Agenda by xiaohuicaicai

VIEWS: 8 PAGES: 113

									AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

                                                AGENDA
                                              Table of Contents

1.   DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS.............................................4

2.   DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................4

3.   RECORD OF ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE.......................4

4.   DECLARATION OF INTEREST ....................................................................................................4

5.   PUBLIC QUESTION TIME............................................................................................................4

     5.1 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE...............................4
         5.1.1 Mr G Defrenne, 24 Kennard Street, Kensington.................................................................4
         5.1.2 Mr Bill Gleeson, 95 Canning Highway, South Perth............................................................6
         5.2.3 Mr Barrie Drake, 2 Scenic Crescent, South Perth................................................................7

     5.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME : 21.12.2004 .................................................................................7

6.   CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES / BRIEFINGS..............................................................................7

     6.1 MINUTES...............................................................................................................................7
         6.1.1 Ordinary Council Meeting Held: 23.11..2004 .....................................................................7
         6.1.2 Audit and Governance Committee Meeting Held: 17.11.04 (Attachments 6.1.2 refers).......7
         6.1.3 Annual Electors’ Meeting Held: 30.11.2004 (Agenda Item 9.1.1. refers)..............................7
         6.1.4 Special Council Meeting Held: 7.12.2004 ..........................................................................7

     6.2 BRIEFINGS............................................................................................................................7
         6.2.1 Agenda Briefing - November Ordinary Council Meeting Held: 16.11.2004 .........................7
         6.2.2 Concept Forum - Civic Triangle Final Report - Meeting Held: 16.11..2004 ........................8
         6.2.3 Concept Forum - Council Performance Monitor - Community Research and Benchmarking
               Findings 2004 - Meeting Held: 17.11..2004 ......................................................................8
         6.2.4 Concept Forum - Rezoning No. 54 Manning Road cnr Ley Street, Manning (Amendment
               No. 4 to TPS6) (Previous Telstra Site) - Meeting Held: 17.11..2004 ....................................8
         6.2.5 Concept Forum - CEO Recruitment Process- Meeting Held: 17.11..2004............................8
         6.2.6 Concept Forum Rosie O’Grady Development Proposal- Meeting Held: 7.12..2004 ..............8

7.   PRESENTATIONS.........................................................................................................................8

     7.1 PETITIONS - A formal process where members of the community present a written request to the Council ..........8

     7.2 PRESENTATIONS - Formal or Informal Occasions where Awards or Gifts may be Accepted by the Council on
         behalf of the Community. ................................................................................................................8
         7.2.1 Presentation from Como Secondary College - Golf Academy 2004 in recognition of the
               Council’s ongoing support.................................................................................................8

     7.3 DEPUTATIONS - A formal process where members of the community may, with prior permission, address the
         Council on Agenda items where they have a direct interest in the Agenda item. ...............................................8

     7.4 DELEGATE’S REPORTS Delegate’s written reports to be submitted to the Minute Secretary prior to 3
         December for inclusion in the December Council Agenda. ...................................................................8

8.   ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIRPERSON........................................................................9
     8.1 Method of Dealing with Agenda Business .................................................................................9

                                                                        1
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


9.    R E P O R T S.................................................................................................................................9

      9.0 MATTER REFERRED FROM NOVEMBER 2004 COUNCIL MEETING (ITEMS 9.2.1)..............9
          9.0.1. Connected Community Plan - draft plan for adoption(Item 9.2.1 deferred from November
                Council)...........................................................................................................................9

      9.1 GOAL 1 : CUSTOMER FOCUS............................................................................................. 12
          9.1.1 Annual Electors Meeting held 30 November 2004 ............................................................ 12

      9.2 GOAL 2: COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT................................................................................. 13
          9.2.1 Funding Assistance Program - Second Round Community Development Category ............. 13
          9.2.2 Windsor Park Amphitheatre ............................................................................................ 15

      9.3 GOAL 3: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ....................................................................... 18
          9.3.1 Proposed Modifications to Approved Drawings for Major Additions and Alterations to
                Village Green Shopping Centre. Lots 101 (No. 37), 102 (No. 39), 104, 105 (No. 33) Walanna
                Drive and Lot 802 (No. 230) Manning Road cnr Kent Street, Karawara ............................. 18
          9.3.2 Proposed 26 Multiple Dwellings. Lots 20 - 24 and 55 (Nos. 71 - 75) Canning Highway and 2
                Grouped Dwellings. Lot 33 (No. 30) Brandon Street, South Perth...................................... 22
          9.3.3 Additions and Alterations to Single House. Lot 32 (No. 67) Collins Street, Kensington ....... 44
          9.3.4 Proposed 3 Multiple Dwellings. Lot 10 (No. 6) Parker Street South Perth........................... 50
          9.3.5 Conversion of Existing Multiple Dwellings and Caretaker’s Dwelling to Tourist
                 Accommodation and Addition of External Staircase. Lot 1 (No. 9) Charles Street, South
                 Perth............................................................................................................................ 54
          9.3.6 Proposed Conversion of Existing Building to Temporary Use as an Election Campaign
                Office. Lot 7 (No. 299) Canning Highway SW cnr Comer Street, Como............................ 56
          9.3.7 Proposed Five Level Development Comprising 7 Multiple Dwellings. Lot 120 (Ns.23-25)
                South Perth Esplanade, South Perth ................................................................................. 59
          9.3.8 Assignment of Parasailing Licence - Mill Point ................................................................ 63
          9.3.9 Management Orders for Reserves.................................................................................... 65
          9.3.10 Como Beach Reserve draft Landscape Concept Plan....................................................... 67
          9.3.11 Town Planning Appeal - Proposed Development Lots 33, 42 and 43 (Nos. 60 - 62) Canning
                 Highway cnr Hovia Terrace, Kensington ....................................................................... 69

      9.4 GOAL 4: INFRASTRUCTURE................................................................................................ 73
          9.4.1 2004/05 Capital Works Program.................................................................................... 73
          9.4.2 Elizabeth Street Closure at Canning Highway................................................................... 77
          9.4.3 Manning Road Barrier .................................................................................................... 82
          9.4.4 Hope Avenue at Cornish Crescent - Traffic Treatment ...................................................... 86
          9.4.5 Annual Tender for the Supply and Laying of Hot Asphalt Road Surfacing ......................... 88

      9.5 GOAL 5: ORGANISATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS.................................................................... 91
          9.5.1 Development Services Monthly Information Report ......................................................... 91
          9.5.2 Australia Day - Allocation of Special Events Location ..................................................... 94
          9.5.3 Audit and Governance Committee................................................................................... 95
          9.5.4 Election 2005 - Minor Amendments to Conduct of Elections ............................................. 99

      9.6 GOAL 6: FINANCIAL VIABILITY ........................................................................................ 101
          9.6.1 Monthly Financial Management Accounts - November 2004........................................... 101
          9.6.2 Monthly Statement of Funds, Investments & Debtors at 30 November 2004..................... 105
          9.6.3 Warrant of Payments Listing ......................................................................................... 108

10.      APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ........................................................................ 109




                                                                         2
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


11.      COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN....... 109
          11.1 Briefings Open to Public - Cr Wells 7.12.2004 .............................................................. 109
          11.2 Viewing of Planning and Building Plans - Cr Smith 10.12.2004.................................... 110
          11.3 Delegation DC609 Leases and Licences - Cr Cala 14.12.2004 ...................................... 112


12.      NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE INTRODUCED BY DECISION OF MEETING. 112


13.     MEETING CLOSED TO PUBLIC........................................................................................... 113
      13.1 Matters for which the Meeting May be Closed. ...................................................................... 113
           13.1.1 City of South Perth Australia Day Citizen of the Year and Premier’s Australia Day Active
                  Citizenship Awards CONFIDENTIAL REPORT.......................................................... 113
           13.1.2 Appointment of Director Strategic & Regulatory Services CONFIDENTIAL REPORT.... 113

      13.2 Public Reading of Resolutions that may be made Public. ........................................................ 113



14.      CLOSURE.............................................................................................................................. 113




                                                                       3
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004




                    ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING
                            AGENDA

1.   DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

2.   DISCLAIMER
     The Chairperson to read the City’s Disclaimer

3.   RECORD OF ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

4.   DECLARATION OF INTEREST

5.   PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

     5.1    RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE
            At the Council meeting held 23 November 2004 the following questions were taken on
            notice:

            5.1.1   Mr G Defrenne, 24 Kennard Street, Kensington

            Summary of Questions

            1. Annual Returns - At the October Council meeting I provided written notice of questions
            that I asked at the September meeting that were not answered clearly. The Mayor advised
            the Council was seeking advice regarding the questions and would not read them out. Why
            weren’t my questions recorded in the October Council Minutes? Why haven’t my un-
            recorded questions been answered?

            My reference to the CEO refers to the CEO at the September and October Meetings. I
            repeat for the third time: … S5.76 of the Local Government Act 1995 states…”each year a
            CEO must lodge with the Mayor or President an Annual Return in the prescribed form by 31
            August of that year.” Did the CEO hand his annual return to the Mayor by 31 August this
            year. The question was not answered - yes or no would be sufficient.

            When did the Mayor become aware that the CEO was required to hand his annual return to
            the Mayor by 31 August? Did the Mayor ask the CEO for his annual return or did the CEO
            hand his annual return unprompted?

            In an answer to a question at the September meeting, it states “The Mayor acknowledged
            having received the CEO’s annual return on 17 September 2004. I take this as the Mayor
            acknowledging the receipt of the annual return and does not say the date the Mayor was
            handed the annual return. What date did the CEO hand his annual return to the Mayor?

            The answer provided stated there was an ‘administrative delay’ in it being forwarded to the
            Mayor. As the CEO is in charge of the administration of the City, who is responsible for the
            ‘administrative delay’?



                                                 4
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           If the former CEO, Mr Goode did not hand his annual return to the Mayor by 31 August
           2004 as required by the Local Government Act 1995 and as this section has severe penalties
           for breaches, has the Acting CEO informed the Mayor and Councillors of his own and their
           reporting obligations under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003?

           2. Meeting Masters - I have had a similar problem with my questions regarding Meeting
           Masters. I repeat my question that should have been recorded and answered at the October
           meeting. My reference to the CEO refers to the CEO at the September and October
           meetings. At the September Council meeting, I asked if the business name registration
           “Meeting Masters” and the Trustee of the Meeting Masters Unit Trust were one and the
           same business. The Council advised no and the answer is recorded in the Agenda of
           tonight’s meeting. Last week I telephoned Meeting Masters on the numer as per their web
           site. I asked for their ABN number and was give 65 442 268 956 which is the ABN number
           of the trustee of the Meeting Masters Uniit Trust. I also noted the address on the web site as
           “suite 10, 55 Mandurah Terrace, Mandurah 6210.

           A business names extract of the business n    ame “Meeting Masters” records the principal
           place of business (current) at suite 10, 55 Mandurah Terrace, Mandurah. This is the same
           address for the Trustee of the Meeting Masters Unit Trust. Being extremely similar names
           operating at the same address, how did the Council conclude that the businesses were not
           one and the same? Has the CEO had any association, past or present with the business name
           “Meeting Masters”? If so, what was that association? Does the CEO currently have an
           association with the business name “Meeting Masters”? If the CEO does not have a current
           association with the business name “Meeting Masters” when did the association cease?

           Summary of Response
           The Acting Chief Executive Officer provided a written response dated 1 December 2004, a
           summary of which is as follows:

           The investigation commissioned by the Council on 28 September 2004 focussed on the
           former CEO’s involvement with ACN. It considered the implications of that involvement
           on the former CEO’s obligations under his contract of employment with the City and the
           relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 and the City’s Code of Conduct.

           The report of the investigation, by Minter Ellison Lawyers, is subject to legal professional
           privilege and therefore is confidential. After considering that report, the Council resolved on
           26 October 2004 to accept the report and to enter into negotiations with Mr Goode in
           relation to his employment with the City. Those negotiations resulted in the Council’s
           decision, set out in its resolution of 4 November 2004, to accept the terms of the negotiated
           agreement with Mr Goode in relation to the cessation of his employment with the City.
           Mr Goode ceased employment with the City on 10 November 2004.

           The terms of the negotiated agreement are contained in a formal Deed of Settlement and
           Release between the City and Mr Goode. As is usual in these circumstances, the terms of
           this agreement are confidential. The City would be in breach of its contractual obligations
           if it were to disclose further details of the negotiations that led to the agreement, or the
           agreement itself.

           As a result, it would not be appropriate to make any further comment on these matters.




                                                 5
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           3. Windsor Park
           Was there a Council meeting on Sunday 14 November 2004. If there was a Council meeting
           on 14 November 2004, were any resolutions passed? On Sunday 14 November the Mayor
           unveiled a plaque commemorating the “Opening” of the new park. The plaque had the CEO
           Mr Goode on it. As Mr Goode was not the CEO on the date of the “opening” will the City
           be “fixing the error” promptly?

           Summary of Response
           The meeting held 14 November was purely a ‘re-enactment’ as part of the events of the day.
           The plaque commemorating the “Opening” of Windsor Park when affixed will show the
           Mayor’s name only.


           5.1.2   Mr Bill Gleeson, 95 Canning Highway, South Perth

           Summary of Question
           What was meant in the last paragraph of the reply to my Question on Notice, 10 November
           2004 on the Residential Design Policy Manual (it states a similar statement) has not been
           included as other precincts because the same need was not identified, having regard to
           relevant local circumstances?

           Summary of Response
           The Acting Chief Executive Officer provided a written response dated 2 December 2004, a
           summary of which is as follows:

           Each of the 14 sets of Precinct-Specific Guidelines is unique, in recognition of relevant local
           circumstances. In the case of Precinct 8, the guidelines reflect the need for preserving the
           predominantly single house character of the R15/25 coded areas. In respect of those areas
           the guidelines apply to both Single Houses and Grouped Dwellings. The R15/25 coding in
           the north-eastern corner of Precinct 8 is the lowest density coding in the precinct, and this is
           the only area for which precinct-specific guidelines are warranted. The balance of the
           precinct is covered by the City-wide Policies 1 to 17.

           Summary of Question
           Is the Council aware that the Consultant engaged to ‘consult with residents’ re changes to
           the traffic flow in South Terrace, Hayman Road to Canning Highway, did not consult with
           emergency services as stated in letter 22 September 2004 - Mr Roberts of Como. FESA
           stated they had not been approached by any Consultant nor the City of South Perth regarding
           a submission on the changes to South Terrace.

           Summary of Response
           The Manager Engineering Infrastructure provided a response by letter dated 2 December
           2004 a summary of which is as follows:

           It is regrettable the Consultant omitted to consult with the Fire and Emergency Services
           prior to recommending the traffic management measures for South Terrace. The traffic
           management measures in no way are intended to or will change traffic flow in South
           Terrace. They are intended solely to slow vehicle traffic to the p osted speed limit and to
           landscape the street to a standard commensurate with other streets within the City. The
           decision of Council to place on hold the works in South Terrace was in part a response to the
           two petitions received from residents generally not living on South Terrace as well as the
           omission to consult the Emergency Services. Formal letters were sent to the Head Office of
           Police Services, Emergency Services and St John Ambulance. Letters were also addressed
           to the Officer-in-Charge of the three services in George Street. Four FESA station officers
           combined to respond to our invitation to comment. Their views were included in the report
           presented to Council.

                                                  6
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           5.2.3   Mr Barrie Drake, 2 Scenic Crescent, South Perth

           Summary of Question
           Re the review of property at No. 11 Heppingstone Street, South Perth. At level 4 of this
           building there is an Equipment Store which is approximately 18 sq.metres in floor area.
           What equipment is in this store room?

           Summary of Response
           The Acting Chief Executive Officer provided a written response dated 2 December 2004, a
           summary of which is as follows:

           The area in question has been inspected by a Council officer. The inspection revealed that
           this area is used to store equipment. It is not appropriate for the City to disclose the nature
           of the equipment stored in this room as such disclosure impacts on the privacy of the
           property owner.

           Summary of Question
           As at today’s date how much money has the City of South Perth paid to Dennis McLeod of
           McLeod & Co?

           Summary of Response
           The Acting Chief Executive Officer provided a response by letter dated 7 December 2004.
           A summary of which is as follows:

           Since 1 January 2004 the City has paid approximately $195,000 to McLeods Lawyers. This
           includes a significant amount relating to a matter involving a 10 day Town Planning Appeal
           hearing and subsequent Supreme Court hearings.


     5.2   PUBLIC QUESTION TIME : 21.12.2004


6.   CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES / BRIEFINGS

     6.1   MINUTES
           6.1.1 Ordinary Council Meeting Held: 23.11..2004
           6.1.2   Audit and Governance Committee Meeting Held: 17.11.04 (Attachments 6.1.2
                   refers)

           6.1.3   Annual Electors’ Meeting Held: 30.11.2004 (Agenda Item 9.1.1. refers)
           6.1.4   Special Council Meeting Held: 7.12.2004

     6.2   BRIEFINGS
           The following Briefings which have taken place since the last Ordinary Council meeting, are
           in line with the ‘Best Practice’ approach to Council Policy P516 “Agenda Briefings ,
           Concept Forums and Workshops”, and document to the public the subject of each Briefing.
           The practice of listing and commenting on briefing sessions, not open to the public, is
           recommended by the Department of Local Government and Regional Development’s
           “Council Forums Paper” as a way of advising the public and being on public record.

           6.2.1   Agenda Brie fing - November Ordinary Council Meeting Held: 16.11.2004
                   Officers of the City presented background information and answered questions on
                   specific items identified from the November Council Agenda. Notes from the
                   Agenda Briefing are included as Attachment 6.2.1.

                                                 7
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           6.2.2   Concept Forum - Civic Triangle Final Report - Meeting Held: 16.11..2004
                   The Director Strategic & Regulatory Services presented an overview on the
                   workshops/briefings held in relation to the Civic Triangle to date and Consultant
                   John Syme of Syme Marmion & Company provided a detailed presentation of the
                   draft final report.
                   Notes from the Agenda Briefing are included as Attachment 6.2.2.

           6.2.3   Concept Forum - Council Performance Monitor - Community Research and
                   Benchmarking Findings 2004 - Meeting Held: 17.11..2004
                   Officers of the City and Consultant Lisa Whitehead presented findings from the
                   Community Survey, received feedback and answered questions from Members.
                   Notes from the Agenda Briefing are included as Attachment 6.2.3.

           6.2.4   Concept Forum - Rezoning No. 54 Manning Road cnr Ley Street, Manning
                   (Amendment No. 4 to TPS6) (Previous Telstra Site) - Meeting Held:
                   17.11..2004
                   Officers of the City and Consultant Lisa Whitehead presented findings from the
                   Community Survey, received feedback and answered questions from Members.
                   Notes from the Agenda Briefing are included as Attachment 6.2.4

           6.2.5   Concept Forum - CEO Recruitment Process- Meeting Held: 17.11..2004
                   Mr Jeff Blades from Lester Blades Consultants outlined the CEO Recruitment
                   Process and presented his recommendations.
                   Notes from the Agenda Briefing are included as Attachment 6.2.5

           6.2.6   Concept Forum Rosie O’Grady Development Proposal- Meeting Held:
                   7.12..2004
                   Officers of the City together with the proponent presented background information
                   and answered questions on the proposed development of the Rosie O’Grady site on
                   Canning Highway .
                   Notes from the Agenda Briefing are included as Attachment 6.2.6


7.   PRESENTATIONS

     7.1 PETITIONS -              A formal process where members of the community present a written request to the
                                  Council

     7.2 PRESENTATIONS -          Formal or Informal Occasions where Awards or Gifts may be Accepted by the
                                  Council on behalf of the Community.

           7.2.1   Presentation from Como Secondary College - Golf Academy 2004 in
                   recognition of the Council’s ongoing support.


     7.3 DEPUTATIONS -            A formal process where members of the community may, with prior permission,
                                  address the Council on Agenda items where they have a direct interest in the
                                  Agenda item.

     7.4 DELEGATE’S REPORTS                Delegate’s written reports to be submitted to the Minute Secretary prior to
                                           3 December for inclusion in the December Council Agenda.




                                                 8
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


8.   ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIRPERSON

     8.1   Method of Dealing with Agenda Business


9.   REPORTS

     9.0   MATTER REFERRED FROM NOVEMBER 2004 COUNCIL                                       MEETING
           (ITEMS 9.2.1)


                9.0.1.     Connected Community Plan - draft plan for adoption(Item 9.2.1
                           deferred from November Council)

           Location:                           City of South Perth
           Applicant:                          Council
           File Ref:                           CS/302
           Date:                               6 December 2004
           Author:                             Liz Ledger, Manager Community Development
           Reporting Officer:                  Roger Burrows, Director Corporate & Community Services

           Summary
           To purpose of this report is to present the City’s first Connected Community Plan in draft
           form following the addition of the suggested modifications at the November Council
           meeting. At that meeting Council resolved as follows:

                         “That consideration of the City’s Connected Community Plan be deferred to
                         the next meeting of Council to enable the Plan, with suggested modifications,
                         to be implemented in February 2005 which is aligned to time lines in place.”

           Background
           Within the City’s Strategic Plan, under Goal 2 Community Enrichment; Strategy 2.1 states:

                         Develop and implement a ‘Connected Community Plan’ to:
                            • Address the specific needs of aged, families, youth, unemployed; and
                            • Encourage opportunities for community development and vitality

           The Community Development Department commenced developing a Connected Community
           Plan (CC Plan) by creating a structured process involving research, consultation and
           analysis. The steps are as follows;

           1.            Develop a Discussion Paper which incorporates an overview of the current social
                         climate, trends and summary of existing research
           2.            Conduct an extensive Consultation Phase which incorporates workshops, surveys
                         and interviews with key stakeholders
           3.            Prepare a draft Connected Community Plan and present to the community for
                         comment
           4.            Incorporate community feedback in the Draft Connect Community Plan
           5.            Present final draft Connected Community Plan to Council
           6.            Finalise Connected Community Plan
           7.            Implement Connected Community Plan




                                                    9
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           The Discussion Paper was developed to provide prospective workshop participants with an
           overview of the current social climate, trends and research, and to initiate discussion for
           facilitated workshops. The first Key Stakeholder Workshop was held on 2 June with
           Councillors and was facilitated by Creating Communities Inc.

           A survey was developed based on three ways of connecting, and this was distributed to
           approximately 200 key stakeholders. Following the compilation of the 42 returned surveys,
           a second facilitated workshop was held with external agencies and staff.

           This data was collated and utilised to develop a Draft CC Plan that was available for
           comment by the wider community from Monday 18 October to Friday 29 October 2004.
           The City received a number of responses from the community which have been formulated
           into a report (refer to Confidential Attachment 9.0.1. - ‘Report on Responses from the
           Community’, October 2004).

           This feedback has been incorporated into the Draft CC Plan presented in this Report refer
           Attachment 9.0.1 and has enabled the Draft CC Plan to be amended, strengthened and
           added to.

           Comment
           The Draft CC Plan has been created as a guide for the City to develop, support and resource
           programs, services and facilities, offering community members choices and opportunities to
           interact and feel part of the community.

           Through research and analysis seven key action areas were created and form the basis of the
           CC Plan. They are:
           1. Entire Community
           2. Families with young children
           3. Young People
           4. Senior and the ageing
           5. Volunteers
           6. Sustainable community groups
           7. Community prosperity

           A major component of the Draft CC Plan is the direction of creating two community focal
           points:
           • Civic Centre precinct (north)
           • George Burnett Park (south)
           The proposed development of these sights is highlighted in the City’s 2004 Strategic
           Financial Plan. These concepts were strengthened through the research undertaken.

           Creating a connected community will require leadership from local government, and
           involves all areas within the organisation

           Consultation
           An extensive consultation strategy was developed and implemented to ensure that this
           integral City document was relevant and responsive to the diverse needs of the City’s
           community. It involved a combination of informing, consulting and involving both the
           external and internal stakeholders and the wider community.

           The consultation period was between March and November 2004 and included; in depth
           interviews, two facilitated workshops and distribution of a CC Plan newsletter and survey.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The Draft CC Plan recommends the development of a Policy that supports the process of
           social capital building.


                                               10
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Financial Implications
           The Draft CC Plan has been developed with due consideration of the financial resources
           available for the 2004/2005 financial period. Financial implications for the 2005/2006
           financial period will be planned through the corporate budget planning cycle and presented
           to Council through this process.

           Strategic Implications
           The development of the Draft CC Plan specifically relates to Goal 2 Community
           Enrichment:

           Strategy 2.1; Develop and implement a ‘Connected Community Plan’ to:
           • Address the specific needs of aged, families, youth, unemployed; and
           • Encourage opportunities for community development and vitality


            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.0.1

           That the City’s Connected Community Plan be endorsed and appropriate City officers be
           instructed to support and implement the Plan.




                                              11
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


     9.1   GOAL 1 :        CUSTOMER FOCUS

            9.1.1     Annual Electors Meeting held 30 November 2004

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       A/ME/1
           Date:                           3 December 2004
           Author/Reporting Officer:       Roger Burrows, Acting Chief Executive Officer

           Summary
           The Annual Electors meeting was held on 30 November 2004 to discuss the Annual Report,
           Financial Statements and the Auditor’s Report for the year ended 30 June 2004.

           Background
           Following completion of the City’s Annual Report an Annual Electors’ Meeting is called
           which must be within 56 days of acceptance of the Annual Report. The meeting was held on
           30 November 2004.

           Comment
           Council is required to consider any motions passed at an Annual Electors Meeting. At the
           meeting held on 30 November 2004 there were no Motions passed that required a
           determination by Council.

           The Mayor tabled the Annual Report and read aloud to the meeting a summary of the
           Auditor’s Report for 2004. The Acting Chief Executive Officer at the time, Mr Michael
           Kent, gave a power point presentation on the Annual Report and Financial Statements for
           the year ended 30 June 2004. He also identified the highlights and achievements for the
           year.

           Consultation
           Notice of the Annual Electors’ meeting was lodged in the Southern Gazette newspaper with
           copies of the Agenda being provided to the Libraries, Heritage House, the Council
           noticeboards and website.

           Policy Implications
           Council is required to hold an annual meeting of electors and consider resolution passed at a
           subsequent Council meeting.

           Financial Implications
           N/A

           Strategic Implications
           This report deals with matters which directly relate to Goal 1 of the City’s Strategic Plan –

           ‘To be a customer focused organisation that promotes effective communication and
           encourages community participation.”

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.1.1

           That the Minutes of the Annual Electors Meeting held on 30 November 2004, Attachment
           9.1.1 be received.




                                                12
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


     9.2   GOAL 2:         COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT

            9.2.1   Funding Assistance Program - Second Round Community Development
                    Category

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council.
           File Ref:                       FS/FA/9
           Date:                           1 December 2004
           Author:                         Neil Kegie: Community Services Coordinator
           Reporting Officer               Roger Burrows, Director Corporate & Community Services

           Summary
           The purpose of this report is to recommend that a total of $20,415 be distributed to eight
           organisations for a range of community projects through the City of South Perth Funding
           Assistance Program, Community Development Category Round Two 2004/2005.

           Background
           In June 2001 the City implemented a Funding Assistance Program to enable the City to
           equitably distribute funding to community organisations and individuals to encourage
           community and personal development, and foster community services and projects

           The Funding Assistance Program incorporates a number of levels and categories in response
           to identified areas of need, these are:

           Community Partnerships - with identified organisations that provide a major benefit to the
           City of South Perth community.

           Community Funding
           • Community Development Category - for incorporated groups, these are assessed in 2
             rounds annually.
           • Individual Development Category - financial assistance for individuals attending
             interstate or international sporting, cultural or academic activities.

           Community Grants - grants up to $1,000 for groups proposing projects that do not fit
           within the Community Development program.

           Student Scholarships - to support students in need of financial support that have sound
           academic background and are involved in community, sporting or cultural endeavours.

           Comment
           Eight applications were received in this round requesting a total of $40,690 Attachment
           9.2.1 refers. A total of $20,770 is available from the fund to distribute in this round. All of
           the submissions were well prepared and conformed with the funding guidelines. The funding
           amounts recommended for each organisation are based on total available funds and the
           ability of the organisations to successfully complete their projects in cases where the
           amounts recommended are less than the amounts requested.

           The applications cover a range of Community Service, Recreational and Cultural projects
           and all articulated excellent benefits for the City of South Perth community.




                                                13
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Consultation
           This funding round was advertised in the Southern Gazette, the Peninsula Newsletter and on
           the City’s website. It was also promoted directly to past applicants and at the two
           networking forums coordinated by the City - SPARKYS (South Perth and Vic Park Youth
           Services) which focuses on Youth services, and the Community Services Forum which has a
           more general brief across all demographics.

           Policy Implications
           This report refers to the Funding Assistance Policy P202

           Financial Implications
           A total amount of $130,000 is allocated in the 2004/2005 budget for the Community
           Development, Individual Development, Community Grants and Community Partnership
           categories of the Funding Assistance program.

           The recommendation to distribute $20,415 from City funds is within budgetary parameters.

           Strategic Implications
           This report is complimentary to Goal Two, Community Enrichment, and directly relates to
           Strategy 2.3.

           ‘Implement the Community Funding Program to equitably distribute funding between
           community organisations to encourage and foster community development services and
           projects.’



            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.2.1

           That $20,415 be distributed to eight organisations from City funds for Round Two of the
           Community Development category of the Funding Assistance Program as detailed in
           Attachment 9.2.1.




                                               14
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            9.2.2   Windsor Park Amphitheatre

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council.
           File Ref:                       PS/SA/6
           Date:                           6 December 2004
           Author:                         Mark Taylor, Manager, Parks and Environment
           Reporting Officer               Glen Flood, Director, Infrastructure Services

           Summary
           To consider deleting the proposed Amphitheatre from the Windsor Park project and
           reallocating the $150,000 funding to develop a community amphitheatre as part of the
           implementation of the McDougall Park landscape concept plan.

           Background
           In December 2002, Council endorsed the Master Plan for Windsor Park. Funding for the
           majority of the works was provided during 2002/03 and 2003/04.

           The amphitheatre component of the project was funding separately in 2004/05 and was
           subject to a separate technical appraisal study.

           Comments
           The amphitheatre at Windsor Park was included in the project following public submissions
                                                        s
           in 2002. The Windsor Park working party al o reviewed the amphitheatre proposal during
           2003. The working party was supportive ‘in-principle’ of the proposed amphitheatre but
           indicated that a technical assessment should be undertaken to ensure that the amphitheatre
           would be viable at the site.

           1.   Consultants Technical Assessment
                The City commissioned Mr Graham Walne, Theatre Consultant to provide advice. The
                consultation process in preparing the technical assessment involved:
                • Meeting with City Officers
                • Meeting with representatives of Perth Zoo
                • Liaison with representation of the Old Mill Theatre

                The consultant’s principal recommendation following his investigation is as follows:

                “The consultant recommends that an amphitheatre not be constructed at Windsor Park,
                regardless of the technical shortcomings due to proximity of the facility at the Perth
                Zoo. The consultant further recommends that the City explore the offer made through
                this study that the City could use the Zoo’s amphitheatre as a component of the existing
                partnership agreement.”

                The Consultant also provided a range of technical recommendations:
                • Provision staging and shading and adjacent power.
                • Reconsideration of orientation of theatre to avoid afternoon sun.
                • Reduce the arc of the seating to 180o .
                • Further sound assessments be undertaken to ensure the programming conflicts are
                  minimised.

                2. Perth Zoo
                Perth Zoo have a small amphitheatre located immediately behind Windsor Park. This
                facility is part of the Japanese Garden.



                                                15
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

                The Zoo have indicated a range of issues that a further amphitheatre in the vicinity
                could cause. These include:
                • Programming conflicts
                • Car parking management
                • Noise pollution disturbing the animals

                The Officers of the Perth Zoo have indicated that one of the components of the
                partnership agreement between the City and the Perth Zoo could be used by the Zoo for
                community events for a specified number of events. The City’s Manager, Community
                Development is currently finalising the details of this aspect of the partnership
                agreement with the Zoo.

           3.   McDougall Park
                The McDougall Park landscape concept plan was adopted by Council in September
                2004 following extensive community input. A key feature of the plan was the
                redevelopment of the existing amphitheatre to improve its amenity and reduce its
                potential impact on surrounding residents. No funds have been allocated to redevelop
                the amphitheatre at this time. The project was to receive progressive funding over the
                next seven financial years.

           Consultation
           Consultation has occurred as follows:
           • During development of Windsor Park project
           • As part of the Technical Assessment of the amphitheatre
           • During the development of the McDougall Park landscape concept plan, which has been
             detailed below:

           An information brochure and questionnaire was circulated to 3,600 residents in McDougall
           and Civic Wards and a notice was placed in the local community newspaper.

           Two hundred and seventy six questionnaire forms were returned by the closing date. This
           information was summarised and used to help develop a pre-draft concept plan. This plan,
           together with the summary of responses, was presented at a public meeting in the park on
           Saturday 3 April 2004. Feedback gathered through the public meeting was used to refine
           the draft concept plan which was presented to Council in May.

           The draft concept plan was advertised for wider community comment for a period of one
           month. The submission period closed on 25 June 2004. Nine submissions including three
           petitions (combined total 72) were received.

           Policy Implications
           Nil.

           Financial Implications
           The proposal involves the reallocation of the project funding of $150,000 from Windsor
           Park to McDougall Park to enable the development of a community amphitheatre at that
           location.

           Strategic Implications
           This matter is consistent with Goal 2:
           ‘To foster a strong sense of community and a prosperous business environment’

           and Goal 3

           ‘To sustainably manage, enhance and maintain the City’s unique, natural and built
           environment.’

                                               16
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004



            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.2.2


           That…
           (a)   the amphitheatre proposed for Windsor Park be deleted from that project:
           (b)   the funding of $150,000 provided in the 2004/05 budget be transferred to the
                 implementation of the McDougall Park landscape concept plan to fund the construction
                 of a Community amphitheatre in accordance with the following budget amendment:


                     A/C No.           A/C          Category      Adopted   Amendment     Revised Budget
                                                                  Budgert
                     8909.5831      Windsor Pk        Capital     150,000     (150,000)           0
                                   Amphitheatre     Expenditure
                       TBA        McDougall Park      Capital       0          150,000         150,000
                                   Amphitheatre     Expenditure

                          (NOTE           AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY IS REQUIRED)




                                               17
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


     9.3   GOAL 3:         ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

             9.3.1   Proposed Modifications to Approved Drawings for Major Additions and
                     Alterations to Village Green Shopping Centre. Lots 101 (No. 37), 102 (No.
                     39), 104, 105 (No. 33) Walanna Drive and Lot 802 (No. 230) Manning Road
                     cnr Kent Street, Karawara
           Location:                       Lots 101 (No. 37), 102 (No. 39), 104, 105 (No. 33)
                                           Walanna Drive and Lot 802 (No. 230) Manning Road cnr
                                           Kent Street, Karawara
           Applicant:                     Lease Equity Pty Ltd for Midpoint Holdings Pty Ltd
           File Ref:                      WA1.33, WA1.37, WA1.39, MA3.230 and 11/1286
           Date:                          6 December 2004
           Author:                        Christian Buttle, Team Leader, Planning Services
           Reporting Officer:             Ross Povey, Director, Strategic and Regulatory Services

           Summary
           To consider modifications to the approved drawings for the proposed major expansion of the
           Village Green Shopping Centre, on the corner of Kent Street and Manning Road in
           Karawara. It is recommended that Council support the modified drawings, subject to
           various conditions.

           Background
           Council formally considered an application for planning approval for proposed major
           additions and alterations to the Village Green Shopping Centre at its May 2003 meeting. At
           that time Council resolved to refuse the application on the grounds that it “failed to comply
           with the conditions set out in Section 7.5(b), (j), (n) and (t) of Town Planning Scheme No.
           6.” The proponents lodged an appeal with the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal against that
           decision. Following lengthy negotiations, including further input at subsequent Council
           meetings, agreement was reached based upon revised drawings. The eventual approval was
           subject to the conditions imposed in the “Minute of Consent Orders” prepared by Minter
           Ellison Lawyers on behalf of the Council and endorsed by Phillips Fox Lawyers on behalf of
           the Appellant and the Principal Registrar of the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal on 24 June
           2004.

           The modified drawings which are the subject of this report are too large to be provided as an
           attachment to this report. However, they will be available for viewing in the Council
           Chamber prior to the meeting.

           Comment
           On 16 November 2004, the project team on behalf of the property owners met with officers
           of the City to discuss proposed modifications to the approved drawings. Subsequent to that
           meeting, revised drawings and supporting written justification were lodged with the City on
           19 November.

           The property owners have engaged a full consultant team, including:
           • Clifton Coney Group to project manage the proposed redevelopment; and
           • A full project design / consultant team including engineers for electrical, mechanical,
               hydraulic, fire, civil and structural disciplines, led by Hames Sharley Architects.

           Consultants have advised that an environmental and geotechnical analysis has revealed
           issues in relation to Acid Sulphate Soils and a high water table below ground level which
           both affect the viability of the basement car park beneath the proposed second supermarket.

           Noting these issues, a major change has been incorporated into the design of the project to


                                                18
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           remove the basement car park and replace it with a roof deck parking area on top of the
           second supermarket. A lift large enough to cater for shoppers and trolleys will be provided
           to move shoppers between the ground level shopping area and the upper level roof deck
           parking area.

           The approved drawings incorporated 159 parking bays within the basement car park. The
           new roof deck parking area contains 120 parking bays situated directly above the second
           supermarket. Detailed comments with respect to car parking follow later in the report.

           Access to the roof deck parking area will be via a two way concrete ramp located on the
           south side of the building adjacent to Manning Road. This ramp will cantilever beyond the
           perimeter east wall and will have support columns into the car park below. The entry / exit
           point to the ramp is in the same location as for the previous basement parking scheme. The
           adjoining retail tenancies will remain unaltered with the access ramp being located directly
           above and incorporated within the shop-front aesthetics. In addition to the major change
           referred to above, the following further design changes have also been made:

           Northern Car Park and Specialty Retail
           The proposed specialty retail additions adjacent to the car park on the northern side of the
           existing shopping centre have been reduced by 372 sq. metres and the proposed additions to
           the Coles supermarket have been reduced by 73 sq. metres. These changes have allowed the
           existing car park within this area to be modified with an overall increase in parking bays.

           Relocation of Second Supermarket
           The setback to the wall of the second supermarket facing Walanna Drive has been increased
           by 3 metres beyond the originally proposed setback. This has allowed additional parking
           bays to be incorporated into the design.

           A floor area analysis comparing the approved and revised drawings is provided below. The
           table shows that the total gross floor area of the proposed redevelopment is intended to
           reduce from 12,760 sq. metres to 12,265 sq. metres.

                FLOOR AREA ANALYSIS COMPARING APPROVED DRAWINGS AND
                  REVISED DRAWINGS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION

                                             APPROVED                  REVISED DRAWINGS
                                             DEVELOPMENT
            EXISTING CENTRE                  AREA m²   AREA m²         AREA m²            AREA m²
                                             GLA       GFA             GLA                GFA
            Coles Supermarket                    3,100         5,206              3,100              5,206
            Chicken Treat, KFC & TAB               631           631                631                631
            Specialty Shops                      1,350   Incl. above              1,350        Incl. above
            Shops and Showrooms                    790           825                790                825
            Sub Total (excluding medical         5,871         6,662              5,871              6,662
            centre and tavern)
            PROPOSED CENTRE
            Existing Remodelling
            Coles Supermarket                      422                              349
            Specialty Shops and Kiosks            1152                              780
            Sub Total                            1,574                            1,129
            New Extension
            New Supermarket                      2,500                            2,500
            Specialty Shops and Kiosks           2,091                            2,091
            Boutique Tavern / Restaurant           400                              400
            Sub Total                            4,991        13,585              4,991             13,090
            Less existing shops / showroom        -790          -825               -790               -825
            Total Centre Redevelopment          11,646        12,760             11,201             12,265



                                                19
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           A comparison between the approved and revised drawings shows that re-modelling around
           the northern side of the existing centre has resulted in the reduced floor area. The proposed
           expansion to the existing Coles supermarket has reduced from 422 sq. metres floor area to
           349 sq. metres, while the additional specialty shops that had been proposed to the northern
           side of the existing building have been reduced in area from 516 sq. metres to 144 sq.
           metres.

           The areas associated with the second supermarket and the specialty shops in the vicinity of
           the second supermarket have not changed.

           Car Parking
           A car parking analysis between the number of bays currently existing on site, the number of
           bays contained within the approved development and the number of bays that are now
           proposed is shown in the table below.

             PARKING ANALYSIS COMPARING APPROVED DRAWINGS AND REVISED
                     DRAWINGS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION

                                APPROVED DEVELOPMENT                        REVISED DRAWINGS
            EXISTING CENTRE     Existing Bays Proposed Bays                 Existing Bays Proposed Bays

            On Grade Bays                    575                     501              575                514

            Basement                          Nil                    159               Nil                Nil

            Roof Deck                         Nil                     Nil              Nil               120

            TOTALS                           575                    660                575              634
            FLOOR AREA              5,871m²(GLA)          11,646m²(GLA)       5,871m²(GLA)    11,201m²(GLA)
            Sq.Metres

            Parking Ratio        Bays / 100m²GLA         Bays / 100m²GLA            Bays /   Bays / 100m²GLA
                                            = 9.7                   = 5.6   100m²GLA = 9.7              = 5.6

           Proportionately, the number of parking bays that have been provided has remained the same.
           In numerical terms, the gross leasable area has reduced by 445 sq. metres, and the number of
           parking bays provided has reduced by 26. On this basis, the proposed number of bays is
           acceptable.

           Design Philosophy
           The original design philosophy has been maintained, with the major changes being:
           • A ramp being visible on the Manning Road elevation of the development to access the
             roof deck parking area; and
           • A 1.0 metre (approximately) increase in wall height of the second supermarket to cater
             for the proposed roof deck parking area.
           The changes maintain compliance with maximum permitted building heights.

           An unsatisfactory arrangement exists with respect to pedestrian access between the lift and
           the supermarket / covered mall. This is addressed by way of a recommended condition of
           approval.

           Approval Process
           Council was not the determining authority with respect to the original approval. After
                            t
           Council issued is refusal and the appeal process began, the authority responsible for the
           approval became the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal. As an approval was not issued
           pursuant to the City’s Town Planning Scheme, Council will only be responsible for making



                                                    20
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           a recommendation as to whether or not the amended drawings are supported. The Town
           Planning Appeal Tribunal will have the final decision-making power as to whether or not the
           revisions will be approved.

           Timing
           The proponents have indicated that the design modif ications will not affect their capacity to
           comply with the earlier conditions of approval which require substantial commencement
           within 12 months of the original approval i.e. by 24 June 2005.

           Consultation
           The revised drawings have not been the subject of consultation.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The proposal has been considered in accordance with relevant provisions of Council’s Town
           Planning Scheme No. 6.

           Financial Implications
           The issue has no impact on this particular area.

           Strategic Implications
           This matter relates to Goal 3 “Environmental Management” identified within the Council’s
           Strategic Plan. Goal 3 is expressed in the following terms:

           To effectively manage, enhance and maintain the City’s unique natural and built
           environment.

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.1

           That Council recommends that the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal accept the revised
           drawings for the proposed major expansion of the Village Green Shopping Centre, on the
           corner of Kent Street and Manning Road in Karawara, subject to the same terms and
           conditions as those imposed for the earlier approval, with the addition of the following
           conditions:
           (a)     Pedestrian access arrangements between the lift serving the roof deck parking area
                   and the supermarket / covered mall shall be improved to the satisfaction of the City;
           (b)     Modification shall be made to the design of the parking bays immediately to the east
                   of the proposed 2500 sq. metre supermarket and the bay immediately adjacent to the
                   trolley bay within the roof deck parking area to the extent necessary to comply with
                   the minimum dimensions prescribed by Town Planning Scheme No. 6.
           (c)     With respect to substantial commencement, references to Stage 2A shall be changed
                   to Stage 2B, noting the deletion of the basement car parking area.




                                                21
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            9.3.2 Proposed 26 Multiple Dwellings. Lots 20 - 24 and 55 (Nos. 71 - 75) Canning
                  Highway and 2 Grouped Dwellings. Lot 33 (No. 30) Brandon Street, South
                  Perth

           Location:              Lots 20 - 24 and Lot 55 (Nos. 71 - 75) Canning Highway, cnr
                                  Banksia Tce, and Lot 33 (No. 30) Brandon Street, South Perth
           Applicant:             Hames Sharley Architects on behalf of Auspacific Pty Ltd and
                                  Tampilo Pty Ltd
           File Ref:              CA6. 71 - 75 and BR2. 30 and 11/101
           Date:                  29 November 2004
           Author:                Christian Buttle, Team Leader, Planning Services
           Reporting Officer:     Ross Povey, Director, Strategic and Regulatory Services

           Summary
           To consider a development application for 26 Multiple Dwellings and 2 Grouped Dwellings.
           It is recommended that the application be approved subject to various conditions.

           Background
           Zoning:                        Nos. 71 - 75 Canning Highway: Highway Commercial
                                          No. 30 Brandon Street:        Residential

           Density coding:                Nos. 71 - 75 Canning Highway: R80
                                          No. 30 Brandon Street:        R15

           Lot area:                      Nos. 71 - 75 Canning Highway: 3,435sq. metres*
                                          No. 30 Brandon Street:        1,056 sq. metres
                                          *NB: Nos. 71 - 75 are subject to a road widening
                                          requirement.

           Height limit:                  Nos. 71 - 75 Canning Highway: 10.5 metres
                                          No. 30 Brandon Street:        7.0 metres

           Canning Highway setback:       10 metres

           Max development potential:     Nos. 71 - 75 Canning Highway: 26 Multiple Dwellings
                                          No. 30 Brandon Street:        2 Grouped Dwellings*

                                           *NB: Development of 2 Grouped Dwellings at No. 30
                                                Brandon Street relies upon an increase in lot area to
                                                1100 sq. metres. This is discussed in detail within the
                                                report.

           Max. allowable plot ratio:     Nos. 71 - 75 Canning Hwy:       1.00
                                          No. 30 Brandon Street:N/A

           The drawings relating to the application have been reduced to A4 size and are provided as
           an attachment to this report (Confidential Attachment 9.3.2 refers). Larger scale drawings
           will also be available for inspection by Council Members in the Council Chamber.

           In accordance with Council Delegation DC342, all development applications involving
           buildings 9.0 metres high or higher or containing more than 10 dwellings, are required to be
           referred to a Council meeting for determination. The proposed development will be
           constructed to the allowable 10.5 metre height limit and incorporates 28 dwellings in total.




                                               22
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           The development site is shown on the locality plan below. Lots 20 - 24 (No. 71) Canning
           Highway are currently occupied by Rosie O’Grady’s Tavern (formerly Hurlingham Hotel).
           Lot 55 (No. 75) Canning Highway is vacant and situated between the tavern and the Rhino
           car wash on the corner of Canning Highway and Brandon Street. Lot 33 (No. 30) Brandon
           Street is one lot removed from Canning Highway and is adjoined on its eastern boundary by
           the Rhino Car Wash and on its northern boundary by Rosie O’Grady’s.




           In general terms, it is proposed to develo p 26 Multiple Dwellings in three separate buildings
           on the land currently occupied by the tavern and the adjoining vacant lot facing Canning
           Highway. Two of the Multiple Dwelling buildings will face Canning Highway. These
           buildings containing a total of 16 dwellings, are each four storeys in height and joined below
           ground level by a basement car park. The third Multiple Dwelling building is situated
           alongside an existing T.A.B. building, further along the Banksia Terrace frontage of the
           development site. This building, containing 10 dwellings, is two storeys in height with a
           basement car park. Each of these buildings is situated on land zoned Highway Commercial
           with R80 density coding and a 10.5 metre height limit.

           It is also proposed to redevelop a property at No. 30 Brandon Street, zoned Residential with
           R15 density coding and a 7.0 metre height limit. This property has a lot area of 1, 056 sq.
           metres. Under R15 coding, the Residential Design Codes permit one Grouped Dwelling for
           every 550 sq.metres of lot area. To facilitate the development of two Grouped Dwellings on
           this site, it is intended to re-subdivide the land, and increase the lot area to 1, 100 sq.metres.

           Comment

           Heritage
           The Hurlingham Hotel (fmr) is listed within the City of South Perth Municipal Heritage
           Inventory (MHI) with a Management Category ‘C’ classification. The MHI contains seven
           different classifications. A brief explanation of each classification (taken from the MHI) is
           provided below:

           Category A+
           Already recognised at the highest level - the WA State Register of Heritage Places.
           Redevelopment requires consultation with the Heritage Council of Western Australia and the
           local government authority; provide maximum encouragement to the owner under the City
           of South Perth Planning Scheme to conserve the significance of the place. Incentives to
           promote heritage conservation should be considered.

                                                  23
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           Category A
           Worthy of the highest level of protection: recommend entry into the State Register of
           Heritage Places which gives legal protection; development requires consultation with the
           City of South Perth. Provide maximum encouragement to the owner under the City of South
           Perth Planning Scheme to conserve the significance of the place. Incentives to promote
           conservation should be considered.

           Category B
           Worthy of a high level of protection: provide maximum encouragement to the owner under
           the City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme to conserve the significance of the place. A
           more detailed Heritage Assessment / Impact Statement to be undertaken before approval
           given for any major redevelopment. Incentives to promote conservation should be
           considered.

           Category A/B
           Where a place is made up of a complex of buildings each part may have a different
           management category; with some having possible State significance while the rest have
           local significance.

           Category C
           Retain and conserve if possible: endeavour to conserve the significance of the place through
           the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. A more detailed Heritage Assessment /
           Impact Statement may be required before approval given for any major redevelopment or
           demolition. Photographically record the place prior to demolition.

           Category D
           Significant but not essential to the understanding of the history of the district.
           Photographically record the place prior to any major redevelopment or demolition.

           Category E
           Historic site without built features. Recognise - for example with a plaque, place name, or
           reflection in urban or architectural design.

           The following information is also taken from the MHI and provides some detailed
           background information with respect to the Hotel:

           Historical Notes on the Hurlingham Hotel
           In the late 1920s and 1930s advantage was taken of the increasing importance of the
           Fremantle -Canning Road (later Canning Highway) as a major thoroughfare in the area with
           the establishment of two hotels; the first being the Hurlingham Hotel in 1930, and the
           second the Como Hotel in 1939.

           Lots 23 and 24 of Swan Location 38B were purchased by the Emu Brewery on 25 October
           1928. On 7 February 1930, architectural firm Oldham, Boas and Ednie -Brown invited
           tenders for the erection of a residential hotel building, 29 tenders were received. On 11
           April that year the lowest tenderer, R.V. Ritchie, was awarded the contract for the
           construction of the hotel at a cost of £11,436. The residential accommodation of the hotel
           was located at first floor level in the south wing with seven double rooms. Single room
           accommodation was located in the west wing with a public area in between the two wings.

           The hotel was opened in September 1930 and leased to hotel-keeper Frederick Coleman for
           a term of six years. Coleman continued to be the licensee of the hotel until 1950. He was
           followed by J Smart who operated the hotel from 1950-1962. The lease was later taken over
           by R.J.Higgins, among others.




                                               24
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           From 1954 various changes and major redevelopments have been made both externally and
           internally on the Hurlingham Hotel. [In-depth information can be found in the Documentary
           Evidence of Ron Bodycoat’s Heritage Assessment of the Hurlingham Hotel (fmr).]

           In 1978 the hotel transferred from the Emu Brewery ownership to Lloyd S Perron and
           Lindsay Ryan who became joint owners in the hotel. In 1989 a building licence was issued
           for major changes to the Hurlingham Hotel to facilitate its use as a tavern and restaurant.
           Architect Christopher James designed the alterations. The changes allowed extensions to the
           Hillcrest Restaurant, which during the 1980s and early 1990s was a Gold Plate Award
           winning restaurant.

           Further changes were made to the hotel in the mid 1990s and again in 1997/98 when the
           place was totally refurbished for its conversion to a Rosie O’Grady’s Irish Pub. The City of
           South Perth Mayor, John Hardwick, opened the hotel as Rosie O’Grady’s on the 4 February
           1998. In 2001 the hotel continues to operate as a Rosie O’Grady’s Irish Pub under the
           management of Tom Shortall.

           Long term residents of the area remember the hotel fondly as their local pub nicknamed the
           ‘Flying Pig’.

           Description of the Hurlingham Hotel
           The Hurlingham Hotel (fmr) comprises a two storied hotel constructed in 1930 for the Emu
           Brewery Company. The place is sited on high ground on the north-west side of Canning
           Highway, at the corner of Banksia Tce. There are no other buildings of similar character in
           close relationship to the hotel. The building stands alone without any precinct
           characteristics.

           The external form and style of the hotel is a two storied rendered brick building designed in
           a free interpretation of the Inter-War Free Classical style. The external walls are painted
           above a face brick base, which is now also painted. Windows are timber casements
           regularly spaced at both levels.

           The roof is pitched high, at approximately 45 degrees, and sheeted with Marseilles pattern
           red blend terracotta tiles. Prominent gables are expressed at the corner splay and both street
           elevations. Generous eave overhangs are supported on moulded brackets. Circular louvred
           vents are provided in the centre of the gables.

           The corner of the building facing onto the street intersection is treated with stucco pilasters,
           capitals and mouldings carried up two levels. The original loggia treatment at the corner of
           both levels is now built up or filled with glass bricks.

           The original internal layout at both levels of the hotel has been substantially modified. The
           upper level verandah to the south wing has been removed; bars, bottle shop and cellars on
           the ground floor have been altered; fire places have been removed at first floor level; all
           bedroom walls have been demolished and areas to both wings have been opened up or
           subsequently converted for function and restaurant use. A list of alterations can be found on
           page 12 and 13 of the Ron Bodycoat Assessment of the Hurlingham Hotel (fmr).

           Statement of Significance
           The Hurlingham Hotel (fmr) has aesthetic, historic, social and representative cultural
           heritage significance. It has had historical associations with the community since 1930 for
           its role in the residential development of the locality and for its association with the Emu
           Brewery Company and the brewery’s architects Oldham, Boas and Ednie -Brown. The hotel
           was connected to the Emu Brewery Company (which was responsible for the construction of
           the building in 1930) until 1978.



                                                 25
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           The former Hurlingham Hotel is representative of the residential development of the
           Kensington area dating from the 1920s. Its establishment also reflects the increasing
           importance of the Fremantle -Canning Road (later known as Canning Highway) as a major
           thoroughfare in the area.

           The Hurlingham Hotel (fmr) has also been a landmark feature of the built environment of
           South Perth and as a result contributed to the community’s sense of place. Though these
           landmark qualities have been substantially altered by the dominant Metro Inn next door, the
           hotel is still well known and adds considerable streetscape value to Canning Highway. It is
           also significant in exhibiting aesthetic characteristics valued by the community as
           representin g a period of the early development of the State.

           The Hurlingham Hotel (fmr) has social significance for its use as a hotel, social venue and
           local meeting place since 1930.

           Applicant’s comments with respect to Heritage
           The applicant has provided the following comments with respect to the matter of heritage:

           Presently on the existing site stands the Ros ie O’Grady’s Pub (previously the Hurlingham
           Hotel). This development proposal will require removal of the hotel.

           The Hurlingham Hotel (fmr) is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Class
           C structure, meaning that the existing structure should be retained and conserved if possible.
           The City’s Heritage Record Form states that the hotel was built by Emu Brewery Company
           in 1930. Residential accommodation of the hotel was located at the first floor level in two
           separate wings with a public area in between.

           Records show that since 1954 there have been numerous changes and major developments to
           the building as shown below:

           Appearance of the building in 1940:




                                                 26
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           Appearance of the building after changes up to 1988:




           In 1989 a building licence was issued for major changes to facilitate its use as a tavern and
           restaurant. Further changes were made in the mid 1990s and again in 1997 and 1998.

           Appearance of the building today:




           The building has had the balconies filled in and awnings deleted, presenting a very bland
           facade to the street. Very little significant heritage architectural detailing remains on the
           building and the original internal layout at both levels has been substantially modified.

           The upper floor level verandah to the south wing has been removed; bars, bottle shop and
           cellars on the ground floor have been altered, fire places removed, all bedroom walls have
           been demolished and areas to both wings have been opened up or subsequently converted
           for the function and restaurant use.

           Any landmark qualities the building once had have been substantially altered by the
           dominance of the newer Metro Inn next door.

           If the road widening to Canning Highway goes ahead, the building itself will be very close
           to the Highway and parking outside the front of the hotel will be no longer possible. The
           existing car park around the building is very stark and unkempt. Overall the building and its
           surrounds is in need of major improvement.

                                                27
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           Our proposal shows the removal of the hotel building. This is due to the location and height
           of the existing building which makes it not possible to place the same number of units on the
           site without exceeding the height limitations of the area. The position of the existing hotel
           conflicts with the optimal position for apartments in order to gain full use of the spectacular
           views of the river beyond.

           Our proposal places the highest portion of the development (Block A) in the location of the
           existing building in order to a) gain maximum views and amenity for the site and b) make
           the other blocks of apartments bounding the adjacent residential lots more in scale with the
           existing streetscape (please refer our elevation of Banksia Tce), resulting in a more
           appealing streetscape than would otherwise be possible with retaining the existing hotel and
           placing a 10.5m (min) height building adjacent to R15 residential homes.

           We believe the site plan of the proposed scheme makes better use of the site (through better
           street appeal and residents’ amenities) than would otherwise be possible if the existing hotel
           was to remain.

           The existing building is not fit to be converted into residential units as part of the proposal,
           due to its proximity to the noise from Canning Highway; vehicle and pedestrian servicing.
                                                          (
           The building would be inefficient spacial sic) and be uneconomical to convert into
           residential use.

           In addition, the positioning and plan layout of the existing building do not lend themselves
           to conversion into residential apartments. Our client wishes to use the site solely for
           residential apartments.

           Finally, if the building was retained as part of a redeveloped proposal it would contravene
           the existing setback requirements of the site, in addition to being dangerously close to
           Canning Highway should it be widened as planned.

           As part of our proposal for the redevelopment we would undertake a detailed photograph
           record for use by the City of South Perth and other interested heritage groups, prior to
           demolition of the existing building. Also a plaque to the approval of the City of South Perth
           would be located on the site as part of the new development.

           Officer comments with respect to Heritage
           The Municipal Heritage Inventory is an independent document that does not have the same
           force and effect as a statutory document such as Town Planning Scheme No. 6. Scheme 6
           envisages the compilation of a Heritage List pursuant to Clause 9.6 of that Scheme. The
           Heritage List has not yet been prepared.

           The provisions of the Municipal Heritage Inventory are clear - the building should be
           retained and conserved if possible. Based upon the Management Category C listing of the
           subject building, for Council to insist upon its retention, this would need to be both
           physically and economically feasible. The applicants have indicated that it is not possible to
           keep the existing building, and that the building does not have sufficient significance to
           warrant retention.

           In terms of the merits of retaining the building, the applicants’ comments have been disputed
           in the past. When the matter was considered by the City’s Heritage consultants, ‘Heritage
           Today’, and a report was presented to a Council meeting for the inclusion of the building
           within the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory, it was recommended that the building be
           placed in Management Category ‘B’. However, the Council (Commissioners), did not
           accept this recommendation, and placed the building in Management Category C. This was




                                                 28
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           the recommendation of Heritage Consultant Ron Bodycoat who had been engaged by the
           owners. His assessment was considered by the Council at the same time as the ‘Heritage
           Today’ assessment.

           Although there have been various modifications to the building over the years that are said
           to diminish the heritage value of the building, such as the enclosure of balconies, there is
           capacity to undo many of these changes and to reinstate the original appearance of the
           building - particularly the external appearance.

           It is recommended that the Council offer the strongest possible incentives for the proponent
           to redevelop the site while retaining the Hotel. Such incentives could include bonus plot
           ratio amongst others.

           It is also relevant to note the comments from Racing and Wagering Western Australia with
           respect to the development proposal. It seems almost certain that the T.A.B. located
           alongside the development site (which does not form part of the development application)
           would close if the Hotel were to cease operations. The proponent could investigate the
           possibility of acquiring the T.A.B. for inclusion as part of the development site. A larger
           land parcel would open up greater design possibilities.

           However, noting the somewhat tenuous position of trying to retain a building solely on the
           basis of its inclusion within the Municipal Heritage Inventory under Category C, it is
           recommended that the Council approve the development application with conditions, but
           also encourage the proponent to reconsider the development with a view to retention of the
           Hotel in return for bonus development entitlements.

           Density Coding and Maximum Permitted Number of Dwellings
           The R80 coded portion of the development site comprises the following lot areas:
           • Lot 20 (No. 71) Canning Highway - 516 sq. metres
           • Lot 21 (No. 71) Canning Highway - 516 sq. metres
           • Lot 22 (No. 71) Canning Highway - 711 sq. metres
           • Lot 23 (No. 71) Canning Highway - 675 sq. metres
           • Lot 24 (No. 71) Canning Highway - 640 sq. metres
           • Lot 55 (No. 75) Canning Highway - 377 sq. metres
           _______________________________________________
                                      TOTAL: 3435 sq. metres

           The R15 coded portion of the development site comprises Lot 33 (No. 30) Brandon Street
           which has an area of 1056 sq. metres.

           At an R15 coding, the Residential Design Codes permit one Grouped Dwelling for every
           550 sq. metres of lot area. Noting this, the proponent intends to take 44 sq. metres of land
           from the R80 coded portion of the site to add to the portion of the site coded R15. This will
           allow the development of two Grouped Dwellings on the R15 coded land.

           Lots 22 - 24 and 55 are also subject to a road widening requirement under the Metropolitan
           Region Scheme. This reservation affects the front 2.5 metres of these lots and consumes an
           area of some 133 sq. metres. Clause 6.6 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 states that:

           “In respect of a lot having a boundary to Canning Highway or Manning Road, the portion
           of that lot required for road widening purposes shall be deemed to be excluded from the
           area of the lot for the purposes of determining:
           (a)     minimum land area per dwelling;
           (b)     maximum plot ratio;
           (c)     minimum required open space or landscaped area; and
           (d)     the siting of any building and car parking bay.”

                                                29
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           These factors affect the development potentia l of the R80 coded portion of the development
           site in the following way:

           Original Site area = 3435 sq. metres
           Minus 44 sq. metres to be allocated to the R15 coded portion of the site
           Minus 133 sq .metres for road widening
           Resultant site area = 3258 sq. metres

           At an R80 coding, one Multiple Dwelling is permitted for every 125 sq. metres of lot area.
           This results in a maximum development potential of 26 Multiple Dwellings for this portion
           of the development site (3258 divided by 125), while the development potential of the R15
           coded portion of the development site becomes 2 Grouped Dwellings based upon its final
           site area of 1100 sq. metres.

           Plot Ratio
           The Residential Design Codes allow a plot ratio of 1.00 for development at an R80 density
           coding. The permitted plot ratio floor area is therefore 3, 258 sq. metres. The application
           complies with this entitlement.

           Development at an R15 density coding is not subject to a maximum permitted plot ratio.

           The Residential Design Codes state that balconies or verandahs open on at least two sides
           are excluded from plot ratio calculations. In order to meet this provision of the Codes (and
           comply with the maximum allowable plot ratio), it will be necessary to ensure that terraces
           attached to a number of the dwellings are enclosed to an extent no greater than that required
           for the protection of visual privacy. A condition of approval has been framed to satisfy this
           requirement.

           Streetscape / Building Design
           The proposed development has been considered by the Council’s Design Advisory
           Consultants on three separate occasions. In this respect, detailed comments are provided in
           the ‘Consultation’ section of this report. From a streetscape perspective, the design is
           considered to be generally acceptable.

           The proposed development is intended to be constructed with a Colorbond metal roof with
           rendered masonry walls.

           Boundary Walls
           The proposed development does not incorporate boundary walls on existing external lot
           boundaries, but does incorporate a section of boundary wall adjoining what will become the
           lot boundary with the land to be developed for two Grouped Dwellings. This wall is
           approximately 14.5 metres in length and has an average height of approximately 5.5 metres.
           In addition to this wall, toilets / storerooms associated with the communal area of the
           Multiple Dwellings are proposed to be built to the proposed lot boundary with the two
           Grouped Dwellings.

           The rear walls of the two Grouped Dwellings (i.e. closest portions of these buildings to the
           proposed boundary walls) are separated from the boundary walls by approximately 11
           metres. Although the height and length of the proposed boundary walls exceed those that
           would normally be approved by the City, it is recommended that this component of the
           submission be accepted, noting the “internal” siting of these walls, and the “buyer beware”
           principle for any potential future purchaser of the Grouped Dwellings.




                                                30
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           Setbacks
           Town Planning Scheme No. 6 prescribes a 10 metre building setback from the Canning
           Highway street alignment. This setback caters for the 2.5 metre road widening requirement
           along with a 7.5 metre setback from the new street alignment.

           The proposed development meets the setback prescribed by the Scheme with the exception
           of a small portion of stairwell which projects into the setback area closest to the Canning
           Highway / Banksia Terrace intersection. Noting that the setback of the buildings (other than
           the stairwells) ranges from approximately 13 metres to 21 metres from the Canning
           Highway street alignment, and that the setback of the four stairwells ranges from
           approximately 9 metres minimum to 15 metres, it is recommended that this projection into
           the street setback area be supported.

           Banksia Terrace is classified as the “Primary Street” setback for the proposed development.
           Primary Street is defined by the Residential Design Codes as meaning “the sole or principal
           public road that provides access to a site”. For Multiple Dwelling developments of this
           kind, the Residential Design Codes prescribe a minimum street setback of 4 metres. Other
           provisions within the Codes cater for “averaging” of a street setback.

           The buildings have been provided with setbacks of 2.0 metres and 2.1 metres respectively
           from the Banksia Terrace street alignment, although an average setback of 4.0 metres has
           been provided. Such setbacks are certainly less than would commonly be allowed, however,
           in this instance, it is considered appropriate to allow averaging of the street setback in the
           manner proposed for the following reasons:
           • There is an established character of reduced street setbacks along this property
               boundary. The existing Hotel building has a zero setback from Hovia Terrace as can be
               seen from the photographs in this report.
           • The section of Banksia Terrace w        ithin which the development site is located has a
               distinctly different character from the remainder of Banksia Terrace between the T.A.B.
               and Mill Point Road which is developed with Single Houses on individual blocks. The
               development site is situated opposite the Metro Inn which also has commercial
               tenancies with a reduced setback from the street alignment. A pedestrian underpass is
               also situated opposite the development site.

           Setback concessions have been sought between the building and the car wash on the
           adjoining lot. As that adjoining property is developed for commercial purposes, the setback
           reduction will not have an adverse impact on amenity, and it is recommended that this
           setback reduction be accepted.

           A setback reduction is also proposed between the proposed Multiple Dwelling building
           closest to Canning Highway and the boundary with Lot 33 Brandon Street. This is the
           property that will be developed with two Grouped Dwellings. A setback of only 1.2 metres
           has been provided between the four storey Multiple Dwelling building and the lot boundary
           with the adjoining Grouped Dwelling site. The prescribed setback for this wall is 8.4
           metres. It is acknowledged that this boundary is internal to the development site, but the 1.2
           metre setback is considered to be insufficient in this instance. If the provisions of the
           Residential Design Codes with respect to the protection of visual privacy for the dwellings
           on Lot 33 can be maintained, it is recommended that a minimum setback of 3 metres be
           accepted for the Multiple Dwellings. A condition of approval has been framed accordingly.

           The proposed two Grouped Dwellings facing Brandon Street comply with the setbacks
           prescribed by the Residential Design Codes.




                                                31
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Building Height
           As identified, the portion of the site being developed for Multiple Dwellings has a height
           limit of 10.5 metres, while the portion of the site being developed for Grouped Dwellings
           has a height limit of 7.0 metres.

           Allowable building height is measured from the highest original ground level beneath the
           proposed building to the highest point of the external wall of the building that extends to the
           highest altitude. An RL of 20.90 has been determined as the highest ground level beneath
           the building, giving an overall permitted building height of RL 31.4. As the two Multiple
           Dwelling buildings along the Canning Highway frontage are connected by the same
           basement car park, only one reference point has been used to calculate the permitted height
           limit for each of these buildings.

           The buildings along the Canning Highway frontage of the property each incorporate glass
           gable ends (6 in total to each side of the building) which exceed the height limit, and it will
           be necessary for the drawings to be modified so that compliance with the height limit is
           achieved. A condition has been formulated to address this matter.

           The Multiple Dwelling building alongside the T.A.B. and the two Grouped Dwellings facing
           Brandon Street each comply with the height limits prescribed by Town Planning Scheme
           No. 6.

           Open Space
           The proposed development complies with both the general open space and communal open
           space requirements of the Residential Design Codes. The dwellings also comply with the
           private open space requirements prescribed by the Codes.

           Access and Car Parking
           The 26 Multiple Dwellings are provided with 52 car parking bays situated in undercroft
           parking areas beneath each of the buildings. A total of 6 visitor bays are provided adjacent
           to the right of carriageway easement that runs across the Canning Highway front setback
           area.

           All of the parking bays and accessways comply with the dimensions prescribed by Town
           Planning Scheme No. 6.

           Conditions of approval have been formulated to address matters in relation to existing street
           trees adjacent to the development site.


           Visual Privacy
           The Residential Design Codes prescribe requirements relating to visual privacy, and the
           proposed development does not comply with the requirements of the Codes in certain areas.

           With respect to the Multiple Dwellings adjacent to the T.A.B., it will be necessary for the
           drawings to demonstrate that the adjoining residential property at No. 28 Brandon Street is
           appropriately screened from overlooking. This requires Terraces to be set back 7.5 metres
           from the dividing lot boundary, measured at a 45 degree angle to the face of the Terrace.

           For the Multiple Dwellings adjacent to the car wash, it will be necessary for the side of the
           Terrace and Balcony of the end unit to be screened to a minimum height of 1600mm above
           floor level. This will still allow the rearmost corner of the car wash to fall within the “cone
           of vision” (i.e. area of view), but noting the commercial use of this property and the small
           extent to which the cone of vision projects into this property, it is considered acceptable.



                                                32
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           Compliance with the visual privacy requirements of the Codes with respect to overlooking
           between the Multiple Dwellings at the Canning Highway end of the development site and
           the proposed two Grouped Dwellings facing Brandon Street has been achieved through the
           introduction of planter boxes into the Terraces on the second floor plans and pergola
           structures above these Terraces to prevent overlooking from the balconies on the third floor.
           It will be necessary for details of the pergola structures to be provided in order to
           demonstrate that they are effective in providing privacy protection to the Grouped Dwelling
           fronting Brandon Street.

           Conditions have been formulated to address the matters referred to above.

           Design for Climate
           The applicant has submitted a shadow diagram which shows that the Multiple Dwellings
           will comply with the overshadowing provisions contained within the Residential Design
           Codes. A condition of approval has been formulated to ensure that a shadow diagram is
           provided for the two Grouped Dwellings.

           Subdivision and Amalgamation
           It will be necessary for the various land parcels to be amalgamated, followed by re-
           subdivision to create an 1100 sq. metre lot facing Brandon Street, creation of the main lot for
           the 26 Multiple Dwellings and another lot to set aside the land required for future road
           widening. A condition of approval has been formulated to address these requirements.

           Consultation
           The development application was advertised to directly adjoining property owners /
           occupiers by way of mail notices. The properties notified were No. 28 Brandon Street
           (Single House), No. 77 Canning Highway (the Rhino Car Wash) and No. 26 Banksia
           Terrace (T.A.B.). Submissions were received from property owners or occupiers from each
           of these properties.

           In addition to the submissions referred to above, a further four submissions were received
           from more remote property owners to whom details of the proposed redevelopment had
           become known. Each of these submissions objected to the proposed demolition of the Hotel
           building.

           Design Advisory Consultants
           The proposal was referred to the August 2004 meeting of Council’s Design Advisory
           Consultants (DAC). The Advisory Architects identified a number of concerns, at that time,
           and revised drawings were referred to their September 2004 meeting. Concerns were still
           held and further revised drawings were referred to the October 2004 DAC meeting. As a
           result of DAC input amongst other matters, further revised drawings were lodged on 17
           November. These drawings, which form the basis of assessment and this report, have not
           been referred to a meeting of the Advisory Architects. Comments from the October DAC
           meeting, along with an Officer response, are provided below:

           Note: The following comments in bold print are reproduced from the notes of the Design
           Advisory Consultants’ meeting held on 23 August 2004. The Advisory Architects’ further
           comments at their October meeting are presented immediately following the respective
           comments from the August meeting.

           1.    The two dwellings facing Brandon Street don’t relate to the type of development
                 expected in areas coded R15.
                 Not addressed satisfactorily. Furthermore, the front doors do not face the street
                 contrary to a requirement of the R-Codes.




                                                33
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

                Officer Response:
                The revised drawings submitted on 17 November have now been modified to provide
                two dwellings facing Brandon Street which do relate to the type of development that
                is expected in areas coded R15. This matter has been satisfactorily addressed.

           2.   It would be preferable for Unit 26 to be placed alongside Unit 28 with car
                parking adjusted and relocated to the area where Unit 26 is currently situated.
                Not addressed satisfactorily. The use of almost the entire setback area in front of
                Units 26 and 27 for car parking is considered unsatisfactory.

                Officer Response:
                The reference to Units 26 and 27 relates to the two dwellings facing Brandon Street.
                The revised drawings now incorporate a much greater extent of landscaping forward
                of these dwellings. This matter has been satisfactorily addressed.

           3.   The appearance of the development as viewed from Canning Highway is not
                satisfactory - there is no sense of the development addressing the highway
                                                                      n
                frontage; rather, the frontage is dominated by a expanse of car parking area
                and other pavement.
                The appearance of the main building has improved, noting in particular the relief
                provided by the central separation between dwellings. However the treatment of the
                parking structures and associated pavement is still not satisfactory. In fact by virtue of
                the conversion of the previous carports to fully enclosed garages, the visual impact is
                less satisfactory due to the dominance of garage doors. The plan drawing identifies a
                “gatehouse” in a central location; however there are no other details of the gatehouse.
                To achieve a satisfactory design outcome, it is suggested that the car parking should
                be placed in an undercroft area beneath the dwellings, thus releasing the bulk of the
                setback area for landscaping. (Refer also to Comment 7 below).

                Officer Response:
                The design of the building has now been modified to remove all parking structures
                and associated pavement from the Canning Highway frontage of the proposed
                development. The only parking that remains in this area is 6 unroofed visitor parking
                bays situated adjacent to the existing easement that runs through from the Rhino Car
                Wash. Car parking for the unit occupiers has now been provided in an undercroft
                beneath the dwelling, as recommended by the A       dvisory Architects. A significant
                amount of landscaping has now been provided within the Canning Highway setback
                area and the majority of fencing along the Canning Highway street alignment has been
                changed from solid brick to metal infill panels between brick piers. This matter has
                now been satisfactorily addressed.

           4.   The solid limestone wall on the Canning Highway frontage is not supported.
                Not addressed satisfactorily.

                Officer Response:
                As identified above, almost all of the solid fencing along the C   anning Highway
                frontage of the development site has been removed and replaced with open grille type
                fencing. A condition has been formulated to require one more section of solid fence,
                adjacent to the Canning Highway crossover, to be replaced with open style fencing as
                well. This matter has now been satisfactorily addressed.




                                               34
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           5.    If the solid limestone wall is built adjacent to Canning Highway, it will be
                 difficult to locate landscaping in a satisfactory position. If the landscaping is
                 placed in front of the wall, it is unlikely to be maintained due to access difficulties
                 and segregation from the balance of the site. Conversely, if the landscaping is
                 located behind the wall, its value will be minimal. The view from the highway
                 will be a blank wall without visual relief.
                 Not addressed satisfactorily.

                 Officer Response:
                 As identified in point 4, this matter has been satisfactorily addressed.

           6.    Pedestrian access to the 4 storey bank of units is not acceptable .
                 The revised arrangements for pedestrian access are satisfactory.

                 Officer Response:
                 Clause 3.4.5(A5) of the Residential Design Codes requires separate pedestrian paths
                 providing wheelchair accessibility connecting all entries to buildings with public
                 footpath and car parking areas. The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with
                 this requirement and an appropriate condition has been framed to ensure that this
                 matter is appropriately addressed.

           7.    There is a real opportunity to remove the car parking and vehicular accessways
                 from the Canning Highway frontage by placing the parking under the building.
                 This could best be positioned on the side of the dwellings where the central public
                 open space is currently located.
                 Not addressed. Refer to comments against Item 3 above.

                 Officer Response:
                 The revised drawings received on 17 November satisfactorily address this matter.

           8.    Landscaping needs to be provided between the rows of car parking bays adjacent
                 to Canning Highway.
                 Not addressed.

                 Officer Response:
                 This matter has been addressed with receipt of the revised drawings dated 17
                 November 2004.

           9.    Traffic distribution seems uneven - focussed too heavily on Brandon Street.
                 While noting the concerns about the parking within the Canning Highway setback
                 area, it was noted that the traffic distribution has improved with the addition of the
                 vehicle crossover providing access to Canning Highway.

                 Officer Response:
                 Traffic distribution has now been modified, although it could be argued that traffic
                 distribution is now too heavily focussed on Banksia Terrace. A condition of approval
                 has been framed to ensure that the plans comply with the requirements of the City’s
                 Engineering Infrastructure Department prior to the issuing of a building licence.

           10.   Visitors’ parking is not well located - needs to be distributed more evenly.
                 Not addressed.




                                                 35
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

                 Officer Response:
                 Visitor parking has been located adjacent to Canning Highway alongside a right of
                 carriageway easement that runs across the site from the adjoining Rhino Car Wash.
                 This is considered to be an appropriate location for the siting of visitor parking bays.

           11.   For major developments of the size of the current proposal, it is important to
                 demonstrate that the best existing trees are being retained and protected. The
                 current drawings do not clearly identify the significant existing trees and
                 measures to be taken for their preservation. More detail is required in this
                 respect.
                 Not addressed. It is necessary to provide a survey plan identifying all existing trees
                 and nominating which are to be retained and which are to be removed.

                 Officer Response:
                 A survey plan which identifies the existing trees has been provided by the applicant.
                 Many of the existing trees are situated in areas that are not conducive to retention.
                 However, in addition to the trees that have been marked for retention, there is also
                 capacity to retain an existing Jacaranda tree situated toward the front right hand side
                 of the property at No. 30 Brandon Street and a London Plane tree situated in the
                 middle of the Hotel site. The Officer recommendation also focuses on the retention of
                 existing appropriate street trees and the planting of replacement trees.

           12.   The flat roofed carports on the Canning Highway frontage and the side of the
                 building are not attractive. Modifications need to be made in order to relieve the
                 sameness throughout these structures. One suggestion would be to incorporate a
                 focal point into the design.
                 Not addressed satisfactorily. Refer to comment in relation to Item 3 above.

                 Officer Response:
                 Carports have been removed from the Canning Highway frontage and undercroft
                 basement parking has now been provided. This matter has been appropriately
                 addressed.

           13.   One of the drawings submitted with the application is identified as First Floor
                 Plan - Part 1 of 2: Drawing No. DAO5a. From an examination of this particular
                 drawing, the Advisory Architects raised issues/comments regarding the
                 following:
                 a.    The form of the building is not appealing being very “blocky” in nature.
                       This is particularly evident on the Canning Highway elevation.
                 b.    The units are exceptionally small and confined.
                 c.    The site offers spectacular river and city views, however the design does not
                       take advantage of the opportunity for these views. In some instances,
                       potential views are obstructed by the pos itioning of the kitchens within the
                       units.
                 Not addressed satisfactorily.

                 Officer Response:
                 (a)      The design of the building is considered to be acceptable as presented.
                 (b)      Internal area of the individual units is not a ‘Planning’ concern.
                 (c)      The capacity of the units to best capture City views is not a ‘Planning’
                 concern.

           14.   The stairwell on the Canning Highway elevation appears to be enclosed by glass.
                 However, insufficient detail has been provided on the plan and elevation
                 drawings to understand exactly what is proposed.
                 Not addressed. No additional detail has been supplied.


                                                36
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


                  Officer Response:
                  Clause 3.5.5 (A5.5) of the Residential Design Codes requires access above ground
                  level to all Multiple Dwellings to be totally protected from the weather. A condition
                  of approval has been formulated which requires further details to be provided with
                  respect to the stairwell. The condition also requires access above ground level to be
                  totally protected from the weather.

           15.    The block of units adjacent to the TAB agency is generally acceptable other than
                  the pedestrian access.
                  The pedestrian access has now been addressed satisfactorily. An opportunity is now
                  available for further visual relief to the elevation facing the TAB agency through the
                  provision of roof features above the pedestrian accessways.

                  Officer Response:
                  The design of the building adjacent to the T.A.B. is considered to be satisfactory.

           16.    The design of the two units facing Banksia Terrace is considered to be
                  unattractive, especially their flat roofed parking structures. Contrary to a
                  requirement of the R-Codes, the front doors of those units are not visible from
                  the street because they are concealed around the corner of the respective units.
                  Notes of the August DAC meeting incorrectly referred to Banksia Terrace. The
                  reference should be to Brandon Street.
                  Not addressed satisfactorily.

                  Officer Response:
                  This matter has been adequately addressed via the provision of revised drawings dated
                  17 November 2004. The flat roofed parking structures have been replaced with
                  garages which tie in with the design of the main dwelling and the front doors are now
                  visible from the street.

           Neighbour Consultation
           Submissions were received from the proprietors of the car wash, the T.A.B. and the owners
           of the residential property at No. 28 Brandon Street. Their comments, along with an Officer
           response are shown in the table below.

                          Submitter’s Comment                                         Officer’s Response
            The proposed development of Lot 33 is outside the plot      The submitter appears have confused plot ratio with
            ratio permitted under the existing Town Plan, and if        dwelling density. The number of dwellings on the
            agreed to, will result in a greater number of dwellings     R15 coded portion of the site has now been reduced
            on this lot than is permitted in similar size lots in the   to 2, while the lot area will be increased to 1,100 sq.
            same street.                                                metres minimum in order to ensure that the number
                                                                        of dwellings complies with the density provisions of
                                                                        the Codes.
            During construction stage a full dust protection barrier    There are no ‘Planning’ controls that relate to this
            is to be erected on the development site so that            matter. However, an Important Note has been
            patrons of the car wash are not inconvenienced by way       prepared to bring to the attention of the applicants
            of dust.                                                    the concerns that have been raised by the
                                                                        proprietors of the adjoining property.
            The existing trading time for the car wash site will not    The approved trading times for the car wash will not
            be altered nor can any persons of any identity that         be affected by Council’s consideration of this
            purchase any of the dwellings contest the trading           development application.
            times.
            Any boundary walls that face the car wash site to be        A standard condition of approval requires any
            aesthetically pleasing.                                     boundary walls to be finished to the satisfaction of
                                                                        the adjoining owner, or in the case of a dispute to the
                                                                        satisfaction of the City.



                                                         37
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


                         Submitter’s Comment                                             Officer’s Response
            Current easement of driveway through 77, 75 and 71            The drawings have been modified to take account of
            Canning Highway, which has been in place for 5 years,         the existing right of carriageway easement.
            is to remain, or an alternative entry / exist path is to be
            proposed.
            Racing and Wagering Western Australia (RWWA)                  Comments are noted and not disputed. It is
            (formerly the TAB) has had a TAB Agency operating             acknowledged that the redevelopment will prevent
            on the adjoining land at No. 26 Banksia Terrace since         vehicles accessing the car parking area at the rear of
            September 1969. Since that time the Agency has had            the T.A.B. and also prevent vehicles associated with
            an informal agreement with the owners of the Hotel            the T.A.B. from parking on the adjoining Hotel land
            allowing TAB customers to utilise the north-western           as they have done for many years. However, this is
            section of the Hotel’s car park as well as a right of         a private matter that must be pursued separately
            carriageway through the Hotel’s car park to the               between the adjoining property owners, should they
            Agency’s car park at the rear of the building.                wish.
            Advice from the Agents, together with an analysis of          Comments noted.
            the average bet transactions indicates that can be up
            to 15 customers at the TAB Agency at certain times
            throughout the week with up to 30 customers at peak
            times on a Saturday. It is clear that the proposed
            development will restrict access to the current car
            parking arrangements for these customers.

            RWWA and the Agents recognises the City of South
            Perth has established traffic calming and car parking
            restrictions along Banksia Terrace. It would be difficult
            for either RWWA or the Agents to control the usage of
            car parking along Banksia Terrace throughout the
            operating hours of the Agency.
            Should the proposed development gain approval;                It is recommended that the City investigate the
            RWWA requests the City of South Perth to consider             potential impact of the loss of parking bays that have
            temporary parking arrangements during construction            traditionally been available for use in conjunction
            periods, allowing RWWA to consider its future options         with the TAB with a view to implementing measures
            in the area.                                                  to minimise the impact of the loss of parking spaces
                                                                          for the T.A.B. on residents of Banksia Terrace.
            RWWA recognises that the proposed development is              Comments are noted.
            likely to have a detrimental effect upon the
            performance of the agency, given the significant
            reduction in the number of available car parking bays.
            This may lead to a loss of capital for the Agents who
            have purchased the licence to operate the Agency.
            Should the proposed development gain approval;
            RWWA would review alternatives in relation to the
            Agency, including closure of the Agency, leasing the
            premises to a commercial tenant, relocating the
            Agency or any other suitable alternative.
            In addition to the comments that have been noted              Comments regarding heritage have been examined
            above, the City received 4 submissions from property          in greater detail earlier in this report.
            owners who have been made aware of the proposed
            development, and who are objecting to the intended
            demolition of the Hotel building on heritage (cultural
            and architectural) and social grounds (i.e. removal of a
            ‘community’ facility).

           Environmental Health
           The proposed development does not seem to address the requirements of the City’s
           Environmental Health Officers (and Clause 3.10.3) of the Residential Design Codes with
           respect to the provision of an adequate area for rubbish disposal. A condition has been
           formulated to address this matter.



                                                          38
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           It will also be relevant for the City’s Environmental Health Officers to consider the
           proposed residential use in relation to the adjoining commercial car wash use. Once again, a
           condition of approval has been formulated to address this mater.

           Although not directly a matter which falls under the responsibility of the City’s
           Environmental Health Officers, the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 6 contains provisions
           relating to noise attenuation for dwellings abutting Canning Highway.

           Clause 4.9 of TPS 6 states that:

           “In the case of lots abutting Canning Highway, where such lots are proposed to be
           developed for the purpose of dwellings, whether or not as part of a Mixed Development,
           those dwellings shall be designed to incorporate noise attenuation measures to the
           satisfaction of the Council. Such measures shall include either or both of the following:

           (a)     design measures such as minimising the number and size of major openings to
                   habitable rooms in order to minimise noise disturbance within those rooms; and
           (b)     structural measures such as double glazing or insulation within roofs, ceilings and
                   walls.”

           A condition of approval also requires the applicant to address this matter prior to, or in
           conjunction with, the application for a Building Licence.

           Engineering Infrastructure
           An earlier design proposal was submitted to the City’s Engineering Infrastructure
           Department for comment, however, due to timing difficulties, it has not been possible to
           obtain input for the City’s Engineering staff in relation to the plans which are the subje ct of
           final consideration. Based upon the earlier advice that had been provided, the City’s
           Planning staff are confident that the plans will be acceptable to the City’s Engineering
           Infrastructure Department. However, to provide surety to the Council that this is the case, a
           condition has been formulated which requires the proponent to liaise further and obtain the
           written agreement of the City’s Engineering Infrastructure Department with respect to the
           proposed development, prior to the issuing of a build ing licence.

           Department for Planning and Infrastructure
           The proposed development was referred to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure
           for comment, noting the fact that the development site abuts Canning Highway which is
           reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme as a “Primary Regional Road” and also
           because the development incorporated vehicle access and egress to the highway reserve. By
           way of a letter dated 28 September 2004, the Integrated Transport Planning section of the
           Department for Planning and Infrastructure wrote to the City providing written support for
           the proposed development subject to the applicant / owner being advised of the current MRS
           reserve for Canning Highway.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The application has been considered in accordance with the provisions of the Residential
           Design Codes, Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Municipal Heritage Inventory and various
           Planning Policies including:
           • Policy P370_T “General Design Guidelines for Residential Development”;
           • Policy P373_T “Views”; and
           • Policy P376_T “Residential Boundary Walls”.

           Financial Implications
           The issue has no impact on this particular area.




                                                 39
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Strategic Implications
           This matter relates to Goal 3 “Environmental Management” identified within the Council’s
           Strategic Plan. Goal 3 is expressed in the following terms:

           To effectively manage, enhance and maintain the City’s unique natural and built
           environment.


            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.2

           That…
           (a)   pursuant to the provisions of the City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme No. 6
                 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, this application for Planning Approval for 26
                 Multiple Dwellings and 2 Grouped Dwellings on Lots 20 - 24 and 55 (Nos. 71 - 75)
                 Canning Highway cnr Banksia Terrace and Lot 33 (No. 30) Brandon Street, South
                 Perth, be approved, subject to the following conditions:
                 (i)     Standard Conditions:
                         320, 340 (walls, south-western), 353, 354, 358, 376, 377, 416, 427, 445,
                         455 (side and rear boundaries), 456, 465, 470, 471, 509, 510 (12 trees), 525
                         (buildings), 541, 550, 625, 660, 663 (new units)

                  Footnote:   A full list of standard conditions is available for inspection at the Council
                              Offices during normal business hours.
                  (ii)    Specific Conditions:
                          (A)     The existing Hotel building shall be photographically recorded to
                                  the satisfaction of the City, prior to demolition. The applicant shall
                                  provide the City with three copies of the photographic record.
                          (B)     Plaques shall be provided on both the Banksia Terrace and Canning
                                  Highway frontages of the development site to record the existence
                                  of the Hotel building. Details of the proposed plaques shall be to
                                  the satisfaction of the City and shall be provided prior to the issuing
                                  of a building licence. The plaques shall be installed prior to the
                                  issuing of final strata clearance upon completion of the
                                  development.
                          (C)     Revised drawings shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the
                                  Manager, Development Services, and such drawings shall
                                  incorporate the following:
                                  (1)      A lowering in height of the buildings closest to Canning
                                           Highway to the extent necessary in order to comply with
                                           the 10.5 metre maximum permissible height prescribed by
                                           Town Planning Scheme No. 6;
                                  (2)      Greater detail of the stairwells facing Canning Highway;
                                  (3)      The setback of the Multiple Dwelling building containing
                                           Units 9 - 16 shall be increased to a minimum of 3 metres
                                           from the boundary with Lot 33 while maintaining
                                           compliance with the visual privacy provisions of the
                                           Residential Design Codes;
                                  (4)      The limestone wall forward of the three visitor parking
                                           bays arranged at right angles to the street alignment shall be
                                           changed from solid brick to open grille fencing;
                                  (5)      Matching plan and elevation drawings;
                                  (6)      Store details for Grouped Dwellings.




                                               40
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


                       (D)   The applicant shall construct crossovers between the road and the
                             property boundary. The crossovers shall be constructed in
                             accordance with the approved drawings , associated conditions
                             referred to hereunder and the requirements contained within
                             Specification SP30 attached to this approval. The existing verge
                             levels at the front property boundary shall not be altered.
                             (1)      The crossovers on the Brandon Street frontage of the lot
                                      shall be situated no less than 2 metres from the existing
                                      street trees.
                             (2)      The Agonis (ID: 9089) on Banksia Terrace situated in the
                                      location of the proposed crossover adjacent to the T.A.B. is
                                      approved for removal.
                             (3)      The second Agonis (ID: 9088) along the Banksia Terrace
                                      street alignment shall not be removed, pruned or disturbed
                                      in any way.
                             (4)      None of the three street trees on the Brandon Street
                                      frontage of the development site shall be removed, pruned
                                      or disturbed in any way.
                             (5)      The eastern crossover on the Brandon Street frontage of the
                                      site requires a water meter to be disconnected and relocated
                                      at a cost of $3, 285.70.
                             (6)      Additional street trees, to the satisfaction of the City, and at
                                      the cost of the developer, shall be provided along the
                                      Banksia Terrace and Canning Highway frontages of the
                                      development site. Payment, details of which will be
                                      provided at a later date, shall be made prior to the issuing of
                                      a building licence.
                             (7)      The existing redundant crossover on Banksia Terrace shall
                                      be removed and the verge and kerbing shall be reinstated.
                             (8)      Approval from the City’s Infrastructure Directorate shall be
                                      obtained for the removal and re-location of the sign on the
                                      Banksia Terrace verge.
                       (E)   All existing trees intended to be retained as indicated on the site
                             plan shall be identified for retention on the working drawings and
                             on the required landscaping plan and shall be protected prior to and
                             during construction and shall not be removed without the prior
                             approval of the City.
                             (1)      In addition to the trees that have been marked for retention,
                                      the existing Jacaranda tree on Lot 33 and the Plane Tree on
                                      the Hotel site shall be marked for retention as indicated on
                                      the approved drawings. These trees shall also be protected
                                      prior to and during construction and shall not be removed
                                      without the prior approval of the City.
                       (F)   Any car bays that are arranged in a tandem parking arrangement
                             shall be allocated to the same dwelling.
                       (G)   Two parking bays and one storeroom shall be allocated to each of
                             the Multiple Dwellings.
                       (H)   Lots 20 - 24, 55 and 33 shall be amalgamated and re-subdivided in
                             the manner shown on the drawings incorporating the following:
                             (1)      Creation of a lot of 1100 sq. metres to accommodate the
                                      two Grouped Dwellings facing Brandon Street;
                             (2)      Creation of a lot containing the portion of land reserved
                                      under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the future
                                      widening of Canning Highway;



                                          41
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


                                 (3)      Provis ion of a corner truncation to the Canning Highway /
                                          Banksia Terrace intersection; and
                                (4)       Retention of the right of carriageway easement that runs
                                          across the land.
                                An application for a new Certificate of Title shall be lodged with
                                the Land Titles Office. A building licence may not be issued until
                                the new Certificates of Title have been issued (refer to Important
                                Notes)
                          (I)   The drawings shall be modified to demonstrate compliance with the
                                pedestrian access requirements of the Residential Design Codes as
                                identified in Clause 3.4.5 (A5)(ii) and Clause 3.5.5.
                          (J)   The proponent shall liaise with, and obtain written certification
                                from the City’s Engineering Infrastructure Department that the
                                plans meet the engineering requirements of this department prior to
                                the issuing of a building licence.
                          (K)   The proponent shall liaise with, and obtain written certification
                                from the City’s Environmental Health Officers that the plans meet
                                their requirements with respect to:
                                (1)       Provision of a suitably designed and located bin storage
                                          area;
                                (2)       Proximity of residential dwellings to car wash facility on
                                          Lot 100 Canning Highway;
                                (3)       Noise attenuation for residential dwellings;
                                (4)       Change Room (including first aid facilities) and swimming
                                          pool requirements.
                                prior to the issue of a building licence.
                          (L)   The Terraces and Balconies of each dwelling shall be unenclosed to
                                the greatest extent possible, to the satisfaction of the City, in order
                                to qualify these spaces as being exempted from inclusion in plot
                                ratio calculations. In this respect, the spaces should be enclosed to
                                an extent no greater than is required to demonstrate compliance
                                with the visual privacy provisions of the Residential Design Codes
                                (i.e. 1600mm high screening between tenancies).
                          (M)   The drawings shall be modified in order to demonstrate compliance
                                with the visual privacy provisions of the Residential Design Codes
                                in relation to the following openings:
                                (1)       From rear facing Bedroom 2 window and left hand side of
                                          front balcony to Type B (left hand side) Grouped Dwelling;
                                (2)       Bedroom 3 window of Type A (right hand side) Grouped
                                          Dwelling;
                                (3)       From the Terraces of the end units (south-western most)
                                          adjacent to No. 28 Brandon Street; and
                                (4)       Units 9 - 16 relative to the Grouped Dwelling on Lot 33.
                          (N)   Provide screening to the side of the Terraces and Balconies adjacent
                                to the car wash.
                 (iii)   Important Notes:
                          (A)   It will be necessary to pay all costs associated with crossovers prior
                                to the collection of a building licence.
                          (B)   The subdivision procedure leading to the issuing of new certificates
                                of title extends over approximately 3 months and a building licence
                                may not be issued until the new titles have been issued. Therefore,
                                to avoid a delay in obtaining a building licence, it is important for
                                the applicant to commence the subdivision procedure without delay.
                                A licensed surveyor should be engaged for this purpose.



                                              42
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


                       (C)     The landscaping plan is required to be submitted prior to, or in
                               conjunction with the building licence application. The building
                               licence will not be issued until the landscaping plan has been
                               approved by the City.
                       (D)     It is necessary for the revised drawings to be submitted prior to, or
                               in conjunction with the application for a building licence, prior to
                               the assessment of the working drawings.
                       (E)     The bin storage area must be designed to satisfy the requirements of
                               the City’s Manager, Environmental Health and Regulatory
                               Services.
                       (F)     In accordance with the requirements of the Health Act (swimming
                               pool) Regulation 1964, plans of the swimming pool, spas and
                               associated facilities are to be submitted to the Executive Director,
                               Health Department of Western Australia and approval received
                               prior to commencement of construction.
                       (G)     This planning approval is not an authorisation to commence
                               construction. A building licence must be obtained from the
                               Council’s Building Services Department prior to the
                               commencement of any work of a structural nature.
                       (H)     Refer to Policy P415 “Stormwater Drainage” prior to the
                               preparation of designs for stormwater drainage.
                       (I)     A portion of the land abutting Canning Highway is reserved under
                               the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the purpose of Primary
                               Regional Roads.
                       (J)     If you are aggrieved by this decision you may lodge an appeal with
                               the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal within 60 days of the
                               Determination Date recorded on this Notice.
                 (b)   Alternative Design Proposal:
                       The applicant is encouraged to explore design possibilities for an alternative
                       proposal which incorporates retention of the existing Hotel building.
                       Council would be willing to enter into discussions with respect to bonus
                       entitlements in return for the retention and upgrading of the Hotel building.
                 (c)   Council is concerned about potential inconvenience to Banksia Terrace
                       residents during and after construction of the new development, resulting
                       from the loss of parking bays traditionally available to the TAB agency.
                       Therefore, the Manager, Engineering Infrastructure be requested to
                       investigate and implement measures to minimise such inconvenience.




                                           43
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            9.3.3 Additions and Alterations to Single House. Lot 32 (No. 67) Collins Street,
                  Kensington

           Location:                       Lot 32 (No. 67) Collins Street, Kensington
           Applicant:                      Amos L Maggi
           File Ref:                       CO2.67
           Date:                           3 December 2004
           Author:                         Marta Osipowicz, Planning Officer
           Reporting Officer:              Ross Povey, Director Strategic & Regulatory Services

           Summary
           To consider a request for the deletion of three conditions of planning approval for additions
           and alterations to an existing Single House. The recommendation is for the Conditions 3(i)
           and 3(iii) of planning approval to be retained, and for the Condition 3(ii) to be deleted.

           Background
           Drawings relating to the application are provided as Confidential Attachment 9.3.3(a). A
           letter dated 15 November 2004, received from the applicant, presents his justification for the
           deletion of the conditions, Attachment 9.3.3(b) refers. Another letter dated 1 December
           2004, which was received from the owner of an adjoining property presents reasons for
           opposing a proposed boundary wall, Confidential Attachment 9.3.3.(c) refers.

           Precinct:               Precinct 6 - Kensington
           Zoning                  Residential
           Density coding:         R15
           Lot area:               516 sq. metres
           Height limit:           7.0 metres




           An application for planning approval for additions and alterations to the house at No. 67
           Collins Street, Kensington was conditionally approved on 26 July 2004. The applicant has
           subsequently asked for the following three conditions to be deleted:

           3(i) The proposed north-western boundary wall to be set back 1.0 metre off the boundary;

           (ii)   The combined boundary wall length on the south -eastern boundary to be no more
                  than 9.0 metres with the height reduced to 3.0 metres; and

           (iii) The proposed flat roof shall be replaced with a pitched roof of a design to match that
                 of the existing roof.



                                                44
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Comment

           North-West Boundary Wall
           Condition 3(i) of planning approval was imposed to ensure compliance with the objectives
           of Council Policy P376_T “Residential Boundary Walls”. The original proposal was for a
           boundary wall 9.12 metres in length with a height of 3.0 metres. The current proposal
           indicates a wall length of 4.8 metres and a height, from the ground level of the adjoining
                                      .7
           property boundary, of 2 metres. Condition 3(i) of the “delegated” planning approval
           requires this wall to be set back 1.0 metre off the boundary. The applicant’s design maintains
           a portion of the boundary wall on the common boundary with the property at No. 65 Collins
           Street. The application was the subject of neighbour consultation and assessment against the
           City’s Policy. At the conclusion of these assessment procedures, it was determined that
           there would still be an adverse amenity impact on the adjoining property.

           Following neighbour consultation for the second time, in relation to the modified proposal
           referred to in the preceding paragraph, a submission was received from the adjoining
           neighbour. This is discussed in the “Consultation” section below. The Council must have
           due regard to the amenity impact of this boundary wall upon the neighbour. Another
           boundary wall is proposed to be located on the south-east side boundary of the development
           site (discussed below). Boundary walls could be allowed on both sides of the lot provided
           that there was no adverse amenity impact on the adjoining properties or the streetscape.
           However, due to its location and potential reflective qualities, the wall which is to be
           situated on the north-west boundary would adversely impact upon the neighbour’s dining
           room and the directly adjoining outdoor living area. Therefore the proposed boundary wall
           to a living room should not be approved on the common (north-west) boundary.

           Whilst the boundary wall has been reduced in length and height, by virtue of its location, it
           continues to have an adverse effect on the adjoining neighbour. It is recommended that
           Condition 3(i) relating to the north-west boundary wall remain applicable.

           South-East Boundary Wall
           Condition 3(ii) of planning approval was also imposed to ensure compliance with the
           objectives of Council Policy P376_T “Residential Boundary Walls”. The new proposal
           incorporates a 2.7 metre high boundary wall with a total length of 13.1 metres. The
           adjoining property owner (    Department of Housing and Works) has no objections to the
           proposed boundary wall. The intent of the policy has been met as the amenity of the
           adjoining units is not affected.

           The policy states that “walls not exceeding 3.0 metres average height and 4.0 metre
           maximum height” are to be only one quarter the length of any common boundary. This
           means the wall cannot exceed 9.0 metres in length. Therefore, the proposed wall exceeds the
           allowable length by 4.1 metres. Should the wall be reduced a further 200mm in height, the
           policy would permit the boundary wall to be up to two thirds the length of the common
           boundary which would allow a boundary wall up to 24.73 metres in length. In light of this,
           the 13.1 metre proposed length is considered satisfactory as the proposed length and height
           are not adversely affecting the amenity of the adjoining property. It is recommended that
           Condition 3(ii) be deleted.

           Proposed Flat Skillion Roof
           The City assessed the proposal against the provisions of Policy P370_T ‘General Design
           Guidelines for Residential Development’. Clause (5) of the Policy states that “additions and
           alterations to an existing building shall be designed in such a way that they match that
           existing building”.




                                                45
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           In addition to the current policy provisions, the City has adopted the Residential Design
           Policy Manual, in draft form, where Policy Provision 6.4 reads:

           “Where additions and alterations to an existing building are proposed, the additions shall
           match the existing building with respect to design, construction materials and colour
           finishes’.

           The proposed addition does not meet this provision.

           (a)    Applicant’s Justification
                  The applicant has asked the Council to delete Condition 3(iii) of the planning
                  approval. The applicant’s justification in support of his proposed design, in
                  summary, is as follows:
                  •     The proposed roof is critical to the overall design;
                  •     The proposal has zero impact on the facade and streetscape;
                  •     The transition between existing and proposed sections of the roof is for all
                        practical purposes invisible;
                  •     Alternative designs are not conservative;
                  •     The proposal has zero impact on neighbours;
                  •     Alternative designs introduce visual impact on neighbours;
                  •     Alternative designs will introduce a visible mismatch in roof cover;
                  •     Interpretation of the relevant policy provision is short, very general,
                        unelaborated and highly dependent on subjective interpretation;
                  •     The current proposal represents good design; and
                  •     The current proposal represents recognised good practice.

                   The applicant’s justification is provided in full, as Attachment 9.3.3(b).

                   The applicant is of the opinion that a proposal for a pitched roof would have a
                   detrimental effect on the streetscape. With the change to a pitched roof, the
                   extensions would be significantly taller than the existing roof and would be visible
                   from the street. The applicant also indicates that there would be a difficulty in
                   matching the existing roof tiles as they have been painted brown by previous
                   owners. In addition to this, the applicant states that stripping off the existing roof
                   tiles and then retiling to match the proposed additions would contradict the
                   intentions of the objective.

           b)     Officer’s Response
                  If the additions were provided with a skillion roof as the applicant proposes, as
                  viewed from Collins Street, the visual impact would be that of the boundary walls
                  only, however the rear portion of the subject lot can be viewed from Oxford Street,
                  as demonstrated by the photographs below. Due to the nature of the addition,
                  extending from boundary to boundary, the flat roof component becomes significant,
                  unlike past minor ‘sleep-out’ additions.




                                                46
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004




                 Top - subject property as viewed from Oxford Street.
                 Bottom - subject property as viewed from Collins Street within its focus area with
                         dwellings having pitched roof forms.

                 One significant issue for the applicant is cost. Planning assessments do not
                 acknowledge cost as being a valid issue. Factors such as streetscape, visual impact
                 and overall street cohesion are issues for assessment. While the change of roofing
                 design and materials would result in a greater cost to the applicant, consistent design
                 form is required by the current policy and draft Residential Design Policy Manual.

                 The applicant says that the policy is short, very general, unelaborated and highly
                 dependent on subjective interpretation by making reference to the City’s objective
                 outlined previously. The following response is provided:

                 The draft Residential Design Policy Manual repeatedly states that any additions and
                 alteration to a dwelling, in Precinct 6 - Kensington, are to match the existing
                 dwelling with respect to design, construction materials and colour finishes. The
                 interpretation is not subjective, but objective, as the policy gives a clear indication
                 of the requirement for such development proposals. Whilst the applicant states that
                 the addition is hidden from view due to the boundary walls and integration into the
                 existing dwelling, the design is considered to be of an inadequate standard, and
                 clearly at variance with the policy. Furthermore, the draft Policy Manual states that
                 in Precinct 6 - Kensington any additions must be consistent with the prevailing
                 roofing and wall materials in the focus area, which are demonstrated in the
                 preceding photographs. The adjoining properties all have pitched roofs and no
                 portion of any dwelling has a varying type or form of roof. The materials vary
                 between tiles and metal but remain consistent on each site.

                 It is recommended that Council retain Condition 3(iii) of the planning approval as
                 the Council’s objectives for additions and alterations are clear, concise and objective
                 which respect to the intentions of development within Precinct 6 - Kensington.


                                              47
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           Consultation

           Design Advisory Consultants
           The application was considered at the Design Advisory Consultants’ meeting held on
           Monday 19 July. The Advisory Architects commented as follows:
           • The proposed boundary wall (north-west) was considered unacceptable noting that it
               conflicts with the provisions of the Council’s Boundary Wall Policy;
           • The proposed boundary walls (south-east) will be acceptable in terms of the shadow cast
               and would be satisfactory; and
           • The proposed flat roof is totally incompatible with the pitched roof of the existing
               dwelling. In view of this, it was recommended that the application be refused.

           The Advisory Architects’ comments are supported by the Planning Officer. Each of the
           issues raised has been discussed in the “Comments” section above.

           Neighbour Consultation
           The adjoining property owner was originally consulted and has been consulted again with
           the submission of an amended boundary wall proposal. The neighbour expressed concerns
           about the original proposal as the proposed boundary wall was located directly in front of
           her kitchen and dining room windows. The Council Policy states that boundary walls are not
           to obstruct the outlook from an existing habitable room window. Whilst the boundary wall
           has been modified, the location of the boundary wall is prominently seen from the
           neighbour’s dining room window and outdoor living area.

           There is a discrepancy between the applicant’s drawings and the actual relationship between
           the proposed boundary wall and the adjoining property at No. 65 Collins Street. There is a
           difference in ground levels of approximately 480mm which results in a higher boundary wall
           than the 2.7 metre height indicated on the drawings.

           The neighbour’s principal concerns relate to:
           • visual impact;
           • acoustic privacy;
           • heat radiance and reflection;
           • Compliance.

           Officer’s Response
           The assessing officer supports the concerns expressed regarding visual impact, heat radiance
           and reflection. Therefore it is recommended that the north-western boundary wall not be
           approved. Noise emission and acoustic privacy is not regulated under the Residential
           Design Codes.

           The neighbour’s comments are provided in full, as Confidential Attachment 9.3.3(c).

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           This recommendation has been formulated after giving due consideration to the provisions
           of Council’s Planning Policies P370_T ‘General Residential Design Guidelines for
           Residential Development’ and P376_T ‘Boundary Walls’.

           The relevant provisions of the Draft Residential Design Policy Manual adopted by Council
           in August 2004 must also be taken into account. This manual has been released for public
           comment and submissions have been received. Both the current Policy P370_T and the new
           Policy Manual make it clear that additions and alterations are to match the existing dwelling.
           The applicant’s proposal is in conflict with this expectation.

           Financial Implications
           This issue has no impact on this particular area.

                                                 48
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           Strategic Implications
           This matter relates to Goal 3 “Environmental Management”. Identified within the Council’s
           Strategic Plan. Goal 3 is expressed in the following terms:

           To effectively manage, enhance and main tain the City’s unique, natural and built
           environment.



            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.3

           That, in respect of the planning approval issued for proposed additions and alterations to a
           Single House on Lot 32 (No. 67) Collins Street, Kensington:
           (a)     Council is not prepared to delete:
                   (i)      Condition 3(i) relating to the north-western boundary wall, having regard to
                            the adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property and conflict
                            with Council’s Policy P376_T “Residential Boundary Walls”; and
                   (ii)     Condition 3(ii) relating to the proposed skillion roof having regard to:
                            (A)      the incompatibility between the existing and proposed roofs in
                                     terms of form and materials;
                            (B)      the fact that the proposed skillion roof would be visible from
                                     Oxford Street; and
                            (C)      the conflict with the objectives and provisions of Council’s Policy
                                     P370_T ‘General Design Guidelines for Residential Development’
                                     and Policy Provision 6.4 contained in the Draft Residential Design
                                     Policy Manual.
           (b)     Condition 3( iii) relating to the south-eastern boundary wall be deleted as Council is
                   satisfied that this wall will not adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining
                   property.




                                                49
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            9.3.4   Proposed 3 Multiple Dwellings . Lot 10 (No. 6) Parker Street South Perth

           Location:                      Lot 10 (No. 6) Parker Street, South Perth
           Applicant:                     Robert Auguste
           File Ref:                      PA2.6 11/5277
           Date:                          3 December 2004
           Author:                        Marta Osipowicz/Gabriela Poezyn, Planning Officers
           Reporting Officer:             Ross Povey, Director Strategic and Regulatory Services

           Summary
           To consider an application for planning approval for a 5 -level building comprising three
           Multiple Dwellings. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

           Background
           The drawings relating to the application are too large to be reduced to A4 format as an
           attachment to this report. However those drawings are available for inspection by Council
           Members in the Council Chamber.

           The application for planning approval was originally lodged on 20 September 2004. A
           number of revised plans were received. The latest revised plans are dated 2 November 2004.

           The proposal is for a four storey building with undercroft parking for two of the units.
           Additional garages are located towards the rear of the block. The proposal also includes a
           swimming pool and garden area to serve as communal facilities.

           The current development on the subject lot is a Single House, which is intended to be
           demolished to allow for the proposed development.

           Precinct:                      Precinct 1 - Mill Point
           Zoning:                        Residential
           Density        coding:                 R60
           Lot area:                      572 sq. metres
           Height limit :                 9.75 metres
           Development potential:         3 Multiple Dwellings




           The current proposal does not comply with certain aspects of the Residential Design Codes.
           However the recommendation of this report contains specific conditions requiring the
           proposal to be brought into compliance in each instance.



                                               50
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           The proposal also includes boundary walls along the north-eastern and south-eastern
           property boundaries for which discretionary approval is sought.

           In accordance with Council Delegation DC342, the proposal is being referred to the Council
           meeting for determination as it involves a building exceeding 9 metres in height. The
           proposed building is 9.5 metres high plus additional structures within the notional 25o hip
           roof shape. Some structures, which are deemed to be minor, protrude beyond this notional
           hip roof.

           Comment
           The development proposal complies with the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 6
           and the Residential Design Codes except for those relating to pedestrian access; essential
           facilities; and manoeuvring space for vehicles in the basement. Each of these matters is
           discussed below. Comments are also provided regarding proposed boundary walls. The
           proposed building height is considered to comply with the No. 6 Scheme requirements.
           Comments in this respect are also provided below.

           Pedestrian Access
           The dining room and kitchen window for Unit 1 are not adequately protected from the
           pedestrian access way alongside the building. These windows require modification to
           comply with the Acceptable Development provisions of the Codes (Clause 3.5.5).

           Essential Facilities (storerooms)
           The storerooms for Unit 1 and 2 are undersized. They need to be increased to the 4 sq. metre
           area required under the Acceptable Development provisions of the Codes. (Clause 3.10.3).

           Vehicle Manoeuvring Space in Basement
           The City has concerns over manoeuvrability of vehicles in the basement parking area. The
           Residential Design Codes do not require the vehicles in the basement to exit the site in
           forward gear however there is a concern that a vehicle will have difficulty entering and
           exiting the parking bay situated closest to the front. The building needs to be modified
           whereby a larger opening is provided. Alternatively, the applicant must demonstrate how a
           vehicle will enter and exit safely through the use of appropriate engineering drawings.

           Boundary Walls
           The proposal incorporates boundary walls on the north-eastern and south-eastern boundaries.
           These are subject to the provisions of Council’s Policy P376_T “Boundary Walls”. The
           north-eastern boundary wall is located on the common property boundary with No. 8 Parker
           Street. The south-eastern wall is located on the common property boundary with No. 144
           Mill Point Road. The City’s Policy states that the main consideration when determining an
           application with boundary walls is to ensure that the amenity of the adjoining property is not
           affected. The length and height of each of the proposed boundary walls are required to be
           considered with respect to the Policy’s amenity provisions and are able to be varied from the
           prescribed length and height if the wall will not be detrimental to the adjoining property.

           The proposed boundary walls will be higher than 2.4 metres as measured height from the
           natural ground level of the adjoining properties. The prescriptive policy provisions allow
           these boundary walls to be no more than one quarter the length of any common boundary,
           unless the “amenity” provisions support a variation.

                                          Heights            Allowable Length        Proposed Length
              North-Eastern               2.60 m                  8.35 m                  5.69 m
              South-Eastern               2.79 m                  4.12 m                 10.88 m




                                                51
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Neither boundary wall has any effect on the streetscape nor on the outlook towards the street
           from adjoining properties as the walls are located at the rear of the property. Both walls are
           well clear of any habitable room windows with no effect on sunlight being admitted into
           private open spaces. It is highly unlikely that the wall will be reflective due to its location
           however the neighbours at No. 144 Mill Point Road have indicated that a light coloured
           surface finish is their preference. As there is no detrimental effect on the adjo ining
           properties, the lengths and heights are acceptable subject to the finish of the boundary walls
           being to the neighbours’ satisfaction. The length of 10.88 metres for the south-eastern
           boundary wall is satisfactory for the above reasons and the adjoining owners have no
           objection to the proposed length. The proposed 2.79 metre height of the south-eastern
           boundary wall is moderate. Furthermore, boundary walls of greater length than one quarter
           of the lot boundary were approved at the August 2002 Council meeting.

           Building Height
           There are inconsistencies between the floor plan and elevations pertaining to the upper level
           of Unit 3. These inconsistencies relate to the size and extent of the balcony; posts supporting
           roof cover not shown on floor plan; pergola not shown on floor plan; and the south-west
           elevation not adequately reflecting the floor plan. Having due regard to these
           inconsistencies, the elevation drawings are accepted as reflecting the applicant’s intention.
           On this basis the application is compliant with building height. The proposal incorporates a
           pergola on the uppermost balcony and adequate screening to the sides of the balcony. The
           pergola is not a heavy element and will have no impact on the neighbours or the streetscape.
           The screening, obscure glazing, protrudes 200 mm, at the most, beyond the notional 25o hip
           roof however, for the same reasons applicable to the pergola, this protrusion is seen as
           satisfactory.

           It should be noted that the proposed balcony would not be allowed to project as far forward
           as suggested by the floor plan as this would result in non-compliance with building height.
           All relevant information will need to be provided on the working drawings with all plan and
           elevation drawings being consistent.

           Consultation

           Design Advisory Consultants
           The Design Advisory Consultants considered this proposal at their meeting held on 18
           October 2004. The Advisory Architects noted a number of inconsistencies between the plan
           and elevation drawings. They made the point that these inconsistencies need to be resolved
           while also synchronising the detailing of windows and other elements on all of the
           elevations. This issue has now been addressed in a satisfactory manner on revised
           drawings.

           With regard to streetscape compatibility the proposal was considered to be satisfactory.

           The Advisory Architects also made the point that the proposed boundary walls need to
           demonstrate compliance with Council’s boundary wall policy. The boundary wall issue has
           been discussed within the Comment section of this report. The proposed boundary walls are
           considered to be satisfactory.

           Neighbour Consultation
           Neighbour consultation has been undertaken for the proposed boundary walls. The City
           received one submission. The submission related to the colour finish of a boundary wall.
           The recommendation contains an appropriate condition in this respect.




                                                52
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The relevant provisions of the Residential Design Codes and Planning Policy P376_T
           “Boundary Walls” have been discussed in the “Comments” section above.

           Financial Implications
           This issue has no impact on this particular area.

           Strategic Implications
           This matter relates to Goal 3 "Environmental Management" identified within the Council's
           Strategic Plan. Goal 3 is expressed in the following terms:

           To effectively manage, enhance and maintain the City’s unique, natural and built
           environment.

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.4

           That, pursuant to the provisions of the City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and
           the Metropolitan Region Scheme, this application for planning approval and amended plans
           dated 2 November 2004 for 3 Multiple Dwellings on Lot 10 (No. 6) Parker Street, South
           Perth be approved subject to the following conditions:
           (a)     Standard Conditions
                   340 (wall; north-east), 375, 377, 390, 427, 455 (north-eastern, south-eastern and
                   south-western boundaries), 456, 457, 470, 471, 507, 509, 510 (3, trees), 555 (refer
                   below), 565, 660, 663, 625, 628.
                   Footnote:                                                        i
                                A full list of standard conditions is available for nspection at the Council
                                Offices during normal business hours.

           (b)     Specific Conditions
                   (i)      The south-east boundary wall shall be of a light coloured surface finish, to
                            the satisfaction of the adjoining neighbours or in the case of a dispute, to the
                            satisfaction of the City.
                   (ii)     The dining room and kitchen window for Unit 1 shall be adequately
                            protected from the pedestrian accessway alongside the building in
                            accordance with the requirements of Clause 3.5.5 of the Residential Design
                            Codes.
                   (iii)    The applicant shall demonstrate, in conjunction with the building licence,
                            effective and safe manoeuvring in relation to the parking bay adjacent to the
                            front wall of the basement car parking area. This may require design
                            modifications.
                   (iv)     The design of the uppermost storey shall be modified to comply with Clause
                            6.2 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 relating to building height limit. In
                            particular, the extent of the balcony shown on the plan drawing shall be
                            reduced to correspond with the elevation drawings.
                   (v)      The proposed floor plans and elevations shall be modified to be fully
                            consistent with one another.
                   (c)      Standard Footnotes
                            640, 645, 646, 647, 648, 651.
                   Footnote:    A full list of standard advice notes is available for inspection at the Council
                                Offices during normal business hours.




                                                  53
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            9.3.5 Conversion of Existing Multiple Dwellings and Caretaker’s Dwelling to
                  Tourist Accommodation and Addition of External Staircase. Lot 1 (No. 9)
                  Charles Street, South Perth

           Location:                       Lot 1 (No. 9) Charles Street, South Perth
           Applicant:                      Lou Milanko
           File Ref:                       CH2.9 11/170
           Date:                           1 December 2004
           Author:                         Marta Osipowicz, Planning Officer
           Reporting Officer:              Ross Povey, Director Strategic and Regulatory Services

           Summary
           To consider an application for formal recognition of the existing development as “Tourist
           Accommodation” and the addition of an external staircase. It is recommended that the
           application be approved.

           Background
           An application for planning approval for additions and alterations to the caretaker’s dwelling
           on the site referred to above was approved at the July 2004 Council meeting. Subsequently,
           the applicant has encountered design difficulties with the internal staircase and asks Council
           to approve revised drawings showing the relocation of the staircase outside and to the rear of
           the existing building. At the same time, the application is seeking formal recognition of the
           existing land use as “Tourist Accommodation”. The existing development has effectively
           constituted Tourist Accommodation i.e. serviced apartments for many years. However, as a
           recognised independent land use, Tourist Accommodation was not introduced until the No. 6
           Town Planning Scheme was gazetted in April 2003.

           Precinct:                       Precinct 1 - Mill Point
           Zoning:                         Mixed Use Commercial
           Density coding:                 Not Applicable
           Lot area:                       1,785 sq m
           Height limit:                   17.5 metres




           The previous Town Planning Scheme had a land use category called ‘Caretaker’s Dwelling’
           however this land use was not carried forward into Town Planning Scheme No. 6. As stated
           above, the applicant now seeks to have the existing development considered as ‘Tourist
           Accommodation’, which is a ‘DC’ (discretionary with consultation) use within the Mixed
           Use Commercial zoning applicable under the current Scheme.


                                                54
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Comment
           The existing development has been previously approved as Multiple Dwellings. However
           the long standing current use is “short-stay” accommodation. Taking account of the
           previous planning approval issued in July 2004, the current proposal regularises the situation
           by bringing the actual land use into conformity with the Town Planning Scheme No. 6
           provisions.

           A condition placed on the previous approval is not applicable to this current application.
           This condition relates to the need for a covenant on title reflecting the intended “caretaker”
           use of the additional dwelling. With the application now being considered as ‘Tourist
           Accommodation’ this covenant is not required.

           Consultation
           The application which was approved in July 2004 was the subject of neighbour consultation.
           No comments were received by the City. The current proposal has not been readvertised as it
           involves only a minor change (new staircase) from the approved proposal.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The current application brings the existing land use into conformity with the No. 6 Town
           Planning Scheme.

           Financial Implications
           This issue has no impact on this particular area.

           Strategic Implications
           The matter relates to Goal 3 “Environmental Management” identified within Council’s
           Strategic Plan. Goal 3 is expressed in the following terms:

           To effectively manage, enhance and maintain the City’s unique, natural and built
           environment.

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.5

           That pursuant to the provisions of the City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and
           the Metropolitan Region Scheme, this application for conversion of existing Multiple
           Dwellings and Caretaker’s Dwelling to Tourist Accommodation and the addition of an
           external staircase be approved, subject to:
           (a)     the external materials and colour finish of the proposed additions matching with
                   those of the existing building; and
           (b)     the validity of this approval ceasing if construction is not substantially commenced
                   within 24 months of the date of planning approval.

           Specific Footnotes
           (a)       This planning approval is not an authorisation to commence construction. A
                     building licence must be obtained from Council’s Building Services Department
                     prior to commencing any work of a structural nature.
           (b)       If you are aggrieved by the decision you may lodge an appeal with the Town
                     Planning Appeals Tribunal within 60 days of the Determination Date recorded on
                     this Notice.




                                                 55
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            9.3.6 Proposed Conversion of Existing Building to Temporary Use as an Election
                   Campaign Office. Lot 7 (No. 299) Canning Highway SW cnr Comer Street,
                   Como

           Location:              Lot 7 (No. 299) Canning Highway SW cnr Comer Street, Como
           Applicant:             Mr John McGrath
           File Ref:              11/4297 : CA6.299
           Date:                  2 December 2004
           Author:                Rajiv Kapur, Planning Officer
           Reporting Officer:     Ross Povey, Director, Strategic and Regulatory Services

           Summary
           An application for planning approval for a temporary use has been lodged pursuant to
           Clause 7.13 of the No. 6 Town Planning Scheme. It is proposed that an existing building
           will be converted to an Election Campaign Office on Lot 7 (No. 299) Canning Highway, cnr
           Comer Street, Como. The application is recommended for approval, as the proposed use, by
           virtue of its temporary nature, will operate for a maximum period of two months and will not
           have any adverse effects or long term implications on neighbouring properties. The
           proposed use will cease at the time of the forthcoming State election.

           Background
           The application for planning approval was lodged on 3 November 2004. The documents
           relating to the application include the following attachments:

           Attachment 9.3.6(a) is a supporting letter from the applicant dated 31 October 2004.

           Attachment 9.3.6(b) is a plan of the building showing the space for proposed temporary use
           as the Election Campaign Office. The office will be situated opposite a used car sales
           business on the northern side of Comer Street cnr Canning Highway. On the opposite side
           of Canning Highway there is a group of shops on the corner of Monash Avenue. The main
           frontage to the proposed office is on to Canning Highway. There are also two entry points
           to the building on Comer Street.

           Attachment 9.3.6(c) comprises an aerial photograph showing the subject lot in the context
           of neighbouring development.

           Zoning:                Residential and Primary Regional Road
           Density coding:                R40
           Lot area:              675 sq. metres




                                               56
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004




           In accordance with Council Delegation DC342, the proposal is being referred to the Council
           meeting because the proposed office is a land use not ordinarily permitted in the Residential
           zone as per the Zoning - Land Use Table 1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS6) and the
           recommendation of approval relies upon the exercise of discretion. The proposal is able to
           be approved by virtue of the “Temporary Use” provisions in Clause 7.13 of TPS6.

           Comments
           Clause 7.13 of TPS6 states that the Council may grant planning approval for a temporary
           period, for a use not otherwise permitted. Any such proposal requires neighbour
           consultation. These circumstances apply to the current proposal.

           As stated above, the proposed Election Campaign Office will be situated opposite
           commercial premises to the north and east. Immediately adjoining to the west of the
           proposed office is a lot containing three single storey Grouped Dwellings. A single storey
           house exists on the lot immediately south of the subject property.

           There is space for two tandem on-site parking bays in the rear yard off Comer Street. There
           are also 12 right-angled parking bays situated adjacent to the subject property within the
           Comer Street road reserve. However, the City’s Engineering Infrastructure Department has
           advised that these bays are programmed to be removed before the end of February 2005.
           They will be replaced by five parallel parking bays. The timing of reconfiguration of these
           bays may coincide with the setting up of the temporary office if the application is approved.
           Based upon the new configuration, a total of seven bays (two on site) will be available. As
           advised by the applicant, there will be a maximum of three people working in the building at
           any one time. The office is also conveniently accessible by a frequent bus service on
           Canning Highway. Therefore the parking availability is considered adequate.

           Having regard to the siting of the proposed temporary Election Campaign Office as
           described above, no adverse effects upon neighbouring properties are expected.
           Furthermore, the adjoining residents have provided letters of “no objection”. Therefore
           approval of the application is recommended. As a further precautionary measure relating to
           preservation of existing residential amenity on Comer Street, a condition of planning
           approval is recommended to exclude late night activ ity in the office. The applicant has
           advised that the operating hours shall be from 10 am to 4 pm.




                                                57
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           Since the use of the building as an Election Campaign Office is temporary, two proposed
           signs measuring 2.0 metres x 1.2 metres are also deemed to be temporary. This exempts the
           signage from planning control. However, these signs are of a sufficient size to be visible
           from Canning Highway and are capable of attracting motorists’ attention. To avoid potential
           distraction to drivers, it is recommended that the signs be non-illuminated and non-reflective
           as required by Council’s Signs Policy P382.

           Consultation

           Neighbouring residents
           Regarding the proposal, the applicant had consulted the residents of the adjoining properties
           facing the subject property as well as properties on the sides. The City has been provided
           with letters of “no objection” from those neighbours.

           Engineering Infrastructure
           The City’s Engineering Infrastructure Department was also consulted. They advised of the
           forthcoming reconfiguration of the parking bays in the street reserve, as discussed above.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The relevant Town Planning Scheme provisions have been discussed in the “Comments”
           section above.


           Financial Implications
           This issue has no impact on this particular area.

           Strategic Implications
           This matter relates to Goal 3 “Environmental Management” identified within the Council’s
           Strategic Plan. Goal 3 is expressed as follows:

           To effectively manage, enhance and maintain the City’s unique natural and built
           environment.

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.6

           That pursuant to the provisions of the City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and
           the Metropolitan Region Scheme, this application for planning approval for a temporary
           Election Campaign Office on Lot 7 (No. 299) Canning Highway, cnr Comer Street, Como
           be approved subject to the following conditions:
           (a)     the operating hours of the business shall be confined to the hours between 8.00 am
                   and 6.00 pm on any day of the week;
           (b)     the signs proposed to be placed on the building shall be non-illuminated and non-
                   reflective as required by Council’s Signs Policy P382; and
           (c)     this planning approval for the temporary use remains valid until 28 February 2005.
                   The use of the premises as an Election Campaign Office shall cease on or before
                   that date.




                                                 58
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


             9.3.7 Proposed Five Level Development Comprising 7 Multiple Dwellings. Lot
                   120 (Ns.23-25) South Perth Esplanade, South Perth

           Location:                      Lot 120 (No. 23-25) South Perth Esplanade, South Perth.
           Applicant:                     Colliere Menkens Pickwell Architects
           File Ref:                      11/2616 SO1.
           Date:                          3 December 2004
           Author:                        Frank Polglaze, Planning Officer
           Reporting Officer:             Ross Povey, Director, Strategic and Regulatory Services

           Summary
           To consider an application for pla nning approval for a five storey residential development
           comprising 7 Multiple Dwellings. The proposal does not meet the requirements of the
           Residential Design Codes relating to plot ratio; open space; building setbacks from side and
           rear boundaries; and visitor parking bays. These points are discussed below. In the main,
           the report is supportive of the proposed development. Where necessary, areas of non-
           compliance have been addressed through standard conditions of approval.

           Background
           The drawings rela ting to the application are too large to be reduced to A4 format as an
           attachment to this report. However those drawings are available for inspection by Council
           Members in the Council Members’ Lounge.




           Comment

           1. Setbacks
              1.1 Raised First Floor Private Open Terrace Located above Car Parking Basement
                  The raised private open terrace does not comply with the setback requirements of
                  the Codes. The setback requirement from both the rear and side boundaries is 2.4
                  metres, with the proposed setback distances being 1835 mm, 1840 mm and 2120
                  mm. The applicant has indicated that he will comply with the required setback as a
                  condition of planning approval.



                                               59
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


              1.2 Dining Room Window on Third Floor Northern and Southern Elevations
                  The required setback for the third floor portion of the wall from the dining room
                  window (being a major opening) with a wall length of less than 9.0 metres and a
                  wall height of 13.5 metres, is 6.6 metres. The setback provided to these windows is
                  6.2 metres for the northern elevation and 6.0 metres for the southern elevation.
                  There are identical dining room windows situated directly below, on the 1st and 2nd
                  floors, that comply with the Residential Design Codes in relation to setback
                  requirements and visual privacy. The required setback for this wall without a major
                  opening would be for 1.8 metres. Given that the bulk of the wall is not
                  disproportionate and that the window complies with visual privacy setbacks, the
                  variation is supported.

              2. Plot Ratio
                 The maximum permitted plot ratio floor area is 1839 sq. metres. The current
                 drawings show a plot ratio of 1966 sq. metres, being 127 sq. metres above that
                 permitted under the Acceptable Development provisions of the Codes.

                  As part of the floor area assessed for the purpose of plot ratio calculations, there is a
                  component totalling 76.5 sq. metres comprising the Private Entry Lobbies on the 1st ,
                  2nd and 3rd levels. These Private Entry Lobbies are exclusive to each apartment and
                  as such, are included in the plot ratio calculation. However if the internal wall
                  between the two apartments on each floor was to be removed, the lobbies would not
                  be included in the plot ratio calculation. This is because the definition of plot ratio
                  excludes lobbies common to two or more dwellings. No benefit would be achieve
                  by requiring the applicant to modify the lobbies to comply with the definition plot
                  ratio and therefore the excess of 76.5 sq. metres of plot ratio relating to the Private
                  Entry Lobbies is supported.

                  The remaining 50.5 sq. metres of excess plot ratio area is not supported. It is
                  considered that there are no grounds on which the excess in plot ratio floor area can
                  be justified. Therefore a condition of the approval will require the deletion of 50.5
                  sq. metres of plot ratio area from the revised drawings. The applicant has indicated
                  that he will reduce the plot ratio to comply with this condition.

              3. Visitor Parking Bays
                 Clause 3.5.3 of the R-Codes “Design of Parking Spaces” requires visitor parking
                 bays to be located close to the point of entry to the site and outside any security
                 barrier. The applicant is proposing to have the visitor parking bays located behind
                 the security barrier, with visitors gaining access to these secure bays via a camera
                 telephone link to each apartment. Given that visitors will have readily available
                 access to the secure car park, this arrangement is supported.

                  The applicant has provided seven visitor bays, with the requirement being for two
                  visitor bays. It is intended that only one visitor bay per unit will be provided,
                  whereas the Codes require that the two required visitor bays not be exclusive to any
                  one apartment. Nevertheless, given that each apartment has its own visitor bay this
                  arrangement is supported.

              4. Visual Privacy
                 With regard to visual privacy, the applicants contend that they are in compliance
                 with the Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes.
                 However the following windows / openings do not comply:
                 • The rear and the two side terraces, 1st , 2nd and 3rd levels;
                 • Living room windows set behind the planter box; and
                 • Study windows 1st and 2nd levels.

                                                60
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


                   These windows/openings can be brought into compliance without difficulty. In
                   some instances, the Acceptable Development provisions can be met, while in other
                   instances, compliance can be achieved through the Performance Criteria of the
                   Codes. A recommended condition will require compliance with the “visual privacy”
                   requirements of the Residential Design Codes.

               5. Open Space
                  The Residential Design Codes require 60% of the site to be open space. This is
                  equal to 1103 sq. metres of open space. The drawings show only 1026 sq. metres of
                  open space, being 77.0 sq. metres less than the required minimum. A recommended
                  condition of approval will require that there be 60% open space.

           Consultation
           Design Advisory Consultants’ Comments
           The application was referred to the October 2004 meeting of Council’s Design Advisory
           Consultants (DAC). The DAC were generally supportive of the proposal, considering the
           design to be compatible with the streetscape and the adjacent heritage listed development at
           No. 27 South Perth Esplanade.

           The DAC made various comments on the original drawings. Their comments have been
           addressed through the applicant submitting amended drawings. The exception to this is
           visual privacy and open space which is dealt with above in the ‘Comment’ section. The
           particular comments made by the DAC are as follows:
           •     In terms of streetscape compatibility and the relationship to the house at No. 27 South
                 Perth Esplanade, the design was considered to be satisfactory.
           •     Noting the nature of the existing improvements on the adjoining sites, the extent of
                                         h
                 boundary walls on t e northern side boundary and the rear boundary was considered
                 satisfactory.
           •     The extent of boundary wall on the southern side boundary was not satisfactory having
                 regard to the extent of overshadowing of the adjoining property.
           •     The expanse of flat roofing over the garages at the rear of the site is not aesthetically
                 pleasing.
           •     The design of the lobbies accessed from the lifts and leading to the front entry doors of the
                 dwellings is quite unsatisfactory due to the restricted dimensions. Furthermore, the width
                 of the passage leading from the guest lobby to the fire stair does not comply with
                 minimum requirements. It was also noted that the guest security lobby must be included
                 in the plot ratio calculations as each of these lobbies serves only one dwelling.
           •     It is evident that the required amount of open space has not been provided.
           •     The visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes have not been complied with in a number
                 of instances.
           •     It was noted that the building exceeds the prescribed maximum building height.
           •     The landscaping below the cantilevered building projection is unlikely to survive.

           Neighbour Consultation
           The adjoining neighbours at Nos 21 and 27 South Perth Esplanade and No. 34 Mill Point
           Road were consulted and invited to comment on the proposal. No comments were received.


           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The proposal has been assessed against all relevant provisions of the No. 6 Town Planning
           Scheme and the Residential Design Codes, as discussed above.

           Financial Implications
           The issue has no impact on this particular area.



                                                  61
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Strategic Implications
           This matter relates to Goal 3 “Environmental Management” identified within the Council’s
           Strategic Plan. Goal 3 is expressed in the following terms:

           To sustainably manage, enhance and maintain the City’s unique natural and built
           environment.


            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.7

           That pursuant to the provisions of the City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and
           the Metropolitan Region Scheme, this application for planning approval for a five level,
           seven unit Multiple Dwelling development on Lot 120 (No. 23-25) South Perth Esplanade,
           South Perth be approved subject to the following conditions and important notes:
           (a)    Standard Conditions
                   340 (rear and side), 377, 390, 393, 427, 445, 455 (rear and side), 455, 457, 465, 470,
                   471, 472 509, 550, 625, 626 660, 663 (7 new apartments).
                   Footnote: A full list of standard conditions is available for inspection at the Council Offices
                             during normal business hours.

           (b)    Specific Conditions
                  (i)      Revised drawings shall be submitted, to the satisfaction of the Manager,
                           Development Services, and such drawings shall:
                           (A)    demonstrate compliance with the open space (Table 1 Column 7)
                                  requirement of the Residential Design Codes;
                           (B)    in respect of the raised private open terrace, demonstrate that the
                                  setback from the side and rear boundaries complies with Table 2a
                                  “Boundary Setbacks” of the Residential Design Codes.
                           (C)    show the plot ratio being reduced to 1915.5 sq. metres of which
                                  76.5 sq metres is to be allocated to the private entry lobbies; and
                           (D)    demonstrate compliance with clause 3.8.1 “Visual Privacy” of the
                                  Residential Design Codes with respect to:
                                  • the rear terrace and the two side terraces, 1st , 2nd and 3rd levels;
                                  • Living room windows set behind the planter box; and
                                  • Study windows 1st and 2nd levels.
           (c)    Important Notes
                  640, 646, 648, 651.
                   Footnote: A full list of standard advice notes is available for inspection at the Council
                             Offices during normal business hours.




                                                   62
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004



            9.3.8      Assignment of Parasailing Licence - Mill Point

           Location:                        Mill Point, West of the Narrows
           Applicant:                       Brett Hancock
           File Ref:                        insert
           Date:                            3 December 2004
           Author:                          Jamie Blanchard, Executive Support Officer
           Reporting Officer:               Roger Burrows, Acting Chief Executive Officer

           Summary
           The City currently licences a portion of land on Mill Point, West of the Narrows Bridge, to
           Skyflight for the purpose of running a parasailing business. The operator of Skyflight, Mr
           Gavin Osborne, has approached the City with a proposal to assign the licence to Mr Brett
           Hancock through Mr Hancock purchasing the business. This report recommends that the
           City approve the assignment of the licence.

           Background
           In October 2003 the Council approved a licence to Skyflight to conduct a parasailing
           business from an area of land on Mill Point west of the Narrows. This licence was approved
           after a tender was conducted to seek appropriate applicants. The City placed a condition on
           the licence that Skyflight would require the approval of the Council before assigning the
           licence. The operator of the business is now keen to sell the business and has located an
           alternative operator, Mr Brett Hancock. Mr Osborne has written to the City indicating his
           willingness to sell the business to Mr Hancock. The City’s officers have reviewed the
           application submitted by the alternative operator and consider that he is capable of running
           the business in a safe and effective manner.

           Comment
           When the City’s officers received the application from Mr Osborne to assign the licence to
           Mr Hancock they indicated to Mr Hancock that he would need to address the Selection
           Criteria from the tender that was conducted in 2003 in order to be considered for assignment
           of the licence. Mr Hancock has submitted a series of documents to the City indicating his
           ability to meet the selection criteria.

           Operation of the Business
           The proposed alternative operator has submitted an application to the City regarding his
           proposal to take on the parasailing business. Key components of this application include:

           1.       the applicant will take over the current business including current insurance
                    arrangements;

           2.       the applicant will use the existing equipment, structures and vessels; and

           3.       existing staff will continue to be employed in this operation.

           Character references
           Mr Hancock submitted a character reference from Mr Frank Starvaggi of AustGroup
           Insurance Brokers indicating that they have had dealings with Mr Hancock for the last five
           years and he has proven to be a trustworthy and reliable person. The City’s officers have
           confirmed this character reference.




                                                  63
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           History in the Industry
           Mr Hancock submitted a resume of his boating experience which includes:
           1.     holding a South Australian Boat Licence since 1980;
           2.     driving ski boats for the purpose of towing hang gliders along the Murray River;
           3.     being a member of the South Australian Water Ski Association with 5 years
                  experience in driving boats at events and shows;
           4.     working with Mr Osborne at the current operation for a period of 6 weeks;
           5.     holding a current senior first aid certificate; and
           6.     recently applying for a commercial boat licence for the use of parasailing and other
                  required Department of Transport approvals.

           Assignment of the Licence
           The assignment of the licence will be effected by a written agreement between Mr Osborne
           and Mr Hancock which will be consented to by a letter from the City’s officers. Before
           formally agreeing to the assignment of the licence Mr Hancock will need to provide copies
           of documents to the City including his commercial boating licence and the amended
           insurance policy. Mr Hancock has not provided these documents to the City yet as his
           licence for the commercial boat operation is yet to be approved and the insurance will not be
           changed until he is certain that the licence can be assigned.

           The assignment of the licence will result in Mr Hancock being subject to all the current
           conditions of the licence and he will be bound to conduct the operation in the same manner
           as Mr Osborne as set out in the licence.

           The City’s officers are satisfied that the City’s interests will be protected in the assignment
           of the licence. Mr Hancock is required to hold appropriate insurance cover under the licence
           agreement as well as indemnify the City from any damage resulting from the operation of
           the parasailing business. The current conditions of the licence are adequate to protect the
           City’s interests and Mr Hancock has demonstrated his experience and qualifications in a
           manner that has satisfied the City’s officers of his ability to operate the business.

           Consultation
           Mr Hancock and Mr Osborne have both given their approval for this transaction to occur.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           Nil

           Financial Implications
           The transfer of the licence will continue existing payment arrangements.

           Strategic Implications
           In line with Strategic Plan Goal 3: Environmental Management

           To sustainably manage, enhance and maintain the City’s unique, natural and built
           environment.

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.8

           That the CEO is authorised to provide written consent to an assignment of the licence from
           Mr Gavin Osborne of Skyflight to Mr Brett Hancock subject to:
           (a)     Mr Hancock providing the City with a copy of his commercial boating licence and
                   insurance policy; and
           (b)     all the current conditions of the licence being transferred to Mr Hancock.




                                                 64
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            9.3.9       Management Orders for Reserves

           Location:                        City of South Perth
           Applicant:                       Department for Planning and Infrastructure
           File Ref:                        N/A
           Date:                            3 December 2004
           Author:                          Jamie Blanchard, Executive Support Officer
           Reporting Officer:               Roger Burrows, Acting Chief Executive Officer

           Summary
           The City has received correspondence from the Department for Planning and Infrastructure
           indicating that there are two reserves that it has prepared management orders to be issued to
           the City. This report recommends that the City accept management of these two reserves.

           Background
           The Department for Planning and Infrastructure has created lot 398 on Deposited Plan 24781
           as part of Reserve 36791, which is located in Lowan Loop, Karawara. The Department has
           also created lot 219 on Deposited Plan 24279 as Reserve 47895, which is located in Crowley
           Vista, Salter Point. The Department for Planning and Infrastructure has requested that the
           City indicate whether it is willing to accept the management of both of these reserves.

           Comment
           The formal acceptance of management of reserves is an administrative process to finalise a
           transfer of land into the City’s management. Both of these transfers would result in the land
           being “vested” by way of a management order into the City’s care and control. It is in the
           City’s interests to accept management of these reserves in order to maximise the benefit of
           these reserves to the City.

           Lowan Loop - Reserve 36791
           This lot is adjacent to an existing reserve of the City and is shown in the plan shown in
           Attachment 9.3.9(a) outlined in black. The lot is located between lot 280 (47) Lowan Loop
           and lot 281 (43) Lowan Loop. The adjacent reserve is part of the Karawara Greenways and
           the creation of this lot formally incorporates this land into the existing reserve. The lot
           would become part of Reserve 36791 which is already under the City’s management. The
           City’s officers consider that this is an administrative formality to confirm an area of land that
           the City is already caring for.

           Crowley Vista - Reserve 24279
           This lot lies between the residential development in the Mount Henry estate, Roebuck Drive
           and the Kwinana Freeway. The lot is shown in Attachment 9.3.9(b) outlined in black. It is
           a reserve for the purpose of drainage that the City has developed into a local park. The
           City’s officers consider that this is an administrative formality to confirm an area of land that
           the City is already caring for.

           Consultation
           The City has taken this action as a result of correspondence received from the Department
           for Planning and Infrastructure.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The City would accept care and control of these reserves under the Land Administration Act
           (WA) 1997.

           Financial Implications
           The City has already budgeted for care and control of these reserves and is currently
           managing these reserves.


                                                 65
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004



           Strategic Implications
           In line with Strategic Plan Goal 3: Environmental Management

           To sustainably manage, enhance and maintain the City’s unique, natural and built
           environment


            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.9

           That....
           (a)       the City accept management of lot 219 on deposited plan 24279 Crowley Vista,
                     Reserve 47895;
           (b)      the City accept management of lot 398 on deposited plan 24781, Lowan Loop to be
                    incorporated into reserve 36791 which is currently managed by the City; and
           (c)       the CEO be authorised to take all action that is necessary to effect the management
                     of these reserves by the City.




                                                66
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            9.3.10     Como Beach Reserve draft Landscape Concept Plan

           Location:                       Como Beach Ward
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       PE/PR/8
           Date:                           6 December 2004
           Author:                         Mark Taylor, Manager Parks and Environment
           Reporting Officer:              Glen Flood, Director Infrastructure Services

           Summary
           In October 2004 a consultant was appointed to assist the City to commence the development
           of a Landscape Concept Plan for the Como Beach Reserve. This report contains a summary
           of the community consultation to date and presents the resulting draft Concept Plan to
           Council for approval to advertise for wider community comment.

           Background
           The Como Beach foreshore is a passive reserve popular with families and young children.
           The reserve is approximately 2 hectares in size and is located on the Kwinana Freeway
           foreshore between the Comer and Thelma Street footbridges.

           The reserve contains a toilet block as well as a small playground and a number of picnic
           shelters of various size and condition. Its major features are the Preston Street overpass and
           the Como Jetty.

           The general condition of the reserve is degraded and eroded due to the failure of the river
           wall eroded in a number of places. The City is currently rebuilding sections of the river wall
           under a separate contract.

           The purpose of the Concept Plan is to provide a guiding document to ensure that the future
           development of the reserve is properly planned and coordinated and continues to meet the
           needs and expectations of the community.

           Consultation
           An information brochure and survey questionnaire, Attachment 9.3.10(a), was circulated to
           2,700 residents in Como Beach Ward, placed on the City’s website and a notice was placed
           in the local community newspaper advising of the project.

           One hundred and forty seven questionnaire forms were returned by the closing date and the
           information has been summarised. Attachment 9.3.10(b) refers.

           A community meeting was held on Comer Reserve on Saturday 20 November 2004.
           Feedback gathered through this meeting and the questionnaire responses were used to
           develop the draft Concept Plan which is now presented to Council.

           It is recommended to advertise the draft Concept Plan to the wider community for a
           minimum period of one month.

           Comment
           There was a wide variety of responses from the questionnaire showing that most people that
           visit the reserve at least weekly, did so as an individual or couple, and were interested in
           different activities whilst there.

           Walking, considering access to the area, was overwhelmingly the most popular activity.
           Visiting the jetty also featured strongly and was used for walking, nature watching, enjoying
           the scenery and fishing.


                                                67
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Submissions listed seating facilities and shade structures as high priorities for improvement
           in the area with natural foreshore vegetation mentioned consistently.

           The community considered paths for walking and cycling should be separated in the area
           due to the danger from high speed cyclists.

           Other points made in the submission included:
           • more rubbish bins that are emptied frequently in the area;
           • native shade trees;
           • shaded seating and shaded picnic areas away from toilets;
           • noise reduction from freeway;
           • cafe or kiosk;
           • jetty repaired and maintained;
           • shaded playground with shaded seating for parents;
           • safe for children from cyclists;
           • steps down to the beach;
           • steps over the groynes;
           • groynes repaired;
           • more beach sand as this has eroded over the years; and
           • swimming infrastructure.

           The draft Como Beach Reserve Concept Plan, Attachment 9.3.10(c), is presented to
           Council for endorsement to be advertised for wider community comment.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           Community consultation with regard to this project is consistent with policy P103,
           Communication and Consultation.

           Financial Implications
           The City has allocated $240,000 for this project in the 2004/05 Capital Works budget. The
           draft concept plan has been developed to keep the major construction aspects of the project
           to within this budget. There are several features, such as the native landscaping upgrades
           that can be met within annual maintenance budgets and implemented over several years.
           These will be identified to the community during the consultation process.

           Strategic Implications
           This item is consistent with Strategy 3.3 of Goal 3 Environmental Management of the City’s
           Strategic Plan -

           “Ensure all future development of the river foreshore, wetlands, lakes, bushlands and
           parks is properly planned and sustainable and that interaction with the built environment
           is harmonious and of benefit to the community”.

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.10

           That.....
           (a)       the draft Como Beach Reserve Concept Plan be endorsed for wider community
                     consultation for a period of one month; and
           (b)       a report containing the results of consultation and any subsequent changes to the
                     draft Concept Plan be presented to the February 2005 meeting of Council.




                                                68
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            9.3.11     Town Planning Appeal - Proposed Development Lots 33, 42 and 43 (Nos.
                       60 - 62) Canning Highway cnr Hovia Terrace, Kensington

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       CA6.60-62 and 11/2122 and 11/1345/55
           Date:                           14 December 2004
           Author:                         Jamie Blanchard, Executive Support Officer
           Reporting Officer:              Rod Bercov, Acting Director Strategic & Regulatory Services

           Summary
           The City has recently been dealing with a development proposal for the property at the
           corner of Canning Highway and Hovia Terrace in Kensington (“Canning Mews”). This
           development is now the subject of an Appeal to the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal. The
           purpose of this report is to clarify the officers’ authority to mediate this matter at the Town
           Planning Appeal Tribunal.

           Background
           At the October Council meeting the Council resolved the following on Item 9.3.5 in relation
           to a proposed development at this site.

           “That …
           (a)    pursuant to the provisions of the City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme No. 6
                  and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, this application for Planning Approval for 13
                  Multiple Dwellings on Lots 33, 42 and 43 (Nos. 60 - 62) Canning Highway cnr
                  Hovia Terrace, Kensington, be refused for the following reasons:
                  (i)     Planning Policy No. P370_T “General Design Guidelines for Residential
                          Development” states that all residential development shall be designed in a
                          manner that will preserve or enhance the desired streetscape character. The
                          City has considered the provisions of this Planning Policy in conjunction
                          with associated relevant provisions of Clause 7.5 of the City of South Perth
                          Town Planning Scheme No. 6, and is of the opinion that the proposed
                          development does not satisfy the relevant Scheme and Policy requirements
                          due to the design being incompatible with other dwellings situated within
                          the “focus area” having regard to the ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ elements
                          identified within the Policy as contributing to design compatibility.
                  (ii)    Based upon the drawings that have been provided, the Council is unable to
                          confirm that the lift shaft which projects above the maximum permissible
                          building height is contained within the notional 25 degree envelope referred
                          to within Clause 6.2 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6.
                  (iii)   The Council considers that the building has been provided with an
                          insufficient setback from the Hovia Terrace frontage of the property, after
                          having regard to the provisions of Clause 7.5(n) of Town Planning Scheme
                          No. 6 and Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes.
                  (iv)    The development application has not been accompanied by a Landscape
                          Development Plan addressing the matters set out in Clause 3.4.5 of the
                          Residential Design Codes, contrary to the provisions of Clauses 2.4.6(v)
                          and 3.4.5 of the Codes.
                  (v)     The bin storage area is inconveniently located and not easily accessible ,
                          contrary to the requirements of the City’s Environmental Health and
                          Regulatory Services Department and the Residential Design Codes.
                          Accordingly, the Council is not satisfied that adequate arrangements have
                          been made for the removal of refuse from the site.




                                                 69
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


                 (vi)     Portions of the building do not comply with the required setback from
                          Canning Highway as prescribed by Table 2 of the City of South Perth Town
                          Planning Scheme No. 6.
                 (vii)    Car bay 20 has been provided with a lesser width than that prescribed by the
                          City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme No. 6.
                 (viii) The proposed development has been provided with an insufficient number
                          of occupier car parking bays.
           (b)   the applic ant be further advised that upon receipt of a new application for planning
                 approval, incorporating revised drawings, which addresses all of the matters referred
                 to below and which upon assessment does not raise new compliance issues, then the
                 Council intends to issue conditional planning approval.
                 (i)      The applicant be required to provide car parking bays in accordance with
                          the number of bays prescribed by the Residential Design Codes based upon
                          the intended wording of the Codes.
                 (ii)     The applicant be required to provide landscape planting, including shade
                          trees within the open rows of car parking areas along the right-of-way
                          adjacent to the south-eastern boundary of the site and the residential
                          property adjoining the south-western boundary of the site.
                 (iii)    The development be provided with a minimum setback of 4.0 metres from
                          the Hovia Terrace boundary, while maintaining the current extent of
                          articulation that has been provided to the building, with the exception of the
                          portico and minor balcony projections (1 metre maximum depth for a
                          maximum of 20% of the frontage).
                 (iv)     The design being modified so that balconies on the Canning Highway
                          frontage of the building project no more than 2 metres into the prescribed
                          25 metre setback.
                 (v)      The applicant be required to make the following changes to the design of
                          the building in accordance with the recommendations of Council’s Design
                          Advisory Consultants:
                          (A)      Provision of an increased palette of finishes, including sections of
                                   face brickwork;
                          (B)      Alternative balustrade treatment in order to provide a finer level of
                                   detailing demonstrating characteristics of established houses within
                                   the focus area; and
                          (C)      Provision of a pitched roof in the manner shown on the revised
                                   drawings, incorporating a roof pitch of no less than 25 degrees.
                 (vi)     The applicant be required to make the following changes to the design of
                          the building in accordance with the recommendations of the City’s
                          Environmental Health Officers:
                          (A)      Relocation of the bin enclosure to a position closer to Hovia
                                   Terrace with ramp access if the bin store has a floor level which is
                                   different from the remainder of the ground floor car parking area.
                 (vii)    Demonstration that the lift shaft is contained within a notional 25 degree
                          envelope above the maximum permissible b        uilding height in accordance
                          with the method of calculation contained within Town Planning Scheme
                          No. 6.
                 (viii) The width of bay 20 being increased to comply with the minimum
                          dimensions prescribed by Town Planning Scheme No. 6.
           (c)   The applicant also be advised of the need to address the requirements of the City’s
                 Environmental Health Officers with respect to the swimming pool, gymnasium,
                 laundries, light and ventilation, and noise / traffic management plan in conjunction
                 with the submission of an application for a Building Licence.
           (d)   The applicant also be advised that if a revised submission is prepared in accordance
                 with part (b) above, it will also be necessary to address the matters of Noise



                                              70
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

                   Attenuation and the provision of a suitable Landscaping Plan prior to the issuing of
                   a Building Licence.”

           This matter is now the subject of a Town Planning Appeal and the City has engaged
           McLeod’s Solicitors to act on behalf of the City. The Council needs to clarify the authority
           of the officers to finalise mediation on behalf of the City.

           The second part of this resolution, part (b), states the City’s case for mediation. However,
           some aspects of this part of the resolution relate to amenity issues. As such the extent of the
           officer’s authority to mediate on behalf of the City cannot be clearly determined from this
           resolution. Mediation is a preferred option for the City as it will decrease the costs of
           conducting the Appeal. Due to the complex issues involved in this Appeal, legal fees are
           likely to be in the order of $15,000. There are timing issues in relation to this Appeal as it is
           likely that mediation will occur during January and there is no Council meeting scheduled
           for January. In order to ensure the timely progress of the Appeal it is recommended that the
           Council authorise the City’s officers to mediate on behalf of the City to the extent of part (b)
           of the above resolution. This authority includes the ability of the officers to exercise their
           professional judgement in determining whether certain amenity criteria have been met.

           Comment
           Part (b) of the above resolution states the Council’s position for mediation of this matter.
           However, some parts of the above resolution relate to amenity issues and these elements
           cannot be resolved by setting definitive limits to mediation. In particular, parts (b)(v)A and
           (b)(v)B require an “increased palette of finishes” and “   alternative balustrade treatment in
           order to provide a finer level of detailing demonstrating characteristics of established houses
           within the focus area.” These are amenity issues that can only be resolved by exercising
           professional judgement to determine whether these requirements have been met.

           The extent of the City officers’ authority to finalise these matters at mediation is not clear. It
           is recommended that the Council authorise the City officers to exercise their professional
           judgement in mediating an outcome within the terms of part (b) of the above resolution.
           This would allow the City officers to determine whether the mediated outcome adequately
           addresses the amenity criteria that have been established in part (b) of the resolution.

           The reason for requiring this authorisation relates to the likely timing of the proposed
           mediation and the costs of running a full Appeal. It can be expected that mediation will
           occur in January. There is no Council meeting scheduled until late February. The developer
           may opt not to enter into mediation if it is unlikely that an outcome will be reached before
           late February. This would result in the matter moving straight to a hearing which would
           involve additional costs for the City. An alternative would be for the Council to meet in
           January to consider the outcomes of mediation however this is not recommended due to the
           traditional January recess from Council meetings.

           Consultation
           Consultation has occurred with City officers and McLeod’s Solicitors.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           Town Planning Appeals are conducted under the Town Planning and Development Act (WA)
           1928 and associated Rules and Regulations.

           Financial Implications
           The conduct of this Town Planning Appeal at a full hearing is likely to be in the order of
           $15,000 due to the complexity of the issues involved in this Appeal.




                                                  71
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Strategic Implications
           In line with Strategic Plan Goal 3: Environmental Management.


            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.11

           That….
           (a)    the Director - Strategic and Regulatory Services or the person Acting in that role be
                  authorised to finalise mediation on behalf of the City in respect of this Appeal;
           (b)    the extent of this authority to mediate be limited to the extent outlined in part (b) of
                  the resolution on Item 9.3.5 of the October 2004 Council meeting; and
           (c)     the Director - Strategic and Regulatory Services or the person Acting in that role be
                   authorised to exercise professional judgement in determining whether the amenity
                   aspects of part (b) of the resolution on Item 9.3.5 of the October 2004 Council
                   meeting have been satisfied when finalising mediation on behalf of the City.




                                                72
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


     9.4   GOAL 4:         INFRASTRUCTURE

            9.4.1   2004/05 Capital Works Program

           Location:                        City of South Perth
           Applicant:                       Council
           File Ref:                        FS/FI/6
           Date:                            2 December 2004
           Author:                          Les Croxford, Manager Engineering Infrastructure
           Reporting Officer:               Glen Flood Director, Infrastructure Services

           Summary
           Since adopting the Budget for 2004/05 the scope and extent of a number of projects have
           changed as a result of external factors. This report identifies a number of projects where
           additional funding is required to complete the works and a number of projects that may be
           deferred without affecting their overall viability.

           Background
           Council adopted the current Capital Works Program and Budget for 2004/05 at the Special
           Council Meeting on 13 July 2004.

           Recently it has been identif ied that the installation works associated with the Broome Street
           development is considerably more than the budget allowance largely as a consequence of the
           unprecedented Infrastructure development occurring in the metropolitan area in particular
           and Western Australia generally. Plant, material and labour shortages have driven up
           contractor rates with the result that relatively small projects are no longer as keenly sought
           and are priced accordingly.

           The City has also been advised that additional funding is available from the Metropolitan
           Regional Road Group (MRRG) if the matching amount can be included in 2004/05.

           A number of projects have been identified which can be deferred until another program year
           without reducing safety or convenience to the public or compromising the integrity of the
           existing pavements. As a result, these monies can be redirected to meeting the shortfall on
           the Broome Street development and to provide the Council contribution to the MRRG Road
           Funding Grant.

           Comment
           ROW 82 - Budget $62,880
           Policy P406 Rights of Way Maintenance and Development has been promulgated with
           Planning Policy P388 in mind. Essentially the Planning Policy lists existing ROW’s as
           private streets to be wholly or partially retained as private streets. Policy P406 allows for the
           construction of ROW’s identified as private streets and listed for retention conditional upon
           the ROW’s having unrestricted access for all members of the public.

           ROW 82, a private street off Saunders Street to Greenock Avenue and between Robert Street
           and Lockhart Street, was listed for construction in 2004/05 in accordance with the Priority
           Matrix and Cost/Benefit Ratio (CBR) calculated for all ROW’s. ROW’s having the highest
           CBR are afforded a higher priority for construction.

           However since listing the project for construction, Planning Services have indicated they
           will now be reviewing the status of that ROW with its possible deletion from the list of
           ROW’s to be retained. Until such time as the review is complete, it would be appropriate to
           defer construction to another year. A number of reserve ROW’s had been listed in the event



                                                 73
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           that one of the listed projects could not proceed. However, in view of the changing
           circumstances and the need to reallocate funds to other projects it is suggested that no further
           ROW’s be constructed in 2004/05 and the funds distributed in accordance with the Table
           outlined in the recommendation.

           Ernest Johnson Car Park - Budget $30,000
           It has been reported previously that the purpose of resurfacing/rehabilitation works is to
           restore the pavement surface to its original condition and ensure upwards of 30 years plus
           trouble free operation. As part of the Car Park Rehabilitation Program resurfacing the
           Ernest Johnson Car Park off Fortune Street adjacent to South Perth Hospital was listed for
           resurfacing. The car park is under utilised during the week with approximately a maximum
           of 40% occupancy. Most vehicles stay for up to 4 hours with some vehicles staying for six
           hours or more (probably staff from the Hospital).

           With the South Perth Hospital Board currently preparing a Master Plan for Development of
           the Hospital it would be premature to carry out any resurfacing works to the car park that
           could result in up to an additional 20 bays. The additional bays could be incorporated into
           the Master Plan and a contribution sought from the Hospital to effect the works. Deferring
           resurfacing of the car park for a number of years will not result in any loss of service of the
           car park.

           The funding previously assigned to the car park could then be redirected to other listed
           projects.

           Axford Street, Ryrie Avenue to Eleanor Street - Budget $125,000
           This rehabilitation project comprises four sections namely Ryrie to Thelma, Thelma to
           Brittain, Brittain to Barker and Barker to Eleanor. Not all the sections are of equal need for
           rehabilitation the worst section being approximately just north of Thelma Street through to
           just south of Brittain street.

           To assist with the completion of the Broome Street Development and the matching funding
           for the MRRG grant, some funds could be allocated from this project by reducing the overall
           length of the rehabilitation works without compromising the overall integrity of the
           pavement.

           An allocation of $15,000 is required from this project to offset the Budget shortfall for three
           projects.

           Broome Street Development - Budget $370,000 ($220,000 carried forward, $150,000 -
           2004/05)
           Tenders were called and accepted in May 2004 for the supply of concrete culvert sections
           for the construction of the belowground drainage structure at the Reserve bounded by
           Broome Street/ Shaftsbury Avenue and Collins Street. The tender from Rocla Pipeline
           Products was the lowest tender received and considerably lower than the alternative tenders.

           Initially end panels were intended to be bricked in, but with the shortage of skilled staff and
           other project commitments precast concrete units are considered to provide the safer, most
           convenient and cost effective solution. The precast end panels to suit the Rocla culvert will
           cost $22,200 inclusive of GST. Additional costs of installation include shoring (not
           originally included as a prerequisite from Budget estimate produced by external contractors)
           and external crane hire (original Budget estimate from contractor based on 30T Excavator)
           have now been identified. A further $75,000 is required to complete the project. The
           shoring is required to protect the sewer main running through the site and to minimise root
           damage to the large eucalypts on the site.




                                                 74
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Funding of the shortfall is proposed from projects listed but able to be deferred.

           Metropolitan Region Road Group Program
           Additional funding has been made available to local government through the Metropolitan
           Regional Road Group (MRRG) for works on distributor class roads. The City has been
           advised that two further projects listed for 2005/06 have been brought forward to 2004/05.
           Ideally the projects are to be completed by June 2005, although substantial progress by that
           time would be sufficient for the balance to be carried forward by the MRRG. The MRRG
           contributes two thirds the project cost conditional on the City funding the balance.

           The projects available to the City are:

                                                                       Project
                                 Project Description                                 MRRG        City
                                                                        Cost
            Manning Rd North Carriageway - Lockhart St to Manning Rd     $26,634      $17,756     $8,878

            Mill Point Road - Douglas Avenue to Coode Street             $57,645      $38,430    $19,215

            Total Projects                                               $84,279      $56,186    $28,093


           Through a redirection of funds from projects able to be deferred to another program the City
           has the opportunity to gain an additional $56,186 from the MRRG for a total project cost of
           $84,279.

           Consultation
           No public consultation is required to amend the Budget.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           There are no policy or legislative implications.

           Financial Implications
           The suggested amendments are intended to be cost neutral. The suggestions involve
           deferring projects listed in 2004/05 to subsequent years to enable the shortfall or variations
           to be met in 2004/05.

           Strategic Implications
           The proposal to amend the Budget to facilitate additional works or variations to existing
           projects as a result of external circumstances is consistent with Goal 4 Infrastructure -
           Strategy 4.1

           “Develop appropriate plans, strategies and management systems to ensure public
           infrastructure assets (roads, drains, footpaths etc) are maintained to a responsible level.”




                                                       75
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.4.1

           That....
           (a)      the works as detailed in report Item 9.4.1 of the December 2004 Council Agenda
                    proceed as soon as practicable; and
           (b)      to facilitate the above works the Budget be amended as follows.

             Account                                                          Current    Budget     Revised
                           Account Description            Account Type
             Number                                                           Budget     Amount     Budget
              5224      ROW 82                          Capital Expenditure    $62,880   -$60,000     $2,880
              5229      Ernest Johnson Car Park         Capital Expenditure    $30,000   -$28,000     $2,000
                        Axford St, Ryrie Ave to
               5219                                     Capital Expenditure   $125,000   -$15,000   $110,000
                        Eleanor St
               5235     Broome Street Development       Capital Expenditure   $150,000    $74,907   $224,907
                        Mill Point Road, Douglas Ave
                                                        Capital Expenditure        $0     $57,645    $57,645
                        to Coode St (MRRG Project)
                        Manning Road north
                        carriageway Lockhart St to      Capital Expenditure        $0     $26,634    $26,634
                        Clydesdale St
                        Specific Purpose Road
               5999                                      Capital Revenue      $684,741   +$56,186   $740,927
                        Grants

                                    (NOTE: AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY IS REQUIRED)




                                                   76
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


             9.4.2       Elizabeth Street Closure at Canning Highway

           Location:                        City of South Perth
           Applicant:                       Council
           File Ref:                        IS/RD/3
           Date:                            2 December 2004
           Author:                          Les Croxford, Manager Engineering Infrastructure
           Reporting Officer:               Glen Flood Director, Infrastructure Services

           Summary
           Council has indicated its intention to progress the closure of Elizabeth Street at Canning
           Highway. This report outlines the consultation process required under the Local
           Government Act and the responses received.

           Background
           Council at its September meeting item 9.4.1 resolved to commence the process to close
           Elizabeth Street at Canning Highway in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.50 of
           the Local Government Act.

           The decision to close Elizabeth Street was the result of an extended consultation process
           involving residents from Milson Street, Elizabeth Street, Hampden Street and Lawler Street.
           A number of proposals had been developed to ease the concerns of residents of Lawler
           Street. Through traffic, higher than average speeds and a higher than expected number of
           crashes had been identified as issues. Of an initial 335 letters sent to owners/residents in the
           above streets 138 responses or 41% were returned detailing the option of their choice. The
           closure of Elizabeth Street as an option was supported by 44% of the respondees. The next
           highest response rate at 23% for minor modifications to Lawler Street. The “No Change”
           option at 17% was never going to be an acceptable option to the remainder of the respondees
           who clearly by identifying an option acknowledged the issues and the need for some change.

           The process of road closure with Council having indicated its intention to close the street
           includes:
           • a local public notice in a newspaper circulating in the area;
           • a letter to every owner having a property at or in the vicinity of the proposed closure that
               may be affected by the works;
           • a letter to every agency, authority or public utility having an interest in the road reserve.

           The City is required to provide sufficient time for the issue to be considered and a
           submission forwarded if so desired. The Council is to receive and give consideration to all
           submissions in respect to the proposed road closure. Having considered the submissions the
           Council if it intends to proceed with the closure formally resolves to effect the closure for a
           period not exceeding four years.

           Comment
           The public notice was inserted into the City Update of the Community Newspaper on 19
           October 2004. The City Update including the notice of closure was displayed on the notice
           board at the Civic Centre and at the Civic and Manning Libraries.

           Letters were sent to residents of Milson Street, Elizabeth Street, Lawler Street and Hampden
           Street. No property beyond Addison Street or Angelo Street were included in the mail out.
           Letters were also sent to the Canning Highway commercial properties at Elizabeth Street and
           at Angelo Street and the units off Canning Highway but having rear access of Elizabeth
           Street. All letters were sent on 20 October 2004. Letters were sent to Main Roads Western




                                                 77
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           Australia, Water Corporation, Alinta Gas, Telstra, Fire & Emergency Services, Western
           Power, St John Ambulance, Police Services, Transperth and Swan Transit on 22 October
           2004. The date for receiving submissions was 11 November 2004.

           At the close of the submission period the following had been received:
           • two resident responses in support of the closure;
           • five resident responses not in support of the closure;
           • three Agencies/Departments or Public Utility Service providers offered unconditional
               support to the closure;
           • one Department and one public utility service provider each provided conditional
               support to the closure.

           No response was received from either Fire & Emergency Services or St John Ambulance.

           The following are extracts from the four resident submissions not supporting the closure.

           Response 1
           After reading the minutes of the September Council meeting, there are several issues that I
           wish to bring to your attention. I dispute the statement that the “graph clearly identifies the
           closure of Elizabeth Street at Canning Highway as the communities preferred option”. Sixty
           respondents may have chosen that option but there were 78 Respondents who did not want
           Elizabeth Street closed at Canning Highway and were spread across the other options. This
           indicates to me that the communities preferred options is not to close Elizabeth Street at
           Canning Highway.

           Secondly, if Elizabeth Street is closed to Canning Highway, where is the traffic going to turn
           off the highway? The obvious street would be Hensman Street or Douglas Avenue, yet, these
           residents, who will also be effected, were not included in your survey. Are we then going to
           have complaints from these residents about increased traffic and car “hit object on/in
           street” crashes?

           Officer Response
           From the responses received it can be deduced that 83% of the respondees acknowledged an
           issue in the two named streets and that some traffic management was required. If there had
           been less solutions offered the outcome may well have been the same. From earlier studies,
           the trial closure over the Australia Day long weekend 2004 and other comments from
           residents the closure at Canning Highway would in our view still have been the preferred
           solution. That only one response has been received raising this as a concern suggests a level
           of community acceptance.

           Through traffic from Canning Highway to Angelo Street or to Mill Point Road will use
           Douglas Avenue the local distributor road. Access to the “precinct” will be either from
           Douglas Avenue or Hensman Street where extensive traffic calming is in place. Both
           Douglas Avenue and Hensman Street have the capacity to carry the additional traffic without
           any impact.

           Response 2
           Do the traffic movement numbers justify the closure? I would think that there were not
           extensive traffic movements which use this one way entry off Canning Highway such that
           there was high levels of nuisance noise or posed a threat to safety. Closing the road would
           mean that the portion of traffic carried by Elizabeth Street would re-locate to Douglas
           Avenue or Hensman Street so residents there would enjoy a reduced amenity.




                                                 78
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           Officer Comment
           The traffic volumes entering off Canning Highway are not signif icant. What is of concern is
           that vehicles do enter Canning Highway from Elizabeth Street contrary to the one way sign
           and that vehicles are now making a right turn from Canning Highway to enter Elizabeth
           Street. This movement has only become possible with the removal of the central median to
           accommodate the dedicated right turn movement into Douglas Avenue. Through traffic
           contributes to the higher speeds being recorded in the street.

           As previously stated both Douglas Avenue and Hensman Street have the capacity to absorb
           the through traffic now entering from Canning Highway.

           Response 3
           I wish to make a submission regarding the proposed closure of Elizabeth Street at Canning
           Highway. I have read all the correspondence and material made available on this issue and
           have considered the proposal carefully in the light of other issues raised in these articles. I
           have been a property owner and resident of Hampden Street, South Perth for seven years,
           and as such have used this route on an almost-daily basis to gain access from Canning
           Highway to my home which is at the top end of Hampden Street. I have also walked around
           this area frequently, again, on an almost-daily basis at different times of the day, from early
           morning to late evening. In addition, my children have used this route to access the bus stop
           on Canning Highway on a twice-daily basis. In my own and my children's experience, over
           these 7 years, we have never observed any dangerous driving incidents or motor vehicle
           accidents (or evidence of) at the junction of Elizabeth & Lawler Streets.

           Furthermore, I dispute that this route is used to any significant extent by vehicles
           endeavouring to short-cut the Douglas Avenue route to Mill Point Road. This route would
           prove a very "round-about" and more time-consuming way to get to Mill Point Road,
           notwithstanding the requirement to stop at the traffic lights on the intersection of Canning
           Highway and Douglas Avenue. I would strongly suggest that those drivers using this cut out
           from Canning Highway are, in the large majority, residents of this area known as "the
           triangle", bordered by Canning Highway, Douglas Avenue and Angelo Street. To get into
           this area from parts of South Perth and Como southwest of Douglas Avenue (i.e. along
           Canning Highway) is extremely difficult and round-about, requiring one to wind through
           several streets from South Terrace. Other streets coming off Canning Highway have been
           modified to limit and slow traffic, thus reducing the choices of routes.

           Whilst access in the other direction (i.e. via Elizabeth Street to Canning Highway) would
           certainly create congestion and hazards, I believe the advantages of maintaining the
           existing one-way thoroughfare strongly outweigh the suggested disadvantages (of which I
           have seen no evidence in 7 years).

           Officer Comment
           The results of the questionnaire and earlier studies would suggest that the majority of
           residents in the “triangle” are supportive of the closure in the belief that through traffic,
           higher than expected vehicle speeds and higher than expected crash incidents are issues that
           affect the amenity of their streets.

           Response 4
           I am disappointed that you are looking at closing the Elizabeth street entrance off Canning
           Highway.

           I live in a unit complex which has access from Hensman street through to Milson street off
           Canning Highway and this is already used constantly as a thoroughfare by residents in the
           area that don't live in the units - we will now get their traffic coming onto and off Canning
           Highway so they won't then have to wait at the Douglas street lights. I cannot believe that



                                                79
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           people speed along Lawler street as there are always cars parked on either side of the street
           and generally you have to swerve from one side of the road to the other to avoid them and
           wait for oncoming traffic.

           I think you need to do a larger scale look at the entrances off Canning Highway as many of
           the street entrances have been closed over the past 15 years forcing everyone to use the
           main sets of lights at South Street and Douglas Avenue wh ich causes large queues of cars
           and coming from Hayman road sometimes as much as three sets of light changes to turn left
           onto Canning
           Highway.

           I am opposed to the closure along with other residents in Regency Square and feel it
           unnecessary. Will the Council pay for us to have gates put across our entrances to stop the
           thoroughfare through our complex if it directly affects us?

           Officer Comment
           Whether members of the public use private driveways to access Milson Street and beyond
           from Hensman Street and vice versa is arguably an activity that is and will continue with or
           without the closure unless the owners of the property take some effective steps to eliminate
           and make unattractive the through route. It is acknowledged that the unit residents may be
           disadvantaged by the non resident traffic but in reality the inaction of the property owners to
           resolve an issue is no justification for the City not to proceed with an action which has
           widespread community support.

           A fifth submission did not address specifically the closure or the issues associated with
           traffic off Canning Highway using Elizabeth Street and Lawler Street or the number of
           crashes in the vicinity of Lawler Street and Elizabeth Street intersection. The major concern
           of their submission was the unsatisfactory parking arrangement at the intersection of Lawler
           Street and Angelo Street.

           The two commercial properties have very limited on site parking and adequate on street
           parking is not possible due to the narrow pavement width of Lawler Street. The issue of
           Lawler Street at Angelo Street will need to be addressed at some later time, possibly as part
           of the Budget 2005/06.

           The Agency/Departmental submissions offering conditional support to the proposal are
           largely operational in nature. One response suggested leaving open a gap in the kerbing for
           cyclists to enter Elizabeth Street. Considering that Canning Highway is not cyclist friendly
           providing an opening appears inappropriate when adequate provisions already exists at the
           intersection with Douglas Avenue.

           Consultation
           Every dwelling in the area from Milson Street to Lawler Street and Canning Highway to
           Addison Street was included in a mail out. Government Departments, Agencies and Public
           Utility Service providers were also included. This is a level 2 consult within P103 -
           Communication and Consultation Policy.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The requirements of Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act have been met in respect to
           the consultation. Prior to resolving to close the street Council must consider all submissions
           received.

           Financial Implications
           The proposed closure will have no impact on the 2004/05 Budget.




                                                80
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           Strategic Implications
           The proposal is consistent with Goal 4 Infrastructure - Strategy 4.1

           “Develop appropriate plans, strategies and management systems to ensure public
           infrastructure assets (roads, drains, footpaths etc) are maintained to a responsible level.”


            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.4.2

           That....
           (a)      in accordance with Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act Council proceed with
                    the closure of Elizabeth Street at its junction with Canning Highway to prohibit the
                    through movement of traffic; and
           (b)      as required by the Local Government Act the closure referred to in part (a) above is
                    to be reviewed by Council before December 2008.




                                                81
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004



            9.4.3      Manning Road Barrier

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       IS/RD/5
           Date:                           2 December 2004
           Author:                         Les Croxford, Manager Engineering Infrastructure
           Reporting Officer:              Glen Flood Director, Infrastructure Services

           Summary
           The existing barrier (guard) rail in Manning Road near Edgecumbe Street is subject to
           regular damage as speeding vehicles exiting the Freeway fail to negotiate the corner. This
           report outlines an alternative but more expensive option to the barrier in place and intended
           to be upgraded in 2004/05 in a similar form to the existing.

           Background
           Manning Road is a District Distributor Road linking the Kwinana Freeway and Canning
           Highway to Leach Highway and Albany Highway. The horizontal alignment particularly
           the section from the Kwinana Freeway through to Ley Street is less than desirable
           considering the volume of and potential speed of vehicles entering and exiting the Freeway.
           Manning Road is subject to a Metropolitan Region Scheme Road Alignment set back
           (predominantly north side) to improve the alignment of the road. Basically the MRS set
           back requires all new developments to set back from the proposed alignment. The land the
           subject of the set back would be acquired or transferred at some time in the future as
           required.

           Any works currently being considered by the City for Manning Road in this section is within
           the existing road reserve. Any proposal for a south bound on ramp to the Freeway is
           unaffected by the set backs to the north property boundaries.

           To ensure adequate protection for opposing traffic lanes at critical locations a central “w
           beam” barrier has been installed. The barrier (guard) rail extends from Lockhart Street to
           Clydesdale Street. The “w beam” barrier has also been installed on the northern kerb
           alignment to provide protection for pedestrians and properties.

           The barrier is subject to constant maintenance with at least two sections of barrier/year being
           replaced. With the traffic management necessary to replace the damaged sections the cost
           per incident can be up to $2,500/visit.

           The “w beam” barrier placed in the middle of the separated carriageways is for most of its
           length single sided. Austroads Guidelines for Motor Cyclists identifies barriers in particular
           post and rail style as potential hazards. The risk of serious injury increases significantly
           where the barrier does not present an “unbroken surface” to the cyclist.




                                                82
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004




            Existing single side “w beam” barrier                               Existing double sided “w beam” barrier




                                                            u
           Included in the 2004/05 Budget is funding to incl de a second rail to the back of the existing
           posts to reduce the hazard of the exposed posts.

           In addition a more effective crash attenuation system will be installed at each end to comply
           more closely to the guidelines. The Budget for this work is $38,000.

           Comment
           The addition of a second rail to the back of the existing post and “w beam” barrier will
           achieve the desired outcome of providing an “unbroken surface” for westbound cyclists in
           particular and all road users. Because of the difference between the west and east bound
           lanes sections of the proposed rail will be of the “tri beam” form.

           However the guard rail system will still be subject to ongoing maintenance as crashes will
           continue to occur. No amount of additional signage will cause some drivers to slow after
           exiting the Freeway and under some weather conditions the speeding vehicle will collide
           with the rail. The tendency is for vehicles to “bounce” off the central barrier and into the rail
           opposite on the north kerbline. The collision to the second rail is at considerably less speed
           and hence the damage is generally much less.

           Never the less with at least $5,000/annum being expended on the rails, the recurring cost
           over a number of years quickly absorbs the cost of installing the barrier in a more
           “permanent” form.

           An alternative to the “w beam” barrier would be the “slip formed” concrete barrier as used
           on the Freeway to separate vehicles from the Busway (proposed trainline). This alternative
           was not available until recently with the acquisition of the equipment by a local kerbing


                                                    83
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           contractor although it has been used widely in the eastern states as separation on bridges,
           and as guard rails on local distributor roads.

           The “Tall Wall” steel reinforced concrete slip formed barrier is a permanent structure that
           would take the place of the existing kerbs and “w beam” steel barrier.

           The “concrete barrier” would be constructed with an exposed height difference on the north
           carriageway to that on the south carriageway. The “concrete barrier” is more likely to
           eliminate the “bounce” affect and would significantly reduce the maintenance costs at this
           location thus allowing road maintenance monies to be directed towards more deserving
           works such as kerbing repairs/replacement on local streets.

           While technically the “concrete barrier” wall does not provide an outcome more efficiently
           than the “w beam” barrier it will over time effect savings by not having to maintain the
           central barrier. Arguably the appearance of a monolithic concrete structure devoid of
           damaged panels will be better than the alternative although aesthetics is very much a
           personal thing. As a functional long term cost effective structure the “Tall Wall” barrier is a
           realistic alternative to the steel “w beam” barrier. In addition the continuous concrete barrier
           may offer the potential for least injury to motor cyclists.




                                              Proposed Continuous Concrete Barrier


           Unfortunately the cost of the wall including the barrier exceeds the budget amount. An
           estimate of the replacement including removal of the paved median, barrier rail, existing
           kerbing and site preparation is $70,000.

           Should the “Tall Wall” be considered an acceptable alternative it is suggested that the
           affected residents of Manning Road be requested to comment. The consultation could be
           extended to the wider community on the South Perth website.

           Funding for the shortfall in the “Tall Wall” could come from the Local Area 14/15 Traffic
           Management Project where early indications from local residents are suggesting two major
           treatments in Hope Avenue may be excessive or as part of a general Budget review. This
           may become more of an option once the treatment at Hope Avenue/Cornish Crescent is in
           place.

           Consultation
           There has been no public consultation of the proposed concrete barrier wall to replace an
           existing “w beam” guard rail. Residents have commented on the number of crashes within
           the area of the guard rail and the resultant damage to the rails. While the concrete wall is
           likely to cause more external damage to the vehicle the likelihood is that the vehicle will



                                                 84
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           remain within the carriageway and not rebounding to the far side of the street. The cause of
           the crashes is invariably related to exit speeds from the Freeway and to a lesser extent
           pavement condition.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           Section 3.51 of the Local Government Act applies to fixing or altering the level of, or the
           alignment of, a public thoroughfare.

           While arguably the replacement of the “w beam” guard rail with a concrete barrier neither
           sets or alters the existing levels or alignment of the thoroughfare. The visual impact of the
           proposed works however would suggest that it be considered as a Level 2 “Consult” in the
           Communication and Consultation Matrix or even Level 3 “Involve” to ensure the right
           outcome is achieved for affected property owners. Level 2 requires that the City obtain
           community feedback, listen to and acknowledge concerns and provide feedback on how
           public input influenced the decision. It would be appropriate as part of the consultation
           process to involve the Motor Cyclists Association on design issues considering the impact
           the Association had in a recent coronial inquest.

           Financial Implications
           Funding for the “Tall Wall” would be the subject of a further report and following a Budget
           Review. The shortfall would be funded from savings or by deferring a project to another
           program. The intention would be that the alternative treatment would be cost neutral.

           Strategic Implications
           The proposal is consistent with Goal 4 Infrastructure - Strategy 4.1

           “Develop appropriate plans, strategies and management systems to ensure public
           infrastructure assets (roads, drains, footpaths etc) are maintained to a responsible level.”


            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.4.3

           That....
           (a)      Council accepts in principle the replacement of the “w beam” barrier in Manning
                    Road with a continuous concrete barrier;
           (b)      all affected property owners/residents in the section of Manning Road be invited to
                    comment on the proposal in accordance with the Communication and Consultation
                    Matrix;
           (c)      the Motor Cycle Riders Association and other appropriate road user groups be
                    invited to comment and contribute to the design; and
           (d)      a further report be presented to Council within three months including, if required, a
                    Budget amendment.




                                                85
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            9.4.4    Hope Avenue at Cornish Crescent - Traffic Treatment

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       IS/TR/7/14
           Date:                           3 December 2004
           Author:                         Trevor Quinn, Traffic & Design Engineer
           Reporting Officer:              Glen Flood, Director Infrastructure Services

           Summary
           This report relates to a traffic treatment proposal as part of the 2004/05 Capital Works
           Budget for the intersection of Hope Avenue and Cornish Crescent as part of the
           implementation of the Local Area 14/15 Traffic Management Plan.

           Background
           The Local Area Traffic Plan outlined as Attachment 9.4.4(a) was received by Council at its
           March 2004 meeting.

           The adopted Plan for Hope Avenue at Cornish Crescent outlined an offset intersection
           treatment.

           Comment
           As recommended in the March 2004 Council meeting, traffic management works for the
           intersection of Hope Avenue was included as part of the 2004/05 Capital Works Budget.

           During the design phase it became apparent the offset intersection treatment could not be
           effected in a form that would meet the expectations of the residents in the street and the
           desired outcome from the Study. The offset intersection treatment was intended to slow
           vehicle speeds along Hope Avenue. The location of a Western Power pole and street tree as
           well as two vehicle crossing at the intersection all combined to preclude the offset
           intersection treatment as an option. In addition it was acknowledged that any intersection
           treatment needed to accommodate right turning buses from Cornish Crescent into Hope
           Avenue.

           An alternative treatment that will slow through traffic in Hope Avenue and improve
           access/egress from Cornish Crescent has been developed and is outlined on Attachment
           9.4.4(b).

           It would be our intention if Council accepts the amendment to the Plan as outlined in the
           concept to:
           •     consult with adjacent residents who may be directly affected by the works to ascertain
                 their comments on the proposal;
           •     obtain comments from Transperth as this intersection is part of a bus route;
           •     obtain comments from Main Roads Western Australia with regard to signing and
                 white lining approval for the proposal.

           The concept represents in our view the best treatment for the intersection.

           Consultation
           There has been no consultation on the current proposal although the aims/objectives of the
           Traffic Plan had been subjected to extensive consultation involving in part both level 2
           Consult and level 3 Involve within P103 Communication and Consultation Policy.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           There are no Policy and Legislative implications.

                                                 86
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           Financial Implications
           The works as proposed can be accommodated in the current budget.

           Strategic Implications
           Implementation of Local Area 14/15 Traffic Plan is consistent with:

           Goal 4 Infrastructure - Strategy 4.4

           “Integrate Local Area Traffic Management plans with broader precincts to ensure that all
           infrastructure needs are considered at the same time as planning traffic management
           works”.

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.4.4

           That....
           (a)      the amended design for the intersection of Hope Avenue and Cornish Crescent as
                    part of the Local Area 14/15 Traffic Management Plan, as detailed in Attachment
                    9.4.4(b) be adopted for consultation purposes with adjacent residents who may be
                    directly affected by the works, Transperth and Main Roads Western Australia; and
           (b)      should the consultation outcome generally support the modified design the Director
                    Infrastructure Services be authorised to proceed with implementation as soon as
                    practicable.




                                                  87
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


               9.4.5 Annual Tender for the Supply and Laying of Hot Asphalt Road Surfacing

           Location:                        City of South Perth
           Applicant:                       Council
           File Ref:                        Ten 27/2004
           Date:                            3 December 2004
           Author:                          Les Croxford Manager Engineering Infrastructure
           Reporting Officer:               Glen Flood, Director Infrastructure Services

           Summary
           Tenders were invited and have been received for the Supply and Laying of Hot Asphalt
           Road Surfacing. The tender is for an initial period of twelve months to 31 December 2005
           with an option for a second period to 30 June 2006.

           This report outlines the assessment process and recommends the preferred tenderer.

           Background
           Request for Tender number 27/2004 was advertised in the West Australian Newspaper on
           Saturday 13 November 2004 and closed at the Civic Centre on Monday 29 November 2004.

           The tender is a Schedule of Rates Tender to supply and lay various mix types of hot asphalt
           mix. The various mix types range from a dense graded asphalt mix using low penetration
           bitumen (suitable for heavily trafficked distributor roads and intersections) through to
           special purpose mixes such as Stone Mastic asphalt and Red Laterite asphalt. Stone Mastic
           asphalt has a relatively high bitumen content and open textured finish and is highly
           recommended for its anti skid properties and its relative noise absorption characteristics.
           The mix has also been identified to have a relative high resilience to movement and is used
           on residential streets where “reflective cracking” is evident.

           The schedule identifies a total of 5000 tonnes being laid in the year, distributed amongst the
           six mix types. The above tonnage is indicative only and the City does not guarantee to
           purchase and lay this amount. The actual amount in any one-year may be more or less than
           5000 tonnes depending upon the budget. From the schedule a contract value for the supply
           and lay of hot asphalt surfacing has been provided for comparative purposes.

           The contract period is for approximately 18 months to 30 June 2006. The scheduled rates
           are fixed for the first 12 months of the contract. The second period of six months will be
           subject to the undermentioned clauses as stated in the Tendering Conditions:

           Comment
           At the close of the tender period five tenders had been received. Tenders were opened at the
           Civic Centre by the Contracts, Tenders and Purchasing Officer and two staff member from
           the Financial and Information Services Directorate.

           There were six members of the public in attendance at the opening of the tenders.

           The order of tenders received in ascending order (lowest to highest price) was:

                                                     Annual Value
           •    Hotmix Pty Ltd.                        $515,050
           •    Asphalt Surfaces Pty Ltd.              $555,775
           •    Boral Asphalt (WA).                    $574,457
           •    Pioneer Road Services.                 $609,735
           •    Asphaltech Pty Ltd.                    $628,300


                                                88
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004



           One late tender was received from Emoleum Road Services. This tender was not opened and
           returned to the tenderer.


           Included within the documentation provided to each tenderer were the tender evaluation
           criteria to be used for the assessment of the offers. The evaluation criteria and appropriate
           weightings are listed below.


            Qualitative Criteria                                                       Weighting
            1. Demonstrated ability to perform to time and to budget                     20%
            2. Industrial Relations and Safety Record                                     5%
            3. Referees                                                                   5%
            4. Price                                                                     70%


          The tendered price was assessed using the following formula:

           {[(Lowest bid - bid under consideration) / lowest bid] + 1} x 10.

           Following assessment of the tenders (in accordance with the criteria) the order of the
           weighted scores were:
           • Hotmix Pty Ltd                            1000
           • Boral Asphalt (WA)                         920
           • Pioneer Road Services                      871
           • Asphaltech Pty Ltd                         846
           • Asphalt Surfaces Pty Ltd                   825


           Hotmix Pty Ltd
           Asphalt Surfaces Pty Ltd has been the preferred tenderer since 2001 and the lowest tender
           received in 2003 (the last contract period). Asphalt Surfaces would appear to have over
           committed their resources during the last quarter of 2004 and have been unable to service the
           City with asphalt surfacing. The City has been required to utilise the services of Hotmix Pty
           Ltd, as the replacement for the annual contractor.

           Hotmix Pty Ltd have responded to our request and are currently doing works in the City.
           Hotmix Pty Ltd was the original hot asphalt supplier in the metropolitan area (over three
           decades ago) and has an unparalleled record of performance ever since.

           Consultation
           Public tenders were invited in accordance with the Local Government Act.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) requires a local government to
           call tenders when the expected value is likely to exceed $50,000. Part 4 of the Local
           Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 sets regulations on how tenders must
           be called and accepted.

           Financial Implications
           Each year the Council includes into the annual budget funding to carry out road
           construction/reconstruction. Some of the funding comes from State and Federal Grants with
           the balance from the Municipal Fund. Funding for road construction/reconstruction includes
           the activity hot asphalt surfacing.

                                                89
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Strategic Implications
           A decision of Council is required.



            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.4.5

           That the tender of Hotmix Pty Ltd for the Supply and Laying of Hot Asphalt Road Surfacing
           having a contract value of approximately $515,050 for the first period to 31 December
           2005, and $257,525 for the second period to 30 June 2006 be accepted.




                                                90
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


     9.5   GOAL 5:         ORGANISATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

                9.5.1 Development Services Monthly Information Report

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       N/A
           Date:                           1 December 2004
           Author:                         Rod Bercov, Manager, Development Services
           Reporting Officer:              Ross Povey, Director, Strategic and Regulatory Services

           Summary
           To advise Council of various activities of the Development Services Department carried out
           under delegated authority for the month of November 2004.

           Background
           In response to one recommendation from the review of the City’s Development Services
           Department, monthly information reports relating to performance are being presented to
           Council meetings. The great majority (over 90%) of planning and building applications are
                          h
           processed by t e Department and determined under delegated authority rather than at
           Council meetings. This report primarily provides information relating to applications dealt
           with under delegated authority.

           Comment
           The schedule in this report provides information relating to:

           1.       Applications for planning approval:
                    (i)    Number of Delegated determinations;
                    (ii)   Number of Council determinations;
                    (iii)  Average number of processing days; and
                    (iv)   Percentage determined within target.

           2.       Subdivision applications;

           3.       Land Use Contraventions;

           4.       Building Licence applications; and

           5.       Consultation.

           The following performance comments are provided in relation to the processing time
           indicated in the schedule:

           Applications for Planning Approval
           As reported to the November 2004 Council meeting, there were still some staffing issues
           within the department during November. These staffing issues will continue into December
           2004, however with the commencement of a new officer in the position of Planning Officer,
           Customer Service early in the new year, this situation will improve. The current staffing
           issues again impacted upon the productivity of the officers dealing with applications for
           planning approval.

           In the month of November, 77.78% of the 36 applications not requiring neighbour
           consultation were processed within the target time frame. This is only slightly below the
           80% target and an improvement compared with October. Of the 15 applications requiring
           neighbour consultation, 26.67% were processed within the target time frame.

                                                91
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           No new development applications were referred to the November Council meeting for
           determination, although three applicants requested reconsideration of conditions of approval.

           Subdivision
           During November, 15 subdivision applications were dealt with, together with 5 requests for
           clearance of conditions. The percentage of tasks completed within target for subdivision
           applications and clearances were 60% and 20%, respectively. The number of subdivision
           and clearance tasks dealt with increased to 20 compared with 9 in October.

           Land Use Contraventions
           With regard to land use contraventions, a total of 30 actions were undertaken during the
           month (initial investigation and subsequent response). With regard to initial investigations,
           60% were undertaken within the two day target which is a considerable improvement on
           43% during October. Almost all of the follow-up responses were provided on time - 93.33%
           compared with 62.5% in October, which is most pleasing.

           Building Licence Applications
           With respect to applications exceeding $500,000 in value, there is a 30-day performance
           target. This target was met in all cases which is a pleasing result.

           There is a 12 day performance target for building licence applications up to $500,000 in
           value. This target was met for 28.74% of the applications.

            APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING APPROVAL
            Type of Determination             No. of Applications   Average No. of    Approved       % Approved
                                                Determined in       days Taken to    within target   within Target
                                                    month              Process
            Delegated with Neighbour                  15                42.60             4            26.67%
            Consultation
            (Target 80% within
            24 working days)
            Delegated without Neighbour               36                9.41             28            77.78%
            Consultation (Target 80%
            within 14 working days)
            TOTAL                                     51

                                                  Approved             Refused        Deferred          Total
            Council   Determinations    for          0                    0              0               0
            month


            SUBDIVISION & AMALGAMATION APPLICATIONS
            Type of                           No. of Applications   Average No. of    Approved       % Approved
            Determination                        dealt with in          days         within target   within target
                                                    month             Taken to
                                                                       process
            Subdivision/Amalgamations                 15                 9.73             9             60%
            (Target 10 working days)
            Clearances                                5                 14.2              1             20%




                                                      92
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            LAND USE CONTRAVENTIONS
                                                                    Average days              No.         Percentage
                                                                       taken to          investigated      completed
                                                                      complete           within target    within target
                                  Investigation                           15                   9              60%
                        (Target - within 2 working days)
                                    Response                                15               14             93.33%
             (Target - response provided within 10 working days

            BUILDING LICENCE APPLICATIONS
            Type of Determination            No. of Applications    Average No, of        Approved        % Approved
                                               Determined in        days Taken to        within target    within target
                                                   month               Process
            Building Licences               87                     22.52             25                  28.74%
             up to $500,000
            (Target 90% within
             12 working days)

            Builidng Licences               1                      23                1                   100%
            Over $500,000
            Target 90% within
            30 working days)

            CONSULTATION
                                            Number of Applications      Number             of     Number of responses
                                            requiring consultation      notifications sent        received
            Planning         Applications   15                          26                        5
            Determined Under Delegated
            Authority
            Planning        Applications    0                           0                         0
            Determined by Council

           Consultation
           Of the 51 development applications determined under delegated authority during November,
           15 involved neighbour consultation. In total, 26 notification letters were sent out to affected
           parties and 5 responses were received.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The issue has no impact on this particular area.

           Financial Implications
           The issue has no impact on this particular area.

           Strategic Implications
           The applications referred to in this report relate to Goal 3 “Environmental Management”
           identified within Council’s Strategic Plan. Goal 3 is expressed in the following terms:
           To sustainably manage, enhance and maintain the City’s unique natural and built
           environment.

           The report is also aligned to Goal 5 “Organisational Effectiveness” within the Council’s
           Strategic Plan. Goal 5 is expressed in the following terms:
           To be a professional, effective and efficient organisation.

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.5.1

           That the report relating to activities of the Development Services Department during the
           month of November 2004, be received.


                                                     93
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


             9.5.2    Australia Day - Allocation of Special Events Location

           Location:                       Civic Ward and Mill Point Ward
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       N/A
           Date:                           3 December 2004
           Author:                         Jamie Blanchard, Executive Support Officer
           Reporting Officer:              Roger Burrows, Acting Chief Executive Officer

           Summary
           At the November Council meeting the Council adopted a Special Events Local Law to
           provide the City with the ability to enforce its local laws on Special Events Days in Special
           Events Locations. This report recommends that the Council allocates the Civic and Mill
           Point Wards as Special Event Locations and 26 and 27 January 2005 as Special Event Days.

           Background
           The Special Events Local Law allows the Council to resolve to establish Special Event
           Locations and Special Event Days after advertising its intention for a period of 7 days. The
           City advertised its intention to establish Special Event Locations on 26 and 27 January 2005
           in accordance with the local law however it did not receive any submissions.

           Comment
           The Council adopted the Special Events Local Law to ensure that the City could enforce
           against people who brought large objects or loud stereos into specified locations on Special
           Events Days. The City gave local public notice of its intention to establish Special Events
           Locations and Special Events Days for a period of seven days in accordance with the local
           law but did not receive any submissions in relation to the local law.

           The Special Event Location is identified as the Civic Ward and Mill Point Wards and is
           more particularly described as the area bounded by South Terrace to the South, Canning
           Highway to the East and the Swan River foreshore to the west and north.

           Consultation
           The City gave local public notice of its intention to establish Special Events Locations and
           Special Events Days for a period of seven days in accordance with the local law but did not
           receive any submissions in relation to the local law.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           This action is in line with the City’s Special Events Local Law.

           Financial Implications
           Nil

           Strategic Implications
           In line with Strategic Plan Goal 5: Organisational Effectiveness

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.5.2

           That the Civic Wards and Mill Point Wards be allocated as Special Event Locations on
           26 and 27 January 2005.




                                                94
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            9.5.3 Audit and Governance Committee

           Location:                     City of South Perth
           Applicant:                    Audit and Governance Committee
           File Ref:                     GO/108
           Date:                         2 December 2004
           Author:                       Jamie Blanchard, Executive Support Officer
           Reporting Officer:            Roger Burrows, Acting Chief Executive Officer

           Summary
           This report considers the recommendations of the Audit and Governance Committee
           following its first meeting held on 17 November 2004. The Committee has recommended
           that the Council make minor amendments to the Terms of Reference for the Audit and
           Governance Committee.

           Background
           The Council resolved at the October meeting to establish an Audit and Governance
           Committee. On 17 November 2004 the Audit and Governance Committee met to consider
           the Terms of Reference for the Committee and how the Committee would operate into the
           future. At that meeting the Committee recognised the need to make some minor
           amendments to the Terms of Reference.

           Comment
           At the October Council meeting the Council resolved to establish the Audit and Governance
           Committee as follows:
           That….:
           (a)     the existing Audit Committee be disbanded and a new Audit and Governance
                   Committee be established;
           (b)     the following Council Members be appointed as members of the Audit and
                   Governance Committee:
                   (i) the Mayor
                   (ii) the Deputy Mayor
                   (iii) Cr Hearne; and
                   (iv) Cr Oszdolay;
           (c)     the CEO be appointed as a member of the Audit and Governance Committee;
           (d)     Mr Andrew Roberts a Partner at Minter Ellison Lawyers be appointed as a member
                   of the Audit and Governance Committee and be offered an honorarium of $150 a
                   meeting;
           (e       membership of the Audit and Governance Committee be reviewed in June 2005;
           (f)     the Audit and Governance Committee operate with no delegated authority but with
                   the ability to make recommendations to the Council; and
           (g)     the Terms of Reference of the Audit and Governance Committee be that the Audit
                   and Governance Committee is responsible for auditing and reviewing the City
                   processes and performance in relation to:
                   (i) the annual financial audit;
                   (ii) the City’s risk management framework;
                   (iii) the annual Statutory Compliance Audit;
                   (iv) the Code of Conduct;
                   (v) complaint reviews;
                   (vi) access to information; and
                   (vii) policy and delegation reviews.

           The Audit and Governance Committee met on 17 November 2004 to consider the Terms of
           Reference and its ongoing operation. In considering the Terms of Reference the Committee
           adopted the following resolution:


                                              95
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004

           That the Audit and Governance Committee recommends that resolution 9.5.5 of the
           Minutes of the Council Meeting held 26 October 2004 to establish the Audit and
           Governance Committee be amended as follows:

           (a)     delete part (c) of the resolution and in its place insert:
                   “(c) the CEO be invited to attend Audit and Governance Committee meetings in
                   an advisory capacity;”
           (b)     delete part (d) of the resolution and in its place insert:
                   “(d) Mr Neil Douglas a Partner at Minter Ellison Lawyers be appointed as a
                   member of the Audit and Governance Committee and be offered an
                   honorarium of $150 a meeting;”
           (c)     delete part (g) of the resolution and in its place insert:
                   “(g) the Terms of Reference of the Audit and Governance Committee be that
                           the Audit and Governance Committee is responsible for auditing and
                           reviewing the City processes and performance in relation to:
                           (i)      the annual financial audit;
                           (ii)     the City’s risk management framework;
                           (iii)     the annual Statutory Compliance Audit;
                           (iv)      the Code of Conduct;
                           (v)       complaint reviews;
                           (vi)      access to information;
                           (vii)     policy and delegation reviews; and
                           (viii) the Australian Business Excellence Framework.”

           There are three amendments to the Terms of Reference contained in this recommendation
           that need to be addressed.

           Legal Representative
           The first amendment relates to the representative from Minter Ellison Lawyers. Originally,
           the Council sought to invite Mr Andrew Roberts as the legal representative on the
           Committee. However, Mr Neil Douglas attended the first Audit and Governance Committee
           meeting and it is expected that he will continue to attend as the legal representative on the
           Committee. This amendment recognises the change by replacing Mr Andrew Roberts with
           Mr Neil Douglas as the legal representative on the Committee.

           Status of the CEO
           The second amendment relates to the status of the CEO on the Committee. The original
           resolution of Council established that the CEO would be a member of the Committee. The
           recently adopted amendments to the Local Government Act (WA) 1995, which have passed
           through both Houses of Parliament but are yet to come into force, contain requirements
           relating to audit committees. These amendments will require each local government to have
           an audit committee and specifically exclude the CEO from being a member of the audit
           committee.

           Whilst the amendments to the Local Government Act (WA) 1995 are yet to come into force,
           the Committee has recommended that the status of the CEO on the Committee be changed in
           anticipation of the amendments. This change involves the CEO no longer being a member
           of the Committee but instead being invited to attend Committee meetings in an advisory
           capacity. This change is supported by the City’s administration as it pre-empts the
           legislative changes whilst still allowing the CEO to attend to provide advice and information
           as required.




                                                96
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004



           Additional Term of Reference
           The final amendment relates to an amendment to the terms of reference to inc lude an
           additional area of responsibility for the Committee. This area of responsibility is identified
           as the Australian Business Excellence Framework. Policy P504 Australian Business
           Excellence Framework establishes the City’s commitment to the Framework. The Strategic
           Plan Goal 5 also identifies the City’s commitment to implementing the Framework as a
           means of “improving the quality of services, products and processes.”

           The Committee considered that it was important to have a role in overseeing the City’s
           approach to quality. The most effective method of achieving this aim is to provide the
           Committee with oversight of the City’s implementation of the Australian Business
           Excellence Framework.

           Other Outcomes of the Committee Meeting
           The Committee also considered its future operations. At the time of writing this report, the
           Committee was scheduled to meet on 8 December 2004 to consider a report from the Acting
           CEO providing background information on the City’s approach to each of the items within
           the Committees terms of reference. The report would also outline a proposed timetable for
           Committee meetings to ensure that the Committee could effectively operate within its Terms
           of Reference as well as ensuring the City could continue to meet its statutory obligations.

           Consultation
           The recommendation from this report is a result of the Audit and Governance Committee
           meeting of 17 November 2004.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           In line with the Local Government Act (WA) 1995           and proposed amendments to this
           legislation.

           Financial Implications
           Nil

           Strategic Implications
           In accordance with Strategic Plan Goal 5: “Organisational Effectiveness.”



            COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.5.3
           This recommendation was made by the Audit and Governance Committee at the meeting
           held on 17 November 2004.


           That resolution 9.5.5 of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 26 October 2004 to
           establish the Audit and Governance Committee be amended as follows:
           (a)     delete part (c) of the resolution and in its place insert:

                   “(c)    the CEO be invited to attend Audit and Governance Committee meetings
                           in an advisory capacity;”

           (b)     delete part (d) of the resolution and in its place insert:

                   “(d)    Mr Neil Douglas a Partner at Minter Ellison Lawyers be appointed as a
                           member of the Audit and Governance Committee and be offered an
                           honorarium of $150 a meeting;”

                                                 97
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004



           (c)   delete part (g) of the resolution and in its place insert:

                 “(g)    the Terms of Reference of the Audit and Governance Committee be that
                         the Audit and Governance Committee is responsible for auditing and
                         reviewing the City processes and performance in relation to:
                         (i)     the annual financial audit;
                         (ii)   the City’s risk management framework;
                         (iii)   the annual Statutory Compliance Audit;
                         (iv)    the Code of Conduct;
                         (v)     complaint reviews;
                         (vi)    access to information;
                         (vii)   policy and delegation reviews; and
                         (viii) the Australian Business Excellence Framework.”




                                               98
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            9.5.4   Election 2005 - Minor Amendments to Conduct of Elections

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       N/A
           Date:                           3 December 2004
           Author:                         Jamie Blanchard, Executive Support Officer
           Reporting Officer:              Roger Burrows, Acting Chief Executive Officer

           Summary
           At the October 2004 Council meeting the Council resolved to appoint the Electoral
           Commissioner as the returning officer for the May 2005 Council election and to conduct the
           election by postal vote. This report recommends that the City makes minor amendments to
           the resolution as a result of advice the City has received from the Electoral Commissioner.

           Background
           The resolution of Council at the October 2004 Council meeting states:
           That:
           (a)     under section 4.20(4) of the Local Government Act (WA) 1995 the City appoints the
                   Electoral Commissioner as responsible for the conduct of the May 2005 local
                   government elections; and
           (b)     under section 4.61(2) the Local Government Act (WA) 1995 the City decides to
                   conduct the May 2005 local government elections as postal elections.

           This report recommends that the Council also resolve to conduct any extraordinary elections
           that may arise between now and May 2005 in the same manner.

           The report also recognises that the costs of holding the 2005 Council elections are likely to
           be significantly greater than was first estimated and that the costs of these elections should
           be paid over the next two financial years.

           Comment
           After the City forwarded to the Electoral Commissioner the resolution of Council from the
           October Council meeting, the Electoral Commissioner wrote to the City on 12 November
           2004 Attachment 9.5.4(a) in relation to the two matters outlined above.

           Extraordinary Elections
           The letter from the Electoral Commissioner on 12 November identifies that the City has not
           provided for any extraordinary elections that may arise between now and election-day. If
           any extraordinary election were to arise, particularly after the 80th day before polling day,
           then the City would not be able to conduct these extraordinary elections in conjunction with
           the May 2004 Local Government elections. In this situation, the City would have to conduct
           a further extraordinary election at additional cost to the City. If the Council resolves now to
           conduct any extraordinary elections that may arise between now and May 2005 in
           conjunction with the May 2005 elections then this will reduce the cost to the City.
           Accordingly, this report recommends this course of action to the Council.

           Election Costs
           The City officers originally estimated that the cost of the May 2005 elections would be
           $50,000. In the letter of 12 November the Electoral Commissioner indicated that the cost of
           the election would most likely be in the range of $79,000 to $80,000. The City’s officers
           had estimated the cost of the election based on the costs of the 2002 December Council
           election. That election was conducted by postal vote and was for the full 13 Council seats
           rather than 6 Council seats. On this basis the City officers considered that the elections
           would be a similar amount.

                                                99
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           When the City received the estimate of $79,000 to $89,000 from the Ele ctoral Commissioner
           the City officers contacted the Electoral Commissioner to seek an explanation for the
           increase in cost. The Electoral Commissioner replied and this reply is shown as
           Attachment 9.5.4(b). It is clear from this reply that the City is likely to be liable for an
           amount in the range suggested by the Electoral Commissioner, unless there is a low voter
           turnout or a number of seats are not contested. On this basis the City officers considered
           that there was a need for Council to consider how the additional amount may be funded.

           The Electoral Commission provides local governments with the ability to spread the cost of
           the elections over two financial years. The City’s officers consider that this is the
           appropriate method of financing the election as it will reduce the need for a budget
           amendment this financial year to fund the May 2005 Council elections.

           Consultation
           The City has corresponded with the Western Australian Electoral Commission in relation to
           this matter.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           In accordance with the Local Government Act (WA) 1995 and Local Government (Elections)
           Regulations 1997.

           Financial Implications
           This report outlines why the cost of the May 2005 election is likely to be in the range of
           $79,000 to $89,000 rather than $50,000 as originally expected. The additional cost will be
           financed by spreading the payments for the elections over two financial years.

           Strategic Implications

           In line with Strategic Plan Goal 5 :Organisational Effectiveness

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.5.4

           That….
           (a)    under section 4.20(4) of the Local Government Act (WA) 1995 the City appoints the
                  Electoral Commissioner as responsible for the conduct of any extraordinary
                  vacancies that arise between now and May 2005 as part of the May 2005 local
                  government elections;
           (b)    under section 4.61(2) the Local Government Act (WA) 1995 the City decides to
                  conduct the any extraordinary vacancies that arise between now and May 2005 as
                  postal elections;
           (c)    the Council acknowledges the revised cost estimate for the May 2005 elections; and
           (d)    the City will pay for the costs of the May 2005 local government elections in two
                  instalments; one in this financial year and one in the next financial year.

                           (NOTE: AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY IS REQUIRED)




                                               100
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


     9.6   GOAL 6:         FINANCIAL VIABILITY

           9.6.1   Monthly Financial Management Accounts - November 2004.

           Location:               City of South Perth
           Applicant:              Council
           File Ref:               FS/FI/1
           Date:                   5 December 2004
           Author:                 Michael J Kent, Director Financial & Information Services
           Responsible Officer:    Deborah Gray, Acting Director Financial & Information Services

           Summary
           Monthly management account summaries compiled according to major functional
           (departmental) classifications are presented to Council to permit comparison of actual
           performance against budget expectations. Comment is provided on the significant financial
           variances disclosed in those reports.

           Background
           Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 34 requires the City’s
           Administration to present monthly financial reports to Council in a format consistent with
           relevant accounting pronouncements and principles.

           A management account format, reflecting the organisational structure and embracing the
           reporting lines and accountability mechanisms inherent within that structure is believed to be
           the most appropriate format to monitor progress against the Budget. Information provided to
           Council is a functionally compiled summary of the detailed line-by-line information
           provided to the City’s managers to enable them to monitor the financial performance of the
           areas of the City’s operations under their control. It is also consistent with the structure of
           the budget information provided to Council and published in the 2004/2005 Annual Budget.

           The Summary of Operating Revenues and Expenditures combined with the Summary of
           Capital Items provides a consolidated view of all operations under Council’s control and
           measures actual financial performance against budget expectations.

           Regulation 35 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations requires
           significant variances between budgeted and actual results to be identified and comment
           provided on those identified variances.

           To be an effective management tool, the ‘budget’ against which actual performance is
           compared is phased throughout the year to reflect the cyclical pattern of cash collections and
           expenditures during the year rather than simply a proportional (number of expired months)
           share of the annual budget. The annual budget has been phased throughout the year based
           on anticipated project commencement dates and expected cash usage patterns to provide
           more meaningful comparison between actual and budgeted figures at various stages of the
           year. This permits more effective management and control over the cash resources which
           council has at its disposal.

           The local government budget is a dynamic document and will necessarily be progressively
           amended throughout the year to take advantage of changed circumstances and new
           opportunities - consistent with principles of responsib le financial cash management. Whilst
           the original adopted budget is relevant at July when rates are struck, it should, and indeed is
           required to, be regularly monitored and reviewed throughout the year. Thus the Adopted
           Budget evolves into the Amended Budget via the regular (quarterly) Budget Reviews.



                                                101
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           For comparative purposes, a separate summary of budgeted revenues and expenditures
           grouped by department and directorate is provided. This schedule reflects a reconciliation of
           movements between the 2004/2005 Adopted Budget and 2004/2005 Amended Budget -
           including the introduction of the Carry Forward items from 2003/2004. Attachments
           9.6.1(6)(A) and 9.6.1(6)(B).


           A monthly Statement of Financial Position detailing the City’s assets and liabilities and
           giving a comparison of the value of those assets and liabilities with the relevant values for
           the equivalent time in the previous year is also provided. Presentation of the Statement of
           Financial Position on a monthly, rather than annual, basis provides greater financial
           accountability to the community and gives the opportunity for more timely intervention and
           corrective action by management where required.

           Comment
           The major components of the monthly management account summaries presented are:
           •   Statement of Financial Position – Attachments 9.6.1(1)(A) and 9.6.1(1)(B)
           •   Summary of Operating Revenue and Expenditure (all departments except
               Infrastructure Services) – Attachment 9.6.1(2)
           •   Summary of Operating Revenue and Expenditure for Infrastructure Services -
               Attachment 9.6.1(3)
           •   Summary of Capital Items – Attachment 9.6.1(4)
           •   Schedule of Significant Variances – Attachment 9.6.1 (5)
           •   Summary comparing Adopted Budget to Amended Budget identifying budget
               movements - Attachments 9.6.1(6)(A) and 9.6.1(6)(B)

           Operating Revenue to 30 November 2004 is $23.57M which represents 101% of the Year to
           Date Budget. The majority of revenues are generally in line with budget expectations. The
           most significant favourable variance is Investment Revenue - due to much higher than
           anticipated cash holdings. Interim rates adjustments continue to generate a favourable
           variance in Rates Revenue – with the attainment of the full year budget no longer considered
           in doubt. The Collier Park Golf Course performed poorly in November – the last month of
           operations under the outgoing course lessee. The fresh and enthusiastic approach of the new
           lessee is expected to produce a turnaround in fortunes in future months. Revenue from
           Parking Management continues to show a favourable variance – a consistently good
           performance from the Ranger Team. Significant favourable timing variances in Planning
           and Building Services Revenue reversed in November and are now back in line with year to
           date expectations. Comment on the specific items contributing to the variance situation may
           be found in the Schedule of Significant Variances. Attachment 9.6.1(5).

           Operating Expenditure to 30 November 2004 is $10.76M which represents 94% of the Year
           to Date Budget of $11.42M. Operating Expenditure reflects the reversal of a number of
           earlier favourable timing differences relating to consultants, corporate legal expenses and
           staff development costs. However, vacant positions in the Corporate & Community Services
           area, and savings in publications and in functions and events are creating favourable
           variances at present. Financial Services shows a favourable variance at present due to an
           ongoing staff vacancy in the Rates area (which has now been filled) and significant savings
           on bank fees. Information Technology also reflects savings on software licensing and
           computer support – the result of effective software management and the WALGA collective
           purchasing initiative. Waste Management shows a favourable variance due to greater than
           anticipated savings on the new waste contract and a timing difference (expected to reverse
           later) on the kerbside rubbish pick-up. Rangers show a number of individually insignificant
           favourable variances.



                                               102
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Parks maintenance shows a number of favourable variances which are thought to be mainly
           of a timing nature as does streetscape maintenance. The earlier unfavourable timing
           differences in the Environmental Management area are beginning to reverse and move
           closer towards approved budget allocations. Building Maintenance shows positive signs of
           corrective action relating to the earlier favourable timing variance.

           Design office costs continue to reflect the extended absence of an Infrastructure Asset
           Engineer - despite considerable efforts to fill the position. Significant favourable variances
           are shown in relation to street sweeping and drainage maintenance. The responsible manager
           will initiate corrective action to return the programs to expected levels. On a positive note,
           repair costs to street lighting (necessitated by vandalism) have been contained well within
           budget. Overhead allocation for both Parks & Engineering Infrastructure remain favourable
           at present – but are expected to return to closer to budget expectations as timing differences
           are reversed in later months.

           Some operating areas which requested additional budgets this year are currently operating
           well within the pre-adjusted budget - and these will be critically evaluated in the Q2 Budget
           Review in February. Comment on the specific items contributing to the variances may be
           found in the Schedule of Significant Variances.
           Attachment 9.6.1(5).

           Capital Revenue of $0.80M compares unfavourably to the year to date budget of $0.85M.
           There are no significant causes for concern as the difference mainly relates to timing
           differences in rela tion to the leasing of units at the Collier Park Village.

           Capital Expenditure of $2.77M represents only 67% of the Year to Date Budget. Despite the
           solid beginning made to the year’s program and the completion of numerous residual works
           associated with jobs partly completed at the end of last financial year, the completion of the
           full $12.8M program by 30th June 2005 appears as though it will be a challenge. The 33%
           under target performance to date appears to be similar in both non infrastructure areas and in
           Roads, Parks and Building works. Some infrastructure works are being impacted by the lack
           of contractor availability caused by a booming state government works program.
           Nonetheless, the City has a significant capital works program to deliver and the responsible
           managers are being urged to take remedial action to try to close the gap between program
           expectations and delivery. The program is being closely monitored by the executive during
           the year to ensure that targets are being achieved and that appropriate actions are taken to
           address significant variances between actual and budget. Further comment on variances
           relating to Capital Items may be found in Attachment 9.6.1(4).

           Consultation
           This financial report is prepared to provide financial information to Council and the City’s
           administration and to evidence the soundness of financial management being employed by
           the administration. It also provides information and discharges financial accountability to the
           City’s ratepayers.

           Strategic Implications
           This report deals with matters of financial management which directly relate to the key
           result area of Financial Viability identified in the City’s Strategic Plan –
           ‘To provide responsible and sustainable management of the City’ financial resources’.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           In accordance with the requirements of the Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act and
           Local Government Financial Management Regulations 34 & 35.




                                                103
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Financial Implications
           The attachments to this report compare actual financia l performance to budgeted financial
           performance for the period.



           OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.6.1

           That ....
           (a)       the monthly Statement of Financial Position and Financial Summaries provided as
                     Attachment 9.6.1(1-4) be received; and
           (b)       the Schedule of Significant Variances provided as Attachment 9.6.1 (5) be accepted
                     as discharging Councils’ statutory obligations under Local Government (Financial
                     Management) Regulation 35.
           (c)       the Summary of Budget Movements and Budget Reconciliation Schedule for
                     2004/2005 provided as Attachment 9.6.1(6)(A) and 9.6.1(6)(B) be received.




                                               104
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004



           9.6.2   Monthly Statement of Funds, Investments & Debtors at 30 November 2004

           Location:               City of South Perth
           Applicant:              Council
           File Ref:               FS/FI/1
           Date:                   3 December 2004
           Authors:                Michael J Kent & Deborah M Gray
           Responsible Officer:    Deborah Gray, Acting Director Financial & Information Services

           Summary
           This report presents to Council a statement summarising the effectiveness of treasury
           management for the month including:
           • The level of controlled Municipal, Trust and Reserve funds at month end.
           • An analysis of the City’s investments in Money Market Instruments to demonstrate the
              diversification strategy across financial institutions.
           • Statistical information regarding the level of outstanding monies pertaining to Rates and
              General Debtors.

           Background
           Effective cash management is an integral part of proper business management.
           Responsibility for management and investment of the City’s cash resources has been
           delegated to the City’s Director Financial and Information Services and Manager Financial
           Services. These officers also have responsibility for the management of the City’s Debtor
           function and oversight of collection of outstanding debts.

           In order to discharge accountability for the exercise of these delegations, a monthly report is
           presented detailing the levels of cash holdings on behalf of the Municipal and Trust Funds as
           well as the funds held in “cash backed” Reserves. Because significant holdings of money
           market instruments are involved, an analysis of cash holdings showing the relative levels of
           investment with each financial institution is provided.

           Statistics on the spread of investments to diversify risk provide an effective tool by which
           Council can monitor the prudence and effectiveness with which the delegations are being
           exercised. Finally, a comparative analysis of the levels of outstanding rates and general
           debtors relative to the equivalent stage of the previous year is provided to monitor the
           effectiveness of cash collections.

           Comment
           (a)  Cash Holdings
                Total funds at month end of $28.19M compare very favourably to $25.17M at the
                same time last year. Excluding the Emergency Services Levy (ESL) which is
                collected and remitted directly to FESA, this again reflects a significant
                improvement in total funds relative to the prior year. This City’s strong cash position
                entering the 2004/2005 financial year and the quarantining of funds assigned to
                carried forward capital works have been the major influences on the current cash
                position. The City will need to maintain effective cash collections throughout this
                year to ensure that it again achieves a strong cash position at the end of the current
                year.

                   Monies taken into the new year (and revenue collected early in the year) are invested
                   in secure financial instruments to generate interest income until those monies are
                   required to fund operations or projects later in the year.




                                                105
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


                   Excluding the ‘restricted cash' relating to cash-backed Reserves and monies held in
                   Trust on behalf of third parties; the cash available for Municipal use currently sits at
                   $14.48M (compared to $11.94M at the equivalent stage of the 2003/2004 year).
                   Attachment 9.6.2(1).

           (b)     Investments
                   Total investment in short term money market instruments as at month end is
                   $27.04M compared to $24.99M last year. The funds are responsibly spread across
                   various institutions to diversify risk as shown in Attachment 9.6.2(2). Interest
                   revenues (received and accrued) for the year to date total $0.56M, compared to
                   $0.43M at the same time last year. Higher cash holdings and higher investment rates
                   relative to last year have enabled the City to better the investment position at a
                   comparable time in the year. The average rate of return to date is 5.47%. Anticipated
                   yield on investments yet to mature is 5.47% - indicating the flat interest rate yield.
                   The City actively manages its treasury funds to pursue responsible, low risk
                   investment opportunities that generate interest revenue to supplement rates income.

           (c)     Major Debtor Classifications
                   Attachment 9.6.2(3) shows the level of outstanding rates relative to the equivalent
                   time last year. Rates collections for the year represent 75.9% of total rates levied
                   compared to 78.0% at the equivalent stage of the previous year. The major reason
                   for this consistently lower level of collections to date is the full year financial impact
                   of the increased ESL on ratepayers. The magnitude of the increase in the ESL has
                   forced a number of those ratepayers who previously paid in full to opt for the
                   instalment payment method in the 2004/2005 year. It appears from collections to
                                          nd
                   date including the 2 instalment that many more ratepayers are choosing the 4
                   instalment payment option – which will impact adversely on the City’s cash
                   position.

                   General debtors stand at $ 0.72M as at 30 November compared to $0.55M at the
                   equivalent time last year. The increase is regarded as one of a timing nature only -
                   and mostly relates to invoices issued, but unpaid, at month end in relation to traded
                   plant items.

                   The City has again provided a wide variety of convenient payment methods to our
                   customers including – Internet, Aust Post Billpay, BPay, Mail, Telephone or
                   payment ‘In-Person’ at the Civic Centre or any Post Office. Each of these
                   technology-driven payment methods continued to enjoy good levels of customer
                   support.

                   Appropriate follow-up collection efforts (initiated in late October) for those
                   ratepayers who were yet to make either a payment or a mutually acceptable
                   arrangement to clear the debt are being continued - although the City is eagerly
                   watching developments in state legislation that may impact on our capacity to
                   recover costs of collection in future. It is hoped that continuing collection efforts
                   will ensure that last year’s excellent collection profile is matched again this year.

           Consultation
           This is a financial report prepared to provide financial information to Council and the City’s
           management to provide evidence of the soundness of financial management being employed
           by the administration. It also provides information and discharges accountability to the
           City’s ratepayers. Community consultation is not a required part of these responsibilities.




                                                 106
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           Strategic Implications
           This report deals with matters of financial management which directly relate to the key
           result area of Financial Viability identified in the City’s Strategic Plan –

           ‘To provide responsible and sustainable management of the City’ financial resources’.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           Consistent with the requirements of Policy P603 - Investment of Surplus Funds and
           Delegation DM603. The provisions of Local Government Financial Management Regulation
           19 are also relevant to the content of this report.



           OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.6.2

           That the Monthly Statement of Funds, Investment and Debtors as at 30 November 2004
           comprising:
           • Summary of All Council Funds              Attachment 9.6.2(1)
           • Summary of Cash Investments               Attachment 9.6.2(2)
           • Statement of Major Debtor Categories      Attachment 9.6.2(3)
           as attached be received.




                                             107
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           9.6.3 Warrant of Payments Listing
           Location:            City of South Perth
           Applicant:           Council
           File Ref:            FS/FI/1
           Date:                3 December 2004
           Authors:             Michael J Kent & Deborah M Gray
           Responsible Officer: Deborah Gray, Acting Director Financial & Information Services

           Summary
           A list of accounts paid by the CEO under delegated authority between 1 November 2004
           and 30 November 2004 is presented to the 21 December 2004 Council meeting.

           Background
           Local Government Financial Management Regulation 11 requires a local government to
           develop procedures to ensure the proper approval and authorisation of accounts for payment.
           These controls relate to the organisational purchasing and invoice approval procedures
           documented in the City’s Policy P605 - Purchasing and Invoice Approval & supported by
           Delegation DM605 which sets the authorised approval limits for individual officers. These
           processes and their application are the subject of detailed scrutiny by the City’s Auditors
           each year during the conduct of the Annual Audit.

           Once an invoice has been approved for payment by an authorised officer, the actual payment
           to the relevant party must be made from either the Municipal Fund or the Trust Fund (as
           appropriate).

           Comment
           A list of payments made since the last list was presented is prepared and presented to the
           next ordinary meeting of Council and recorded in the minutes of that meeting. It is
           important to acknowledge that the presentation of this list (Warrant of Payments) is for
           information purposes only as part of the responsible discharge of accountability. Payments
           made under delegation can not be individually debated or withdrawn.

           Consultation
           This is a financial report prepared to provide financial information to Council and the City’s
           administration to provide evidence of the soundness of financial management being
           employed by the administration. It also provides information and discharges financial
           accountability to the City’s ratepayers.

           Strategic Implications
                                                                                        a
           This report deals with matters of financial management which directly rel te to the key
           result area of Financial Viability identified in the City’s Strategic Plan –
           ‘To provide responsible and sustainable management of the City’ financial resources’.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           Consistent with the requirements of Policy P605 - Purchasing and Invoice Approval &
           supported by Delegation DM605.

           Financial Implications
           Payment of authorised amounts within existing budget provisions.

           OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.6.3

           That the accounts for payment as detailed in the Report of the Director Financial &
           Information Services, Attachment 9.6.3, be received.


                                                108
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


10.   APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

11.   COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

            11.1    Briefings Open to Public - Cr Wells 7.12.2004

           MOTION
           That Council Agenda Briefings, Concept Forums and Workshops be open to the Public.

           COMMENT:
           With the exception of Confidential items and staffing matters I propose that Briefings and
           Workshops be open to the public in order that Council is seen to be more open and
           accountable.

           COMMENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           In accordance with Clause 3.6(d)(iii) of Standing Orders Local Law the Acting Chief
           Executive Officer comments as follows:

           The City has elected to seek independent advice in relation to how Council Briefings should
           be conducted. The following was provided by Stephen Cole, Director Capacity Building,
           Department of Local Government:

           “My initial reaction to your enquiry is that your current process looks fine. I have been to
           Briefing Sessions at Canning and Cockburn since the ‘Guidelines’ came out. At both, the
           Briefings were not open to the public. At Canning the session is chaired by the Mayor at
           Cockburn by the CEO. There is a very strong rule at both that issues are not debated and
           there is no hint of decision-making. They were both very valuable sessions in terms of
           having well informed Elected Members. Both processes won the imprimatur of the
           Department.

           The coverage in the ‘Guidelines’ was about it being “preferred” that they be open but this
           was only a “marginal” decision because we realise that it is important that Elected
           Members have the opportunity to become better informed about issues away from the
           public. I would have to say that the Briefings I have observed since publication that are
           open, compared with those that are closed, that I believe the closed briefings were more
           effective.

           In the reprint of the Guideline I would recommend to have the statement removed.




                                               109
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


             11.2     Viewing of Planning and Building Plans - Cr Smith 10.12.2004


           MOTION
           That the Acting Chief Executive Officer instruct the officers of the Planning and Building
           Departments of the City of South Perth to show planning development and building plans of
           proposed developments to interested ratepayers and electors of the City of South Perth
           subject to the following conditions:
           (a)     that the persons requesting to see such plans either live or own property within a
                   radius of 500 metres from such proposed development;
           (b)     that the persons clearly identify themselves and where they live or own property;
           (c)     that the persons be asked to read a standard ‘advice form’, a copy of which will be
                   made available in all interview rooms;
           (d)     that the ‘advice form’ read along the following lines:

                    That as some or all parts of the proposed plans may at times be protected by
                    Copyright or Registered Design Regulations which are covered by the
                    Commonwealth Intellectual Property Act any persons illegally using elements of
                    such plans may be subject to legal action.

           (e)      that no copie s of the plans shall be provided to any applicant.

           COMMENT:
           To ensure that ratepayers and electors of the City of South Perth are kept properly informed
           of developments and in support of the openness and accountability of local government.

           COMMENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           In accordance with Clause 3.6(d)(iii) of Standing Orders Local Law the Acting Chief
           Executive Officer comments as follows:

           The City has taken advice from the Institute of Building Surveyors and McLeods Solicitors
           in relation to this Notice of Motion.

           The Notice of Motion is intended to allow access to any person living within 500 metres of a
           proposed development to access the building and planning plans of the proposed
           development. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed in relation to this
           Notice of Motion. In particular the City's officers consider that there are considerable risks
           associated with this course of action.

           Whilst the Notice of Motion is designed to support openness and accountability of local
           government there are issues relating to privacy, property security and intellectual property
           that need to be addressed.

           Regulation 12 of the Building Regulations (WA) 1989 provides that an owner of a property,
           a person authorised by the property owner or a police officer in the course of their duties
           may access the building plans of a property. The intent of this regulation is to ensure that
           building plans are not able to be accessed by anyone other than as specified in regulation 12.

           This interpretation is confir med by McLeods solicitors and the Institute of Building
           Surveyors.




                                                 110
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


           The reason that building plans are withheld from public viewing is that they contain detailed
           information about the construction of a development. Allowing the public to view these
           plans could seriously jeopardise the security of the property and the privacy of the residents
           in the property.

           Whilst planning plans are not subject to the same regulations, similar considerations apply to
           the release of the plans as well as additional considerations relating to intellectual property.
           The internal layout of a development is private information and releasing this information to
           the public could jeopardise the security and privacy of the property.

           The intent of the Notice of Motion is to ensure that the City is not involved in a potential
           breach of copyright by refusing to allow access to copies of plans. However, it is not
           considered that this could adequately protect the intellectual property that is contained in
           these plans. The City's officers envisage that there will be concerns raised by architects and
           developers about allowing such a broad range of residents and ratepayers to access the plans.
           The potential for ideas to be appropriated after viewing plans held by the City is a risk that
           would concern architects and developers.

           The City currently provides access to planning plans to people who have been notified of a
           proposed development. Generally this means the direct neighbour of a property where there
           is some discretionary matter that requires the City to notify the neighbour under the Town
           Planning Scheme. On rare occasions an applicant may be required to consult more broadly
           where they are proposing a discretionary use with consultation.

           The City's officers are uncertain about the origin of the 500 metre boundary for accessing the
           plans. This does not describe an area of interest that has a basis in the requirements for
           consultation under the City's Town Planning Scheme or is arrived at using the definition of
           "proximity interest" in the Local Government Act. There would appear to be a need to
           further clarify the reasons behind the 500 metre boundary.

           In addition to the above, the proposal would place a significant additional administrative
           burden on the City's administration. A circle with a radius of 500 metres around a property
           could create a right of access for approximately 1000 residents and ratepayers. The City
           processes approximately 600 planning applications a year. This could create approximately
           600,000 individual rights to view plans each year. Even if only 1% of these opportunities
           were taken up that would mean 6,000 contacts with the City a year to view plans. Each
           contact would need to be supervised by a member of staff to ensure copyright was not
           breached. That could equate to approximately 25 contacts each working day. The City
           would need to take into consideration the resourcing issues to employ additional staff
           members to deal with this extra workload.

           It is to be appreciated also, that at the November 2004 meeting, Council unanimously
           resolved to adopted the draft Neighbour Consultation Policy P104 for public advertising.
           This policy is currently being advertised accordingly. The policy deals with the same matter
           as the Notice of Motion namely neighbouring residents access to applications for planning
           approval and certain other proposals. The Notice of Motion is not consistent with that
           policy.




                                                111
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


            11.3    Delegation DC609 Leases and Licences - Cr Cala 14.12.2004

           MOTION

           That….
           (a)    the City’s officers re-issue Delegation DC609 Leases and Licences as an exposure
                  draft during February along with an explanatory note describing the limits of the
                  delegation;
           (b)    comments from Council Members be incorporated into a report to be considered by
                  the Audit and Governance Committee as part of the Annual Review of Delegations;
                  and
           (b)    following the Audit and Governance Committee meeting a report on the outcome of
                  the review be presented to the first practicable meeting of Council.

           COMMENT:
           The City’s Delegation DC609 Leases and Licences provides the CEO with the ability to
           enter into leases and licences subject to the condition that the power is not exercised in
           specified circumstances. It is considered appropriate that this delegation be reviewed to
           ensure that the power provided to the CEO is appropriate. This delegation review will
           ensure that the CEO has appropriate authority to enter into those leases and licences that the
           Council considers are appropriate for the CEO to enter into.

           COMMENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           In accordance with Clause 3.6(d)(iii) of Standing Orders Local Law the Acting Chief
           Executive Officer comments as follows:

           Delegation DC 609 was adopted by the Council in October 2003. The Council delegated to
           the CEO authority to deal with all leases and licences that did not have to be advertised
           under the Local Government Act or have not been the subject of a public tender process.
           The Local Government Act and associated Regulations provide a number of dispositions
           that do not need to be advertised.

           This delegation has been drafted to align with the exemptions in the Local Government Act.
           The exemptions in the Local Government Act are designed to distinguish between major
           transactions and dispositions that should be dealt with through a public process and minor
           transactions where there is no requirement for them to be dealt with through a public
           process.    This distinction allows an appropriate balance between openness and
           accountability for major transactions and administrative efficiency for minor transactions.

           Reissuing the delegation as an exposure draft before the Audit and Governance Committee
           annual review of delegations will provide all Council members with the opportunity to
           comment on the operation of this Delegation. These comments can then be considered as
           part of the annual review before the matter is finally decided upon at a Council meeting.




12.   NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE INTRODUCED BY DECISION OF
      MEETING




                                                112
AGENDA : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 21 DECEMBER 2004


13.   MEETING CLOSED TO PUBLIC

      13.1   Matters for which the Meeting May be Closed.

               13.1.1     City of South Perth Australia Day Citizen of the Year and Premier’s
                          Australia Day Active Citizenship Awards CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

             Location:                     City of South Perth
             Applicant:                    Council
             File Ref:                     CC/CA/1
             Date:                         6 December 2004
             Author:                       Marnie Brewer, Arts/Events Coordinator
             Reporting Officer:            Roger Burrows, Director Corporate & Community Services


             NOTE:          CONFIDENTIAL REPORT CIRCULATED SEPARATELY


               13.1.2     Appointment of Director Strategic & Regulatory Services

             Location:                     City of South Perth
             Applicant:                    Council
             File Ref:                     N/A
             Date:                         14 December 2004
             Author:                       Angie Spaziani, Manager Human Resources
             Reporting Officer:            Acting Chief Executive Officer


             NOTE:          CONFIDENTIAL REPORT CIRCULATED SEPARATELY


             RECOMMENDED COUNCIL DECISION
             That Council endorses the appointment of the recommended candidate, as identified in the
             Confidential Report Item 13.1.2 of the December Council Agenda, to the position of
             Director Strategic and Regulatory Services



      13.2   Public Reading of Resolutions that may be made Public.




14.   CLOSURE




                                               113

								
To top