise occurred which was the issue with persons arriving for classes at the gym was commencing from 5am. In a bid to resolve the issues relating to the operation of the gym and the quiet enjoyment entitled to the nearby residents the gym proposed to put changes in place for a period of three months followed by a community consultation by the City with residents to see if the alterations to operation had helped with the noise occurrences. The changes included starting time, added infrastructure and equipment to the gym and cordoned off areas to stop parking in areas close to residents. Full details of this process have been included under the Community Engagement section of this item. Up until recently the gym has commenced operations from 5am with classes offered in cross fit training circuits, boxing and run club. As at 24 October 2015 the gym which runs as Fitness Results North Fremantle was taken over by one operator with the second operator moving on to run a gym out of an alternate facility. This change in operation has


25 November 2015

Page 121

seen a drop in the cross fit style of training which contributed heavily to the noise associated with dropping weights and sledgehammer exercises. The change in management has also seen a cease of 5am sessions with opening now commencing at 6am and finalising at 8pm. The operator has maintained that a 7am opening time would not be feasible as 6am is their most popular and profitable time slot. From a client’s perspective the 6am time slot is convenient as it allows them to gain access to the gym before work. The gym does currently hold classes on Saturdays which commence no earlier than 7am. As a basis for reference the Fremantle Leisure Centre which is located in a residential location operates on weekdays from 5.30am until 8pm. The period between 5.30am and 7am is a peek period is which the facility is used by patrons. Many of the City’s other Reserves are utilised by Personal Trainers through the City’s Events team. Permits that are issued by the City do not constrain the operating times of these personal training sessions which enables trainers to operate classes such as “boot camp” from as early as 5am if they wish to do so. Given that, by technicality, Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations are not being broken by the level of noise but rather the time frames in which the noise is occurring the complainants have requested further information regarding the legality of the gym being located on the Reserve. Gilbert Fraser Reserve is Crown Land therefore the guiding authority in relation to planning is the Western Australian Planning Commission. The City’s Planning Department have advised that as the gym is consistent with the permitted use of the Reserve it’s likely that WAPC will not require planning approval. A representative of Department of Lands verbally advised that although the gym may be viewed as a commercial arrangement it is complimentary to the permitted use of the Reserve and as it is a sub arrangement of the Lessee the income derived from the agreement is returned to the Reserve by way of covering outgoings related to the grounds and facilities. However the Department of Lands would like to see the formal sub lease put in place in the near future as opposed to the current informal arrangement.


Financial

Financial impact on the club Legal

Local Government Act Commercial Tenancies Act Land administration Act Operational


25 November 2015

Page 122

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The efforts undertaken by the gym to minimise noise have worked in some respects but not in others. Change in management has seen a change in activities with the focus being moved away from weight oriented training and a later commencement time to 6am. The cordoning off of the area to force parking further away from residents actually saw some patrons parking directly on the verges of residents. If the gym is to continue to operate from 6am then parking needs to be restricted to the two areas (outlined in red) located on plan in attachment 2 of this item. The financials provided by the North Fremantle Associated Club shows minimal surplus retained from the sub arrangements in place on the Reserve. The income received enables the financial obligations under the lease to be covered and small future projects to be facilitated by the club such as replacement of sporting equipment.


- Work to provide a liveable city with a range of housing, work and recreation activities


In an effort to resolve the issues around the operation of the gym discussions occurred with the Club and gym operators to alter the activities at the gym in a way that would minimise noise. The gym operators undertook the installation of rubber matting through the facility and all metal free weights and dumbbells were replaced with rubber weights. Running activities were also moved from the road to the oval instead. Added to this the operator cordoned off areas commonly used for parking by attendees of the gym in an effort to force their parking habits further way from residents homes. The change in process was also advertised by the gym operators to their members via personal emails and Facebook so that they were aware that the gym was located in a residential area and encourage them to make an effort to be quiet when attending early morning sessions. A community consultation was undertaken by the City based on the gyms change in activities. Please see attachment 1 of this item for a full copy of the report from this consultation. Overall the City received a large amount of support for the gym with the activities being viewed for their social interaction aspects as much as the health and wellbeing benifits.


25 November 2015

Page 123




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Acting under delegation 1.1 the Strategic and General Services Committee approves; 1. Gym operations at Gilbert Fraser Reserve to commence no earlier than 6am

weekdays and 7am on Saturdays/Sundays. 2. Gym operators at Gilbert Fraser Reserve to control the parking of patrons before

7am with parking to be limited to the locations shown on Attachment 2 of this item. 3. “In principal” support of the informal arrangement between the North Fremantle

Associated Clubs Inc and Fitness Results North Fremantle until a new Lease between the City and North Fremantle Associated Clubs Inc is finalised and a sub-lease is formalised.

Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to amend part 1 as shown in italics and strikethrough below: 1. Gym operations at Gilbert Fraser Reserve to commence no earlier than 6am

weekdays and 7am on Saturdays/Sundays, and be closed on Sundays. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against


REASONS FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Committee was of the view that the gym should be closed on Sunday to protect the amenity of the residents. The gym manager advised that there would not be significant impact on the gym's viability if it did not operate on Sunday. Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include part 4 as follows:

4. That council investigate the need for a time based no verge parking sign to be erected on Johannah Street and/or restricting access to the oval from Johannah Street.


25 November 2015

Page 124

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Committee was of the view that parking restrictions on Johannah Street may alleviate some of the resident's issues. Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include part 5 as follows: 5. That a management plan dealing with the reserve operation and impact on the

amenity of the precinct be included as part of the lease negotiations. CARRIED: 70/

For Against


REASONS FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Committee felt that a management plan was appropriate as part of the lease negotiation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION


1. Gym operations at Gilbert Fraser Reserve to commence no earlier than 6am weekdays and 7am on Saturdays, and be closed on Sundays.

2. Gym operators at Gilbert Fraser Reserve to control the parking of patrons before 7am with parking to be limited to the locations shown on Attachment 2 of this item.

3. “In principal” support of the informal arrangement between the North Fremantle

Associated Clubs Inc and Fitness Results North Fremantle until a new Lease


25 November 2015

Page 125

between the City and North Fremantle Associated Clubs Inc is finalised and a sub-lease is formalised.

4. That council investigate the need for a time based no verge parking sign to be

erected on Johannah Street and/or restricting access to the oval from Johannah Street.

5. That a management plan dealing with the reserve operation and impact on the

amenity of the precinct be included as part of the lease negotiations. ALTERNATIVE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION Council approve;

1. support of the informal arrangement between the North Fremantle Associated Clubs Inc and Fitness Results North Fremantle for the operation of a private gym at Gilbert Fraser Reserve with the operating commencement time to be no earlier than 6am weekdays and 7am on Saturdays with no approval to operate on Sundays.

2. The City’s Environmental Health Department will undertake noise monitoring at the site over a six week period at various times of the day during the gyms operation and report findings back to Council.

3. A new Lease between the City and North Fremantle Associated Inc and Sub Lease between North Fremantle Associated Clubs Inc and Fitness Results North Fremantle to be finalised within six (6) months of this resolution.

4. The Sub Lease between North Fremantle Associated Clubs Inc and Fitness Results North Fremantle will be subject to the following conditions within the Licence.

a. The gyms operations will commence no earlier than 6am on weekdays and 7am on Saturday with no approval to operate on Sunday.

b. The gyms operations must comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997

c. The gym will not cater to cross fit circuit classes or style training. d. Gym operators will inform and discourage patron parking on the road

reserve at Gilbert Fraser Reserve between the hours of 6am to 8am and direct patrons to park in the locations shown on Attachment 2 of this item.

e. If these conditions are not complied to within the Sub Lease by the gym this will constitute a Notice of Default against the Sub Lease. The Sub Lease will be terminated if a total of 5 Notices of Default are issued.


25 November 2015

Page 126

COUNCIL DECISION


1. support of the informal arrangement between the North Fremantle Associated Clubs Inc and Fitness Results North Fremantle for the operation of a private gym at Gilbert Fraser Reserve with the operating commencement time to be no earlier than 6am weekdays and 7am on Saturdays with no approval to operate on Sundays.

2. The City’s Environmental Health Department will undertake noise monitoring at the site over a six week period at various times of the day during the gyms operation and report findings back to Council.

3. A new Lease between the City and North Fremantle Associated Inc and Sub Lease between North Fremantle Associated Clubs Inc and Fitness Results North Fremantle to be finalised within six (6) months of this resolution.

4. The Sub Lease between North Fremantle Associated Clubs Inc and Fitness Results North Fremantle will be subject to the following conditions within the Licence.

a. The gyms operations will commence no earlier than 6am on weekdays and 7am on Saturday with no approval to operate on Sunday.

b. The gyms operations must comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997

c. The gym will not cater to cross fit circuit classes or style training. d. Gym operators will inform and discourage patron parking on the road

reserve at Gilbert Fraser Reserve between the hours of 6am to 8am and direct patrons to park in the locations shown on Attachment 2 of this item.

e. If these conditions are not complied to within the Sub Lease by the gym this will constitute a Notice of Default against the Sub Lease. The Sub Lease will be terminated if a total of 5 Notices of Default are issued.


For Against

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeffrey McDonalf


25 November 2015

Page 127

SGS1511-4 CANTONMENT HILL BUILDING AND LANDSCAPE WORKS

ECM Reference: 039/068 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 November 2015 Previous Item: SGS1504-6 SGS1506-10 SPC1507-2 SGS1509-2 Responsible Officer: Paul Trotman, Director Strategic Planning and Projects

Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery

Actioning Officer: Jenaya Shepherd, Manager Strategic Projects Phillip Adams, Manager Infrastructure Projects

Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1 Staging Plan

Attachment 2 Dilapidation Deport and Preliminary Advice Attachment 3 Enkel meeting minutes Attachment 4 Lotterywest Expression of Interest

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In June 2015 Council approved a study to identify remedial works required for the Naval Stores building and requested the findings be reported back to Council. This paper reports back on the findings of the Naval Stores study and provides an update of progress made on the Cantonment Hill Project, including:

Works to bring the Signal Station up to building code compliance have commenced and will be completed by March 2016.

Dilapidation report identifies remedial works needed to bring the Naval Stores up to building code compliance.

Detailed designs for the Stage 1 landscaping works i.e. Tuckfield Oval have commenced and will be completed by February 2015.

Meetings with the State Heritage Office, Department of Planning, Main Roads WA and Department of Aboriginal Affairs have taken place to establish the process for seeking the required approvals.

The City has lodged an expression of interest with Lotterywest for a funding contribution to deliver Stage 1 landscaping works i.e. Tuckfield Oval.

The City is programmed to attend the 24 November Whadjuk Working Party meeting (via SWALSC) and seek support for preparing an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan.

A stakeholder engagement and communications plan is being developed for the works phase of the project. Engagement going forward will build on the activities that have already taken place.

BACKGROUND

Cantonment Hill acts as a landmark and gateway to central Fremantle from the north. It has a rich Aboriginal and European history that should be conserved, celebrated and enjoyed. As such the Cantonment Hill project is identified as a priority strategic project of regional importance, which has the capacity to positively impact and serve the sub-regional community of and visitors to Fremantle.


25 November 2015

Page 128

Planned upgrade works include the conservation, enhancement and activation of the local heritage listed parklands of Tuckfield Oval, Cantonment Hill Reserve (bush forever) and Signal Station Reserve and the renovation and activation of two State heritage listed buildings Signal Station and Naval Store. The works are set to be delivered in five (5) stages (ref Attachment 1).

WORKS

Stage 1 Upgrades of the existing heritage buildings and landscape enhancement of Tuckfield Oval e.g. new playground and picnic facilities.

Stage 2 Building occupation and footpath upgrades along Canning Highway and landscaping around the Naval Stores.

Stage 3 Regeneration of the bush forever and creation of new graded foot paths to access the Signal Station.

Stage 4 Upgrades to the Queen Victoria Street bus stop and pedestrian connections to the Signal Station.

Stage 5 Streetscape and access improvements to Quarry Street including new parking provisions.

The City will investigate the viability of new development to further establish Cantonment Hill as a regional destination in the long term i.e. beyond the current five (5) year works program. Proposals discussed in the architecture detailed concept plan include a function centre and restaurant linked to the Signal Station and a café adjacent to the Naval Stores.

COMMENT

A project team comprising officers from Strategic Planning and Projects, City Business and Infrastructure Project Delivery has formed to identify and program the necessary actions to deliver the works. The project team meets on a regular basis to coordinate key actions. Focus to date has been on scoping necessary approvals and building works, including: Signal Station In September 2015 SGS approved contractors Enviro Contracting to undertake works on the Signal Station (SGS1509-2). The works focus on repairing the external building fabric i.e. brickwork and windows, minor internal works i.e. repairing/replacing balustrades/doors, servicing connections and general repainting. These works will bring the Signal Station up to building code compliance for tenanting purposes. They commenced in October 2015 and are scheduled to be completed in March 2016 after which the tenants, Fremantle Volunteer Sea Rescue, will gain access. Naval Store In June 2015 Council approved a study to identify remedial works required for the Naval Stores building (SGS1506-10). Engineering firm Cardno were appointed to prepare a dilapidation report and provide preliminary advice on bringing the Naval Stores up to building code compliance for tenanting and public access (ref Attachment 2). The Naval Stores were assessed as bring a ‘class 9b assembly building’ for compliance purposes. Works identified include fire safety i.e. systems and access/egress, fire enclosures e.g. stairwells, universal access, sanitary requirements and light and ventilation. In


25 November 2015

Page 129

accordance with the SGS1506-10 resolution project officers briefed the Activation Working Group on the findings of the Cardno report on 13 October 2015. This closes out the last main delegation of the Group. On 20 October 2015 project officers briefed the preferred tenant Enkel (ref Attachment 3) on the City agreed works, namely:

Generally the building is in good structural condition;

Power supply upgrades are required including new mains switchboard, communications, lighting (and emergency lighting) and sub boards;

Upgrades required to sewer and water connections as well as stormwater management i.e. downpipe replacement;

Fire service upgrades include the installation of new hydrants, hose reels and detection system;

Clearing of material build up to the rear of the building and geotechnical inspection of the adjoining limestone cliff face is required;

A further detailed structural survey is required to investigate cracking in external brickwork, lintel spalling repair (two windows), and two internal steel columns; and

Inspection and clearing of gutters is required. Enkel have been given an extension on completing their due diligence assessment against the terms of the lease until March 2016. During this time the City will scope and contract the necessary building compliance and public access works. A high level cost estimate for the building compliance works and basic public access works is given below. In addition geotechnical engineering firm STATS PTY have provided a quote to clear the rear wall of limestone debris and assess the stability of the adjoining limestone cliff face. Major demolition, reinstatement of amenities and any works required to stabilise the cliff face have been excluded from this estimate.

BUILDING COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATE

Site clearing and cliff assessment $15,500.00

Structural $47,000.00

Electrical services $74,000.00

Hydraulic services $30,100.00

Fire services $27,000.00

Fire proofing i.e. enclosing stairwells $18,000.00

Weather proofing and security i.e. door/window replacement $47,000.00

Sub-total $258,600.00

BASIC PUBLIC ACCESS COST ESTIMATE

Internal demolition $6,000.00

Public toilets (3) $76,000.00

Mezzanine access (universal) i.e. external bridge $50,000.00

Mezzanine access (universal) i.e. internal lift $100,000.00

Sub-total $232,000.00

TOTAL $490,600.00 Source: Cardno Dilapidation Report & Preliminary Advice and AURA Urban & Regional Alliance Architecture Detail Concept Plan

The building compliance works are to upgrade services, restore/replace structural elements, weather proof the building and ensure fire safety requirements are met. The public access works are required to provide universal access and public toilets. This will provide a basic level of public amenity to the building, facilitate tenanting and support


25 November 2015

Page 130

landscape upgrades. Project officers recommend Council proceed with the building compliance and basic public access works package as a minimum. Notwithstanding, there is merit in Council considering additional building works to future proof long term use and conserve the building’s historic fabric. This would allow greater capability for public use e.g. performance and eventing, flexible and adaptable tenanting options and the ability to host functions at the venue in future. A high level cost estimate associated with providing ‘flexible’ public access is given below.

BUILDING COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATE

Site clearing and cliff assessment $ 15,500.00

Structural $ 47,000.00

Electrical services $ 74,000.00

Hydraulic services $ 30,100.00

Fire services $ 27,000.00

Fire proofing i.e. enclosing stairwells $ 18,000.00

Weather proofing and security i.e. door/window replacement $ 47,000.00

Sub-total $258,600.00

FLEXIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS COST ESTIMATE

Internal demolition $ 6,000.00

Public toilets (5) i.e. event capacity $126,000.00

Mezzanine access (universal) i.e. external bridge $ 50,000.00

Mezzanine access (events) i.e. higher capacity lift $200,000.00

Mezzanine floor finishing i.e. sand back/polish $ 30,000.00

Building restoration i.e. external render and internal painting $ 70,000.00

Sub-total $482,000.00

TOTAL $740,600.00 Source: Cardno Dilapidation Report & Preliminary Advice and AURA Urban & Regional Alliance Architecture Detail Concept Plan

Should Council be minded to support the building compliance and flexible public access works package the following alternative to resolution two (2) below is recommended: That Council approves $740,600 funding from the Cantonment Hill 2015/16 budget (capital and non-recurrent) to undertake the building compliance and flexible public access works package at the Naval Stores. Approvals A Section 18 approval was granted by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee on 02 February 2011 for the three (3) registered sites within the City’s administrative boundary, including Cantonment Hill. The approval allowed for maintenance and improvements, landscape preservation, flora and fauna management (the “purpose”) and was based on the 1992 Cantonment Hill Management Plan. Condition one (1) of the approval required an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan to be prepared prior to initiating the purpose. Project officers met with Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) on 22 October 2015 to seek advice on releasing condition one (1) to facilitate the commencement of works at Cantonment Hill. Advice received suggested two possible routes for securing DAA support to commence works, given proposals had moved on considerably through the Cantonment Hill Masterplan (2013) and Detailed Concept Plans (2015):


25 November 2015

Page 131

1. Initiate a second Section 18 process to update the purpose definition; or 2. Undertake to release condition 1 under the extant section 18 by preparing an

Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan. Both are susceptible to time delays due to the engagement process, however, in pursuing a second section 18 there is a further risk Cantonment Hill may be de-registered by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee. After discussing the options with internal and external experts, the project team is seeking to release condition 1 under the extant section 18. This is deemed to be the best process for engaging the local Aboriginal community and will build on past engagement activities. A following up meeting with DAA to confirm this direction occurred on 30 October 2015. DAA advised the City should seek legal counsel on the planned works to ensure they met with the purpose of the extant section 18, and secure a letter of support from the Wadjuk Working Party (via SWALSC) for preparing the Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan. Subsequently project officers have secured a place on the agenda for the next working party meeting, scheduled for 24 and 25 November 2015. In accordance with the emerging Aboriginal Engagement Strategy, work to prepare the Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan will be conducted largely in-house with minor consultant support/guidance. Legal advice on the scope of the current purpose will be received by 13 November 2015. Project officers also met with the State Heritage Office on 06 July 2015 to obtain preliminary advice on the Naval Store concept plans, preferred tenant proposals and landscape plans. Advice received regarding the Naval Store indicates the preference to locate the mezzanine bridge to the rear of the building to minimise intrusion into the front façade and minimise impact on structural heritage elements of the building. Project officers then met with Department of Planning and Main Roads WA on 6 October 2015 to obtain preliminary advice on the landscape plans and proposed Naval Store access arrangements. Note the portion of Canning Highway and Queen Victoria Street in the vicinity of Cantonment Hill is zoned Other Major Road Reserve in the Metropolitan Region Scheme. The advice was to maintain the access “status quo” via Canning Highway given the immediate proximity of a major signalised intersection and planned long term road upgrades. Intensifying the access would not be supported and should be restricted to limited service vehicle use and possible ACROD parking. Main Roads WA suggested service vehicle access via Tuckfield Street would produce a better outcome long term. As works to and around the Naval Store is more complex, requiring referral to the State Heritage Office and Main Roads as well as consultation with Enkel, the necessary development approvals will take more time to assess. As such two separate development applications will be lodged for the Cantonment Hill works, thus reducing the risk in delays. While the Naval Stores will require referral to statutory agencies, the landscaping works can be progressed under delegated authority in parallel with the release of the section 18 condition 1. It is anticipated the development application for the landscape works excluding the Naval Stores i.e. stage two (2) will be submitted early January 2016.


25 November 2015

Page 132

Grant Funding The 2015/16 Capital and Non Recurrent budget assumes a portion of the stage one (1) works will be grant funded. The primary source of grant funding for projects like Cantonment Hill is Lotterywest, and more specifically the open space elements that contribute towards community building. The project does not generally qualify for other sources of grant funding e.g. Heritage Council or Tourism WA whose mandate focuses on perseveration of private assets or regional projects. Unless developed in collaboration from the onset, projects such as Cantonment Hill are unlikely to attract partnership funding from associated state or federal agencies such as the Department of Defence. The City has been working with Lotterywest to understand the likely appetite for support from the funding agency. Advice received indicated a focus on publicly accessible works e.g. landscaping would be considered favourable, with a preference for the Lotterywest Board to consider a lump sum i.e. one-off project contribution up front. On the back of this advice, and with Executive Leadership Team support, an expression of interest (EOI) was lodged with Lotterywest on 08 October 2015 (ref Attachment 4). The EOI requested funding for stage one (1) Tuckfield Oval, stage three (3) Bush Forever site landscape works and the total value of the interpretive works. Lotterywest internal review took place on 14 October 2015. From feedback given the project was considered to have merits for Lotterywest support, however, the sum requested was considered significant at 54 per cent of the total estimated project budget. Consequently the recommendation was for the City to focus the request for funding on the stage one (1) Tuckfield Oval works only. On 22 October 2015 the City met again with Lotterywest to confirm the revised funding request would be valued at $2.2 million. Lotterywest internal review will consider the revised funding request on 11 November 2015. It is anticipated Lotterywest will invite a full grant application, though the value of the grant will be subject to the internal review. Once lodged, the deliberation period for a full application is four (4) months, meaning a determination will not be made until mid-March 2016. Landscaping Detailed design of the stage one (1) landscape works are required to inform discussions with the community and progress the grant funding application, Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan and development applications. A breakdown of landscape architect fees based on a percentage of the approved construction budget is given below for each stage.

DETAILED

DESIGN TENDERING

CONTRACT ADMIN.

SUB-TOTAL

Stage 1 $ 98,205.00 $ 11,585.00 $ 41,045.00 $150,835.00

Stage 2 $ 14,060.00 $ 2,680.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 23,340.00

Stage 3 $ 51,471.60 $ 6,788.00 $ 23,360.40 $ 81,620.00

Stage 4 $ 26,438.45 $ 4,053.20 $ 12,190.35 $ 42,682.00

Stage 5 $ 44,365.25 $ 5,887.50 $ 17,282.25 $ 67,535.00

TOTAL $234,540.30 $ 30,993.70 $100,478.00 $366,012.00

At this point landscape architects Ecoscape have been commissioned to undertake the detailed design of stage one (1) for a fee of $98,205 i.e. excluding tendering and/or


25 November 2015

Page 133

contract administration. The documentation is due for completion early in the New Year, which could impact on the timing of the grant funding decision. Tendering and contract administration will be considered separately pending the outcome of the grant funding application and the City gaining the statutory approvals required before commencing works.


Financial

The project is programmed to be delivered over five financial years from 2015/16 to 2019/20 at a total cost of around $9.8 million ex. GST. A capital works budget of $1.9 million (municipal funds) has been committed for stage one (1) building and landscape works this (2015/16) financial year. Committed expenditure against the allocated budget to date:

AREA TASK COST

Signal Station Upgrades

$ 350,000.00

Naval Stores Building compliance and public access $ 490,600.00 - $ 740,600.00

Landscaping Stage 1 detailed design

$ 98,205.00

Stage 1 tendering and contract administration

$ 23,580.00

Section 18 Legal advice

$ 2,000.00

Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan i.e. consultant input

$ 16,000.00 - $ 22,000.00

TOTAL $980,385.00 - $1,236,385.00

If the City is successful in securing Lotterywest support to deliver the stage 1 landscape works at a total sum of $2.2 million ex. GST the balance cost for works over the remaining four (4) financial years will be in the order of $5.7 million ex. GST. This equates to a potential future Council commitment of around $1.4 million per annum for the life of the construction.

CONCLUSION

Work on the project continues to progress with stage 1 design works underway on the Signal Station, Naval Stores and landscaping. Concurrently, the City has been working on gaining the right approvals from the State Heritage Office, Department of Planning, Main Roads WA and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs; getting grant funding from Lotterywest and also on a stakeholder engagement and communications plan.


The Project is consistent with Council’s Freo 2029 – Transformational Moves core strategy.


25 November 2015

Page 134


A stakeholder engagement and communications plan is being developed to provide clarity on planned stakeholder engagement and communications activities that will be undertaken if the grant is or is not supported. Stakeholder analysis has been completed to provide a framework for implementing effective stakeholder engagement to support the project throughout the detailed design and works stages. Engagement will commence on the approval of the expression of interest from Lotterywest. To date, community engagement on the project has largely occurred through the development of the Cantonment Hill Master Plan. This process was undertaken from April 2010 to September 2011, and was designed to enable a range of voices to contribute to the discussion about the future of the Cantonment Hill site, including people from the Fremantle community, neighbouring residents and members of the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council Metro Working Party and Aboriginal elders. Techniques used to consult the community included the Cantonment Hill Master Planning Working Group, two community workshops, a site visit and meeting with Aboriginal community. Engagement throughout the preparation of the landscape design and interpretation concept plans in 2014 and 2015 occurred with the Cantonment Hill Working Group, with a need for further consultation with traditional owners, community groups, residents and state government agencies identified for the next phase of the project. Stakeholder engagement and communication throughout the detailed design and works stage will have the following objectives:

Consultation with various state government agencies such as State Heritage Office, Department of Planning, Department of Water and Department Aboriginal Affairs to ensure relevant issues are captured in the detailed design and required approvals are obtained.

Engagement with the Whadjuk Working Party, commencing in November 2015 to provide an update on the progress of the project since completion of the master plan and to seek feedback on the preparation of Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan.

Ongoing consultation with residents within close proximity to the site about impacts, to ensure community issues and concerns are consistently understood and considered.

To inform the community and other stakeholders on opportunities to provide feedback on the landscape design, site interpretation, parking and traffic management issues.

To encourage informed comment on the detailed design and widespread awareness of the implementation works, by providing comprehensive information about the project and timely updates on the progress of the project.

To assist the project team in developing appropriate management plans and mitigation methods in response to the key issues raised as part of the engagement process.

The stakeholder engagement and communications plan will be prepared following review of previous project documentation and engagement outcomes.


Absolute majority required


25 November 2015

Page 135


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. Note this report.

2. Approves $490,600 funding from the Cantonment Hill 2015/16 budget (capital and non-recurrent) to undertake the building compliance and basic public access works package at the Naval Stores.

Cr A Sullivan moved the following amendment to part 2, (as shown in italics)and withdrew it, therefore there was no vote

2. Approves $740,600 funding from the Cantonment Hill 2015/16 budget (capital and non-recurrent) to undertake the building compliance and basic flexible public access works package at the Naval Stores.

Cr D Coggin MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Ordinary Meeting of Council, however the motion was withdrawn therefore there was no vote. Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to amend part 2 and include part 3 as follows:

2. Approve $258 600 funding from the Cantonment Hill 2015/16 budget (capital and non-recurrent) to undertake the building compliance.

3. Defer the consideration of public access requirements to the next appropriate Strategic and General Services Committee meeting.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against


REASONS FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The building compliance works were considered essential, however the Committee felt that they required further information on the service to be provided by the lessee to determine the level of public access required.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION



25 November 2015

Page 136

1. Note this report. 2. Approve $258 600 funding from the Cantonment Hill 2015/16 budget (capital and

non-recurrent) to undertake the building compliance. 3. Defer the consideration of public access requirements to the next appropriate

Strategic and General Services Committee meeting. CARRIED: 7/0 Cr A Sullivan MOVED Part 1 of the Committee’s Recommendation and an alternative recommendation to the Committee’s Recommendation to include the following wording:

1. Note this report from the remedial building works from Cantonment Hill and Naval Stores

2. a) Approves $740,600 funding from the Cantonment Hill 2015/16

budget (capital and non-recurrent) to undertake the building compliance and basic flexible public access works package at the Naval Stores.

b) Quarantine the public toilets, external bridge, external floor finishing, building restoration, mezzanine access bridge and internal lift, works to the value $482,000 until the diligence period for Enkel has been completed


For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Officers Alternative Recommendation is provided to allow The City to analyse the tenants requirements before committing funds to Committees issues.


25 November 2015

Page 137

SGS1511-5 REQUEST TO WAIVE COUNCIL RATES - GEORGIE ADEANE T/A SUNSET MARKETS

ECM Reference: L0150; 049/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 November 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Tom Griffiths, Manager Economic Development and

Marketing Actioning Officer: Nadine Hume, Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This item is to request Council to waive Council Rates charged to Georgie Adeane T/A Sunset Markets for the period 2015/16 for the use of Bathers Beach, Mews Road, Fremantle and to waive future Council Rate Charges at the new markets location at South Beach Reserve, South Fremantle.

BACKGROUND

Georgie Adeane entered into a Licence with the City commencing January 2013 for a portion of Arthur Head Reserve at Bathers Beach Fremantle to run multicultural food markets. The original licence was for a trial period and as the concept proved a success the markets licence was extended. As Ms Adeane holds a License to use the Crown Land the City is obligated to charge Council Rates under the definition of “owner” under the Local Government Act 1995. Rates and charges have been issued for the following period; Rates/Levies/Charges for period 2015/16 Arrears carried over from 2014/15: $7.26 Rates: $1,222.00 Security Levy: $10.48 Emergency Services Levy: $126.64 Overdue Interest up to 04/11/2015 as at 5/11/2015: $23.58 – accruing daily TOTAL: $1,389.96 The rates are charged for the use of the land for a full year.

COMMENT

The Sunset markets operate under a Licence which represents “not exclusive” use of the land unlike a Lease which gives a tenant “exclusive use” of land.


25 November 2015

Page 138

Ms Adeane’s Licence for Bathers Beach was for a term of two years but under the permitted hours Ms Adeane is only entitled to use the land between 3pm and 10pm with trading hours being 4pm to 9pm, on a Saturday evening. Given that trade is only possible in this location during summer months the markets run from mid-November until around April, weather permitting. The Council rates are based on a GRV from Landgate and charge for a full year much like rates would be charged to a tenant with an exclusive use Lease or Licence which entitles a Licensee retail trading. As Ms Adeane could only use the licensed area for a maximum of 7 hours per week over a period of 6 months it is proposed that Council Rates are waived. Given that Ms Adeane has been approved for a new Licence at a location at South Beach Reserve with the same permitted hours of use, City Officers also proposed that Council Rates be waived at the new licenced area. As the Security Levy and Emergency Service Levy is a federal required charge Ms Adeane will still be liable to cover this fee.


Financial

Should Council approve to waive the Council Rates applied to the Bathers Beach licensed area the City will lose revenue of $1,222.00 plus interest incurred. A GRV has yet to be sourced to calculate the Council Rates for the new Licensed area at South Beach Reserve. Legal

Local Government Act 1995 Ms Adeane is not eligible for a rate exemption under the exemption criteria of section 6.26 of the Local Government Act 1995 however has requested to apply for a concession under section 6.47; “Subject to Rates and Charges (Rebates and Deferments) Act 1992, a local government may at the time of imposing a rate or service charge or at a later date resolve to waive * a rate or service charge or resolve to grant other concessions in relation to rate or service charge”. Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


25 November 2015

Page 139

CONCLUSION

As Ms Adeane does not have exclusive use to the use the licensed area at either Bathers Beach or South Beach Reserve and is only permitted use the area for a period of seven (7) hours once a week over the summer season it does not seem justified that the City charge Council Rates for a full year. Should the Council Rates be waived the Security Levy and State Government Emergency Services Levy will still apply and be payable by the Ms Adeane.


Nil


Nil




That Council approve;

1. A concession on Council Rates for Georgie Adeane, Licensee of Portion of Lot 2051, on Plan 217075 being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title Volume LR3037 Folio 511 under Section 6.47 of the Local Government Act WA 1995 by waiving the Council Rate amount of $1,222.00.

2. A concession on future Council Rates for Georgie Adeane, under the new

Licence for Portion of Lot 2115, on Plan 219942 being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title Volume LR3111 Folio 622 under Section 6.47 of the Local Government Act WA 1995.

Director City Business, Glen Dougall withdrew part 2 from the officer's recommendation as it is considered unnecessary.



1. A concession on Council Rates for Georgie Adeane, Licensee of Portion of Lot 2051, on Plan 217075 being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title Volume LR3037 Folio 511 under Section 6.47 of the Local Government Act WA 1995 by waiving the Council Rate amount of $1,222.00.


25 November 2015

Page 140

SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



25 November 2015

Page 141

At 8.19 pm Cr Jeffrey McDonald declared a impartiality interest in item number SGS1511-7 and stayed during discussion and voting of this item.

SGS1511-7 2016-2020 ACCESS AND INCLUSION PLAN (DISABILITY)

ECM Reference: 023/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 November 2015 Previous Item: SGS1012-11 Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Beverley Bone, Manager Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1 - Draft 2016-2020 Access and Inclusion

Plan (AIP) Attachment 2 – Draft Access and Inclusion Implementation Plan Attachment 3 - Community Consultation Survey Responses

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City’s 2011-2015 Disability Access and Inclusion Plan (DAIP) has now been reviewed, along with the development of a new 2016-2020 Access and Inclusion Plan (AIP). The new plan must be submitted to the Disability Services Commission by December 2015 to ensure compliance with legislative requirements. The AIP addresses key barriers to disability access and inclusion within the City.

BACKGROUND

The Disability Services Act 1993 (amended 2004), requires state and Local Government authorities to develop and implement an AIP. The AIP assists public authorities to plan and implement improvements to access and inclusion across seven outcome areas. The City has a statutory obligation to review the AIP every five years. The City’s current 2011-2015 DAIP was endorsed by Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 8 December 2010. Since that time, regular progress reporting has been provided to the Disability Services Commission. The City has performed well in meeting the outcomes of the current DAIP plan. The plan benefits people with a disability, the elderly, young parents and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. City staff recommend that the new plan be referred to as the Access and Inclusion Plan (AIP) reflecting a commitment to the principle within the community and should be seamlessly accessible to everyone, including people with disability.

COMMENT

The City is committed to ensuring that people with a disability, their families and carers are able to access services, facilities and information as well as being provided with the same opportunities, rights and responsibilities enjoyed by all people in the community.


25 November 2015

Page 142

The City engaged an independent disability consultant to undertake a comprehensive review of the DAIP including community and staff consultation. The purpose of the review was to assess the City’s progress and achievements within the current DAIP and determine priorities for the 2016-2020 Access and Inclusion Plan (AIP) (please refer to Attachment 1). This review also included any updates to local, national and international legislative regulation and policy. Whilst the AIP must relate specifically to people with disability, it provides an effective framework for meeting the needs of many people within the community. This includes young parents, the elderly and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. The review found that the City’s current 2011-2015 DAIP continued to demonstrate a strong commitment for working towards achieving all of the DAIP outcomes. The review also recognised initiatives and achievements by the City towards improving access and inclusion. Examples include the successful installation of universal access ramps and the hydraulic chair lift at the Fremantle Leisure Centre, along with the increased number and refurbishment of existing accessible toilets at Port Beach and Leighton Beach. The findings from the review have been considered as part of the initiatives and development of the 2016-2020 AIP.


Financial

Once the 2016-2020 AIP is endorsed by Council, each of the City’s business units will be required to identify and budget for any planned projects proposed as part of the long term financial plan. Legal

The Disability Services Act 1993 (amended 2004) requires State Government authorities and Local Governments to develop and implement a Disability Access and Inclusion Plan. The City will meet the legislative obligations once the plan is adopted by Council and forwarded to the Disability Services Commission by 31 December 2015. Legal obligations under relevant Commonwealth and State disability laws can be categorised in to two key themes:

1. Prevent unlawful disability discrimination. 2. Ensure equal access to opportunity for people with disability.

Operational

The City of Fremantle’s 2016-2020 AIP will be implemented and monitored over five years. All City staff, including agents and contractors engaged by the City whom supply services to the public, will have a role to play in the implementation of the AIP. Each business unit is responsible for planning, budgeting, implementing, monitoring and reporting on actions identified in the internal Draft Access and Inclusion Implementation Plan (please refer to Attachment 2).


25 November 2015

Page 143

Business units will report on the implementation of actions through the City’s Interplan program. The Access and Inclusion Project Officer will take on the advisory, support and coordination role, collate actions achieved from each business unit and ensure that the annual statutory reporting is carried out with the Disability Service Commission. Draft Access and Inclusion Implementation Plan may be amended to reflect progress and include any additional access and inclusion issues which may arise from time to time. Organisational

In accordance with the City of Fremantle Strategic Community Plan 2010-2015: In its efforts to strengthen Fremantle, Council undertakes to uphold the values of good governance, strong leadership, community engagement, inclusiveness and above all to be a proactive organisation.

CONCLUSION

The City is committed to making continual improvements to ensure that buildings, facilities, services, events, information and employment opportunities are available to all community members, including those whom have a disability. The 2016-2020 AIP will provide an effective framework for meeting the needs of many people in the community and developing the City’s reputation as an accessible and inclusive place to live, work, play and visit.


The 2016-2020 AIP aligns with and is linked to the strategic imperatives identified in the City of Fremantle’s current Strategic Plan. Universal access and inclusion is fundamental for a vibrant, innovative and liveable City. The successful implementation of the AIP will ensure that policies and practices are consistent with the AIP during planned reviews.


The plan was developed after a two stage community engagement process. The first community consultation process undertaken in June 2015, which engaged local people with disability, families, carers, support workers, disability service providers, interested community members and City of Fremantle staff. The two week consultation process included surveys available both electronically and in hard copy format. The City offered opportunities for the community to have their say through face-to-face meetings and telephone interviews. The consultation was promoted in the local media, City of Fremantle’s website and intranet, through the City of Fremantle services and directly to key disability organisations and interested community members. A total of 106 staff and community members provided feedback on access and inclusion in the City of Fremantle (please refer to Attachment 3). Once the information was collated, the draft 2016-2020 AIP was put out to the community for further community comment in September 2015. It should be noted that the City did receive additional feedback from one community member through this process, however the issues raised were outside the realm of Local Government services. This feedback has been discussed with the community member


25 November 2015

Page 144

whom has been directed to follow up with the relevant public authorities, such as the Department of Transport in regards to audio announcements on public transport.



COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. The 2016-2020 Access and Inclusion Plan (AIP) be adopted for submission to the

Disability Services Commission in accordance with the Disability Services Act 1993 (amended 2004).

2. The 2016-2020 Access and Inclusion Plan (AIP) be communicated to the

community, City of Fremantle staff, agents and contractors in accordance with the Disability Services Act 1993 (amended 2004).

CARRIED: 7/0 Cr S Wainwright MOVED two minor amendments to the Committee and Officer's Attachment titled 2016-2020 Access and Inclusion Plan (Disability), Draft Access and Inclusion Implementation Plan and include an additional Part 7.3, and add an additional point to Outcome 7 of the Draft Access and Inclusion Implementation Plan, and include the following wording shown in bold and italics:

Outcome 7

People with disability have the

same opportunities as other

people to obtain and maintain

employment with the City of

Fremantle.

● People with disability will be encouraged and supported to

apply for roles with the City.

● City workplaces will be accessible and safe for existing and new

staff.

● The City will create, develop and customise employment

opportunities and roles for people with disability.

7.3 The City will create develop and customise employment opportunities and roles for people with disability.

A. Traineeship for young people.

Manager Business Support


25 November 2015

Page 145


For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The City to encourage, develop and customise employment opportunities and roles for people with disability. Cr S Wainwright MOVED a minor amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording at the end of the words of Part 2: and summary of the Access and Inclusion Plan be placed on the City of Fremantle’s website. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



25 November 2015

Page 146

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. The 2016-2020 Access and Inclusion Plan (AIP) be adopted for submission to

the Disability Services Commission in accordance with the Disability Services Act 1993 (amended 2004).

2. The 2016-2020 Access and Inclusion Plan (AIP) be communicated to the

community, City of Fremantle staff, agents and contractors in accordance with the Disability Services Act 1993 (amended 2004) and summary of the Access and Inclusion Plan be placed on the City of Fremantle’s website.


For Against



25 November 2015

Page 147

SGS1511-8 NOTICE OF MOTION BY CR JOSH WILSON - APPROVAL TO ESTABLISH A WORKING GROUP ON REDUCING ALCOHOL-RELATED HARM

ECM Reference: 097/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 November 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Cr Josh Wilson Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: SG 50 – Alcohol Management Policy

ELECTED MEMBER SUMMARY

The intention of this Notice of Motion is to seek approval from Council to establish a Council Working Group on Reducing Alcohol Related Harm. In 2013, Council adopted an Alcohol Management policy (SG50) whose stated aim was “to foster a healthy and responsible drinking culture and to implement a range of strategies to minimise the incidence of alcohol related harm in the community”. The provisions in the policy include verbs like ‘promote’, ‘engage’, and ‘develop’ – but do not clearly indicate what is to occur, or how Council/community will know when the policy is being enacted. A number of recent items before Council have highlighted the fact that SG50 is not actively or effectively informing the City and Council’s consideration of decisions that are relevant to the project of reducing alcohol related harm. For example, this summer the City will host a number of live-music events that feature prominent name sponsorship by an alcohol brand that markets to young people, and has been identified as a brand popular with under-age drinkers. The Alcohol Management policy was not cited or referred to in the reports to Council approving those events. The Australian Medical Association’s 2012 report on ‘Alcohol Marketing and Young People’ contained recommendations which included:

4. Sponsorship by alcohol companies and brands should be prohibited at youth, cultural and musical events.

This is a difficult area of policy, not least because we acknowledge that the City’s cultural events commonly involve some form of alcohol sponsorship – and in at least one case, brand-name sponsorship. In any case, there is good reason to continue Fremantle’s tradition of policy leadership and innovation by considering some key changes to how the promotion and provision of alcohol occurs. I propose that the Working Group would comprise the Mayor, three Elected Members, the Manager of Arts and Culture, and the Manager of Field Services, and would seek input from relevant business people and public health experts.


25 November 2015

Page 148

I propose that the terms of reference be the following. 1: To review the purpose and clarity of the principles and imperatives contained within

SG50 so that its policy intent can be applied in Council decision-making. 2: To give specific consideration to the following:

a) Alcohol sponsorship and marketing, especially of cultural activities. b) Alcohol advertisement and signage in the City. c) Opening hours. d) Opportunities to promote non-alcohol events and activities.

The Fremantle community is subject to alcohol-related harm to no less extent than the broader Australian community. As a primary centre it is a focus of food & beverage business and activity, which includes numerous licensed premises. Throughout its history, Fremantle has experienced and continues to experience the antisocial impact of Australia’s unhealthy ‘alcohol culture’, including stark instances of direct and indirect harm. As a ‘Festival City’ and place that is home to a broad range of cultural events, Fremantle has a degree of visibility and influence, especially in relation to young people, that enables the City to play a leadership role in the social and regulatory change necessary to reduce alcohol-related harm. I believe Fremantle has a responsibility to take some reasonable steps to explore, model, and lead that change. OFFICER'S COMMENT SG50 Alcohol Management Policy is silent on alcohol sponsorship and signage at events. If there is an appetite within Council for the City’s officers to restrict and control alcohol sponsorship and signage at events, then it may be appropriate to amend part 7 of SG50 Alcohol Management Policy to read: 7. Promote a responsible approach to alcohol consumption, sponsorship and signage at events supported and organised by the City and at venues it owns or manages.” Following an amendment to the policy, informal discussions between EM’s and staff can define what “a responsible approach to alcohol sponsorship and signage at events” looks like. Acceptable and unacceptable criteria in respect to alcohol sponsorship and signage at events can be established, with a procedure created to guide staff in the implementation of Council’s amended policy position. Staff are planning, reviewing and negotiating contracts and agreements in events in an ongoing manner and welcome more clarity on how the policy statements are to be interpreted. Officers are of the belief that policy SG50 has been applied responsibly. There are many arts, cultural and community events across the City’s events calendar that are alcohol free. If practical implementation needs to be clarified around sponsorship and signage then this should be discussed and completed as soon as possible to ensure planning for upcoming events can be applied with the intent of the policy statements.




25 November 2015

Page 149

NOTICE OF MOTION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. Council approve the establishment of a Working Group on Reducing Alcohol

Related Harm. 2. Appoint the Mayor, __________,_________, ________, and Manager Arts and

Culture and Manager Field Services as members of the Working Group. 3. The Working Group is to report back to Council, through the Strategic &

General Services Committee before 30 June 2016 with suggested changes to SG50, and any other recommendations.

CARRIED: 7/0 Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer’s Recommendation to include 8 and to expand the project delegation methodology to include an additional point 2(d) as below; 1: To review the purpose and clarity of the principles and imperatives contained within

SG50 so that its policy intent can be applied in Council decision-making. 2: To give specific consideration to the following:

a) Alcohol sponsorship and marketing, especially of cultural activities. b) Alcohol advertisement and signage in the City. c) Opening hours. d) consideration of steps and policy that the City can take to encourage and

promote recreation and cultural activities in Fremantle that are less prone to irresponsible use and abuse of alcohol

e) Opportunities to promote non-alcohol events and activities.

SECONDED: Cr D Hume


25 November 2015

Page 150

CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


NOTICE OF MOTION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. Council approve the establishment of a Working Group on Reducing

Alcohol Related Harm. 2. Appoint the Mayor, Cr Josh Wilson (Deputy Mayor), Cr Jon Strachan, Cr

Andrew Sullivan and Manager Arts and Culture and Manager Field Services as members of the Working Group.

3. The Working Group is to report back to Council, through the Strategic &

General Services Committee before 30 June 2016 with suggested changes to SG50, and any other recommendations.


For Against



25 November 2015

Page 151

SGS1511-9 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE METROPOLITAN SOUTH-WEST JOINT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL

ECM Reference: 096/020 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 25 November 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Melody Foster, Governance Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this item is to receive Cr Josh Wilson’s request to withdraw from his position on the Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) as a second alternative member and receive and accept the nomination from Cr Bryn Jones to be appointed as his replacement.

BACKGROUND

At the Special meeting of Council held Wednesday, 21 October 2015, Cr Josh Wilson nominated as one of the alternative members on the Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP). Cr Wilson has since requested to withdraw from this position.

COMMENT

As the JDAP requires a second alternative member from the City of Fremantle, the Chief Executive Officer has called for nomination to fill this position. Cr Bryn Jones has been the only nomination received to date.


Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


25 November 2015

Page 152

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the Council receive and accept Cr Josh Wilson’s request withdrawal from his position on the JDAP and appoint Cr Bryn Jones as his replacement.


Nil


Nil




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. Council accepts Cr Josh Wilson’s request to withdraw from his position as

the second alternative member on the Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP).

2. Council accepts the nomination from Cr Bryn Jones for the position of

second alternative member on the Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) and appoint Cr Jones in this position.

SECONDED: Cr J Strachan CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



25 November 2015

Page 153

SGS1511-10 ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF FREMANTLE ANNUAL REPORT 2014/15

ECM Reference: 031/002, 087/004 and 083/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 November 2015 Previous Item: C1411-6 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Alan Carmichael, Finance Manager Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Annual Report 30 June 2015 (under separate cover)

Annual Financial Statements 30 June 2015 Audit Report 30 June 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is required to produce and accept an annual report each year and set a date to present this report to an annual general meeting of electors. It is recommended that Council approve the annual report for 2014/15 as attached and hold the Annual General Meeting of Electors on Thursday, 17th December 2015.

BACKGROUND

The Local Government Act 1995 requires local governments to prepare an annual report for each financial year and stipulates the format of the report. The report should be adopted no later than 31 December after that year. The report is to include the audit certificate presented for the financial statement of the year being reported and therefore can only occur once the audit has been completed and signed by the auditor.

COMMENT

The audit was conducted during October 2015 by the City's auditors, Grant Thornton. The annual report contains the information to be published, but the final published version may vary slightly with additional formatting and graphics to improve presentation. As has been the case since the 2001/2002 Annual Report, the report will only be printed with abridged set of financial statements. The full financial statements will be available on the City's web site. The abridged financial statements will contain the following documents and statements: -

Independent audit report

Statement by Chief Executive Officer

Operating Statement for the year ended 30 June 2015

Statement of Financial Position for the year ended 30 June 2015

Statement of Changes in Equity for the year ended 30 June 2015

Statement of Cash Flows for the year ended 30 June 2015 The 2014/2015 Annual Report (wording) with the full financial statements and auditor report is shown in Attachment 1.


25 November 2015

Page 154

It is proposed to hold the Annual General Meeting of Electors in the Council Chamber to facilitate preparation of the minutes, as the meeting can be recorded. In addition to the statutory advertising of the meeting, a further notice advertising the meeting will be placed in one of the local papers before the actual meeting, in accordance with Council's resolution of 22 June 2005. No significant issues or breaches have been identified during the audit process. The annual report will once again be professionally printed for release to the community and will also be available electronically. The report provides a synopsis of the activities and events that took place in 2014/15.


Financial

Besides the printing costs and the cost to have the financial audit undertaken there are no direct financial costs in adopting the annual report. Legal

Section 5.53 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires local governments to prepare an annual report for each financial year and stipulates the format of the report. The report is to contain;

1. A report from the Mayor, 2. A report from the Chief Executive Officer, 3. An overview of the plan for the future of the district, 4. The financial report for the financial year, 5. Such information as prescribed in relation to payments to employees, 6. The auditor report for the financial year, 7. A matter on which a report must be made under section 29(2) of the Disability

Services Act 1993, and 8. Details of entries made under section 5.121 of the Local Government Act 1995

during the financial year in the register of complaints. 9. such other information as may be prescribed.

Section 5.54 requires that the annual report be accepted by an absolute majority of Council no later than 31 December each year unless the auditor report is not available. Section 5.55 of the Act requires that “the CEO is to give local public notice of the availability of the annual report as soon as practicable after the report has been accepted by the local government.” Section 5.27 requires a general meeting of electors to be held once every financial year. A general meeting is to be held on a day decided by the local government but not more than 56 days after it has accepted the annual report. The general meeting agenda is to include the contents of the annual report and any other general business. The meeting will be held in December 2015 as adopted by council. Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires local governments to prepare an annual financial report for the preceding financial year.


25 November 2015

Page 155

Section 7.2 of the Act requires that “the accounts and financial statements of a local government for each financial year are to be audited by an auditor appointed by the local government.” Section 7.9 (1) of the Act provides “An auditor is required to examine the accounts and annual financial report submitted for audit and, by the 31st December next following the financial year to which the accounts relate or such later date as may be prescribed, to prepare a report thereon and forward a copy of the report to –

a) The Mayor, b) The Chief Executive Officer of the local government, and c) The Minister.

Operational

The annual report refers to activities and information based on the preceding financial year. The only operational requirement after adoption is to hold the Annual General Meeting of Electors within 56 days after Council has accepted the report. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the annual report be accepted and the Annual General Meeting of Electors is to be held on Thursday, 17th December 2015 as per the requirements of the Act.


Capability Deliver on the achievement of our strategic imperatives through good governance, strong leadership, effective communication and excellence in delivery. The annual report demonstrates the efficient and effective local government in compliance with statutory requirements. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT No consultation is required prior to holding the Annual General Meeting of Electors. In accordance with the Act, the Chief Executive Officer will make the annual report available prior to the annual electors meeting.


Absolute majority required


25 November 2015

Page 156

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. The City of Fremantle 2014/2015 Annual Report (shown in Attachment 1), financial

statements and independent auditors report be accepted. 2. The Annual General Meeting of Electors is to be held on Thursday 17th December

2015 at 6pm in the Council Chamber, 8 William Street Fremantle. Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation Page 40 of the Annual Report as shown below: Infrastructure and project delivery highlights

city works operations

parks management

waste management

construction engineering

engineering maintenance

mechanical services

infrastructure projects management

traffic and civic design

engineering projects

technical support for strategic projects and developments

local area traffic and parking

special projects

city assets management

leased buildings

facilities and assets.


25 November 2015

Page 157

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION These dot points these are unnecessary and inconsistent with the rest of the report SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation Page 43 of the Annual Report to clarify the amount recycled/recovered at the facility as shown below:

Total household waste – yellow top

recycling bin

Tonnes

Total tones collected 3 480

Materials recovered at the facility 2956

Landfill 524

SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson


25 November 2015

Page 158

Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeffrey McDonald

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. The City of Fremantle 2014/2015 Annual Report (shown in Attachment 1),

financial statements and independent auditors report be accepted. 2. The Annual General Meeting of Electors is to be held on Thursday 17th

December 2015 at 6pm in the Council Chamber, 8 William Street Fremantle. SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



25 November 2015

Page 159

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

Nil.

COUNCIL ITEMS

C1511-2 REVIEW OF POLICY SY1 - RECORDS MANAGEMENT

ECM Reference: 035/005 and 111/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 25 November 2015 Previous Item: SGS0805-2 Responsible Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Actioning Officer: Amanda Boffey, Information Management Coordinator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Policy SY1 – Updated 21 October 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Due to City organisational restructure the reviewing officer has been amended from Archivist to Manager Business Support. An updated version of this policy has been created in accordance with City of Fremantle Record Keeping Plan.

BACKGROUND

All policies are required to be reviewed on a periodic basis.

COMMENT

The purpose of the Records Management Policy is to define the principles of the City’s record keeping functions and to outline the roles and responsibilities of those individuals who manage or perform record keeping processes on behalf of the City.


Financial

Non-compliance with this policy could result in a penalty as outlined in the State Record Act 2000 section 78.7 Offences Legal

State Records Act 2000


25 November 2015

Page 160

Operational

Nil Organisational

City of Fremantle Record Keeping Plan

CONCLUSION

It is a requirement of the State Records Act 2000 and the City of Fremantle Record Keeping Plan to maintain a Records Management Policy that is promulgated throughout the organisation and is available to all staff.


The Records Management policy has direct links to the City of Fremantle’s Corporate Plan in the following key result areas: 3.1 Data and information management systems (collection and interpretation of data); 3.2 Informed Decision making (integration and use of knowledge in decision making); 3.3 Knowledge management and retention (creation and management of knowledge).


Nil




MOVED: Cr J Wilson That Council; 1. Approve SY1 Records Management Policy as outlined below:

Policy

Records management

Reference number: SY1

Type: Statutory

Legislation: State Records Act 2000 Evidence Act 1906 Electronic Transactions Act 2003


25 November 2015

Page 161

Limitation Act 1935-1978 Limitation Act 2005 Freedom of Information Act 1992 The Criminal Code (Section 85)

Procedure: NA

Delegation: NA

Other related document: Recordkeeping Plan

Objective

The purpose of this policy is to define the principles of the City’s record keeping functions

and the roles and responsibilities of those individuals who manage or perform record

keeping processes on behalf of the City.

This policy is the framework for reliable and systematic management of the City’s

records in accordance with legislative requirements and best practice standards.

Policy

All records received or compiled remain the property of the City of Fremantle.

All business decisions and transactions in relation to policy, administration and

operational transactions are to be documented in records.

All records of the City of Fremantle, regardless of physical format and including

electronic records, sent, received or circulated internally, are to be managed within the

official recordkeeping systems of the City of Fremantle.

All records are to be managed in an efficient and effective manner at a cost

commensurate with operational, informational and legislative requirements so as to

enhance retrieval and ensure their integrity, physical safety and security, as well as to

support the City of Fremantle’s compliance with recordkeeping legislation and privacy

principles.

Responsibilities

The chief executive officer (CEO)

The CEO is to ensure that an organisational system for the capture and

management of records is compliant with legislative requirements and best practice

standards.

Executive staff and managers


25 November 2015

Page 162

All executive staff and managers are to ensure the record keeping policy and

procedures are known and adhered to in their area of responsibility.

Elected members

All elected members are to retain records relating to their role as an elected

member for the City of Fremantle in a manner commensurate with legislation and

the City’s procedures for record keeping. Council and committee decision making

documentation will be created and controlled.

All staff

All staff (including contractors) are to create, collect and retain records relating to

the business activities they perform. They are to identify significant and ephemeral

records, ensure significant records are captured into the record keeping system and

that all records are handled in a manner commensurate with legislation and the

City’s policies and procedures for record keeping.

Staff with responsibility for maintaining the records management system

Corporate information services staff are responsible for assisting with the

development of records and information management policies, providing advice

about records management practices and providing a records management service

which complies with the City of Fremantle’s records management policy and

procedures and documented WA State Records Office requirements.

Creation of records

All staff and contractors will create full and accurate records, in the appropriate format, of

the City’s business decisions and transactions to meet all legislative, business,

administrative, financial, evidential and historical requirements.

Capture and control of records

All records created and received in the course of City business are to be captured at the

point of creation, regardless of format, with required metadata, into appropriate record

keeping and business systems that are managed in accordance with sound record

keeping principles.

Security and protection of records

All records are to be categorised as to their level of sensitivity and adequately secured

and protected from violation, unauthorised access or destruction, and kept in accordance

with necessary retrieval, preservation and storage requirements.


25 November 2015

Page 163

Access to records

Access to the City’s records by staff and contractors will be in accordance with

designated access and security classifications. Access to the City’s records by the

general public will be in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1992 and city

policy. Access to the City’s records by elected members will be via the CEO in

accordance with the Local Government Act 1995.

Appraisal, retention and disposal of records

All records kept by the City will be disposed of in accordance with the General Disposal

Authority for Local Government Records, produced by the State Records Office of WA.

Policy implementation steps

Appropriate good practice guidelines and standing operating procedures for records

management will be maintained and the records staff trained in their application.

Reporting arrangements on decision making under this policy

Specific reports as deemed necessary including those as required by legislation (eg

recordkeeping plan).

Responsible directorate: City business

Reviewing officer: Manager Business Support

Decision making authority: Council

Policy adopted: 1 June 2000

Policy amended: 24 October 2001

15 March 2004

14 May 2008

NEXT REVIEW DATE: 2019


25 November 2015

Page 164


For Against



25 November 2015

Page 165

C1511-3 INFORMATION REPORT - NOVEMBER 2015

ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FCC453/15 FOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL SERVICES

DataWorks Reference: 39/073

Author: Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Graffiti Removal Services to be awarded to Kleenit Pty Ltd for the estimated sum of $405,000.00 excluding GST for the period 1 November 2015 to 31 October 2017. The MPAP is comprised of the Director Corporate Services, the Director Community Development, the Director Technical Services and the Director Planning and Development Services or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager not involved as a requestor or evaluator), and one operational manager or coordinator who is independent to the area from which the contract or tender relates ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER WFCC22/15 FOR SUPPLY REAR LOADING REFUSE COMPACTOR TRUCK


Author: Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Supply Rear Loading Refuse Compactor Truck to be awarded to Volvo Group Australia Pty Ltd for the lump sum of $342,160.00 excluding GST. The MPAP is comprised of the Director Corporate Services, the Director Community Development, the Director Technical Services and the Director Planning and Development Services or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager not involved as a requestor or evaluator), and one operational manager or coordinator who is independent to the area from which the contract or tender relates ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FCC454/15 FOR CITY OF FREMANTLE WAYFINDING PROJECT


Author: Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for City of Fremantle Wayfinding Project to be awarded to Arterial Design Pty Ltd for the estimated sum of $400,000.00 excluding Gst for a two year period. The MPAP is comprised of the Director Corporate Services, the Director Community Development, the Director Technical Services and the Director Planning and Development Services or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager


25 November 2015

Page 166

not involved as a requestor or evaluator), and one operational manager or coordinator who is independent to the area from which the contract or tender relates

ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FCC456/15 FOR FREMANTLE ARTS CENTRE ROOF REPLACEMENT STAGE 2


Author: Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Fremantle Arts Centre Roof Replacement Stage 2 to be awarded to Colgan Industries Pty Ltd for the lump sum of $146,843.00 excluding Gst. The MPAP is comprised of the Director Corporate Services, the Director Community Development, the Director Technical Services and the Director Planning and Development Services or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager not involved as a requestor or evaluator), and one operational manager or coordinator who is independent to the area from which the contract or tender relates


MOVED: Cr J Wilson The information report for November 2015 be received. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



25 November 2015

Page 167

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.36 PM.


25 November 2015

Page 168

Summary Guide to Citizen Participation and Consultation

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

The Council adopted a Community Engagement Policy in December 2010 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1.

The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2.

The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3.

The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.

These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6.

No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with


25 November 2015

Page 169


any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8.

The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9.

The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10.

City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11.

The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.


25 November 2015

Page 170


Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12.

As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.

Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13.

The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14.

In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15.

Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16.

Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


25 November 2015

Page 171

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.


25 November 2015

Page 172


25 November 2015

Page 173

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 25 November 2015, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council

25 November 2015

Page 2

MINUTES - Home | City of Fremantle · Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil RESPONSE TO...

Documents

Transcript of MINUTES - Home | City of Fremantle · Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil RESPONSE TO...