Docstoc

Minutes

Document Sample
Minutes Powered By Docstoc
					MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005




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 .............................................................................................................5

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

        5.1 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE..................................5
            5.1.1 Mr Barrie Drake, 2 Scenic Crescent, South Perth......................................................................5

        5.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME : 27.9.2005...........................................................................................5
            5.2.1 Mr Trevor K Sanders, 2 Kirkby Ridge, Salter Point..................................................................6
            5.2.2 Ms June Davis, President, Collier Park Village Residents’ Committee, 123/43 McNabb Loop,
                  Como..........................................................................................................................................6
            5.2.3 Mr Geoff Defrenne, 24 Kennard St, Kensington .......................................................................6
            5.2.4 Mr Barrie Drake, 2 Scenic Crescent, South Perth.....................................................................7
            5.2.5 Mr Geoff Defrenne, 24 Kennard St, Kensington .......................................................................7

6.      CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES / BRIEFINGS ....................................................................................8

        6.1 MINUTES..........................................................................................................................................8
            6.1.1 Ordinary Council Meeting Held: 23.8.2005 .............................................................................8

        6.2 BRIEFINGS .......................................................................................................................................8
            6.2.1 Agenda Briefing - August Ordinary Council Meeting Held: 16.8.04 .......................................8
            6.2.2 Concept Forum - Community Safety & Crime Prevention Plan and Municipal Heritage
                  Briefing Held: 30.8.2005 ...........................................................................................................9

7.      PRESENTATIONS....................................................................................................................................9
        7.1 PETITIONS - A formal process where members of the community present a written request to the Council
            9

       7.2 PRESENTATIONS - Formal or Informal Occasions where Awards or Gifts may be Accepted by the
     Council on behalf of the Community. ..................................................................................................................9
             7.2.1 South Perth Diligence is Safety Gold Award (DISA)................................................................9

        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.................................................9
            7.3.1 Mr Andrew Coad, 16 Lockhart Street, Como                                       - Agenda Item 9.2.1 .......................9
            7.3.2 Mr M Slavin, 46 David Street, South Perth of Slavin Architects representing The Roman
                  Catholic Archbishop of Perth, C/- David Barnao & Co., PO Box 750 Wembley WA 6913
                  - Agenda Item 9.3.3..................................................................................................................10
            7.3.3 Mr Henry S Calder of 77 Lockhart St, Como representing 10 Ratepayers                                                                  -
                  Agenda Item 9.3.4....................................................................................................................10
            7.3.4 Mr Phil Perkins of 89A Lockhart Street, Como representing 10 Ratepayers ......................10
                  - Agenda Item 9.3.4..................................................................................................................10
            7.3.5 Ms Claire Belton , 133 Douglas Avenue, South Perth- Agenda Item 9.3.6.............................10

                                                                                1
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

            7.3.6 Mr Mark Scott of 230 Coode Street, Como                                      - Agenda Item 9.3.7 .......................11
            7.3.7 Mr Alan Gray, 416 Stirling Highway, Cottesloe                                       - Agenda Item 9.3.8 ................11
            7.3.8 Mr Robert K Mitchell, 7 Pilgrim Street, South Perth representing Owners of 7 Pilgrim Street,
                  and Nos. 2 and 4 Fortune St, South Perth ................................................................................11
                  - Agenda Item 9.3.1..................................................................................................................11
            7.3.9 Mr Robert Mahar representing South Perth Hospital, South Tce, South Perth                                                             -
                  Agenda Item 9.3.1....................................................................................................................11

     7.4 DELEGATE’S REPORTS Delegate’s written reports to be submitted to the Minute Secretary prior to 9
         September for inclusion in the Council Agenda. .....................................................................................12

8.   ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIRPERSON............................................................................12
     8.1 Method of Dealing with Agenda Business.......................................................................................12

9.   R E P O R T S ..........................................................................................................................................13

     9.0 MATTERS REFERRED FROM PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETINGS .............................................13
         9.0.1 Delegated Legislation - Amendments to Special Events Local Law 2005 and Parking and
               Amendments Local Law 2004 (Item 9.5.3 referred from July 2005) ......................................13
         COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.0.1 .................................................................................................16
     9.1 GOAL 1 : CUSTOMER FOCUS .....................................................................................................16
     9.2 GOAL 2: COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT ........................................................................................16
         9.2.1 Request for Funding - Como Bowling and Recreation Club ...................................................16
         9.2.2 Draft Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan..............................................................20
     9.3 GOAL 3: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT..............................................................................22
         9.3.1 Proposed two-storey extensions and refurbishment to the South Perth Hospital. Lot 145 (No.
               76) South Tce and (Nos. 25, 26) Fortune St, South Perth........................................................23
         9.3.2 Proposed Four x Two Storey Grouped Dwellings to Replace Four Existing Single Storey
               Grouped Dwellings. Lot 650 (No. 22) Ryrie Avenue NE cnr Axford Street, Como ..............43
         9.3.3 2004/05 Review of the Municipal Heritage Inventory ............................................................48
         9.3.4 Request for Partial Closure of Right-of-Way No. 106 situated within block bounded by Cale,
               Lockhart, Henley and Robert Streets, Como ...........................................................................54
         9.3.5 Proposed Naming of Right-of-Ways Nos. 75 and 76 situated within block bounded by
               Thelma Street, Canning Highway, Alston Avenue, and Coode Street, Como.........................62
         9.3.6 Application for Retrospective Approval of Home Occupation: Massage Therapist /
               Counsellor. Lot 11 (No. 133) Douglas Avenue, South Perth..................................................65
         9.3.7 Reconsideration of Refusal of Planning Approval for Proposed Two Storey Single House.
               Lot 217 (No. 230) Coode Street, Como. ..................................................................................71
         9.3.8 Proposed Additions to High Level Residential Aged Care Facility. Lot 11 (No. 1) Gentilli
               Way, Salter Point .....................................................................................................................77
         9.3.9 Lombardy Poplar Tree - South Perth Esplanade .....................................................................82
         9.3.10     Street Trees - Anstey Street verge of the new Supermarket cnr Angelo and Anstey
               Streets.......................................................................................................................................84

     9.4 GOAL 4: INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................................87
         Nil ....................................................................................................................................................87

     9.5 GOAL 5: ORGANISATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ..........................................................................87
         9.5.1 Development Services Monthly Information Report ...............................................................87
         9.5.2 WALGA Structure ...................................................................................................................91
         9.5.3 Cost Shifting ............................................................................................................................95
         9.5.4 Submission of Annual Returns - Policy P523........................................................................97




                                                                               2
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


      9.6 GOAL 6: FINANCIAL VIABILITY...................................................................................................98
          9.6.1 Monthly Financial Management Accounts – August 2005......................................................98
          9.6.2 Monthly Statement of Funds, Investments & Debtors at 31 August 2005 ............................101
          9.6.3 Warrant of Payments Listing .................................................................................................103
          9.6.4 End of Year Financial Management Accounts - June 2005...................................................104
          9.6.5 Capital Projects Review to 30 June 2005...............................................................................109
          9.6.6 Reporting of Significant Financial Variances ........................................................................111
          9.6.7 Collier Park Village and Hostel Review ................................................................................114

10.      APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ...............................................................................119

11.      COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN........120

12.      NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE INTRODUCED BY DECISION OF MEETING .120

13.     MEETING CLOSED TO PUBLIC....................................................................................................121
      13.1 Matters for which the Meeting May be Closed..............................................................................121
      13.2 Public Reading of Resolutions that may be made Public. .............................................................121

14.      CLOSURE .........................................................................................................................................121




                                                                            3
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005




                 Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the City of South Perth Council
         held in the Council Chamber Tuesday 27 September 2005 commencing at 7.00pm



1.   DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS
     The Mayor opened the meeting at 7.00pm and welcomed everyone in attendance.

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

3.   RECORD OF ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE
     Present:
     Mayor J Collins, JP (Chairman)

     Councillors:
     M B McDougall                  Civic Ward
     L M Macpherson                 Como Beach Ward
     L J Jamieson                   Manning Ward
     L P Ozsdolay                   Manning Ward
     C A Cala                       McDougall Ward
     R Wells, JP                    McDougall Ward
     R B Maddaford                  Mill Point Ward
     D S Smith                      Mill Point Ward
     S Doherty                      Moresby Ward
     K R Trent, RFD                 Moresby Ward

     Officers:
     Mr C Frewing                   Chief Executive Officer
     Mr R Burrows                   Director Corporate & Community Services
     Mr M Kent                      Director, Financial & Information Services
     Mr S Cope                      Director Strategic & Regulatory Services
     Mr L Croxford                  Acting Director Infrastructure Services
     Ms D Gray                      Manager Financial Services
     Mr R Bercov                    Manager Development Services
     Mrs M Clarke                   Manager Collier Park Village
     Mr N Kegie                     Acting Manager Community Development
     Mrs S Evans                    Registered Nurse in Charge - Collier Park Village
     Mr S McLaughlin                Legal & Governance Officer
     Ms S Cairns                    City Communications Officer
     Mrs M Shorter                  Minute Secretary
     Ms Judy Sethi                  PA Director Infrastructure (Minute-taking backup)

     Gallery                        Approximately 36 members of the public and 1 member of the press

     Apologies:
     Cr G W Gleeson                 Civic Ward - leave of absence
     Cr B W Hearne                  Como Beach Ward


                                                 4
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


4.   DECLARATION OF INTEREST
     The Mayor reported that Declarations of Interest had been received from himself and Cr Macpherson
     in relation to Agenda Item 9.3.1. He then read aloud the text of the declarations (refer Item 9.3.1)


5.   PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

     5.1    RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

            At the Council meeting held 23 August 2005 the following questions were taken on notice:

            5.1.1   Mr Barrie Drake, 2 Scenic Crescent, South Perth

            Summary of Question
            In relation to the Multiple Dwellings recently constructed at No. 10 Jubilee Street, South
            Perth, What is the ‘as constructed’ plot ratio of this building as it now is, not necessarily as
            calculated from the drawings that were originally submitted for approval.

            Summary of Response
            A response was provided by the Chief Executive Officer by letter dated 9 September, 2005
            a summary of which is as follows:

            A condition of the planning consent relating to this development stipulated that the plot ratio
            floor area of the building was not to exceed 585 sq. metres. The plans upon which a
            building licence was issued, and construction was undertaken, satisfied the City in this
            respect.     As previously advised in a letter to you dated 3 August 2005, strata title
            certification was issued for this building during September 2001. At the time of the
            inspection for strata title certification, the City was satisfied that the building was
            constructed with a plot ratio floor area not exceeding 585 sq. metres.

            Summary of Question
            What is the maximum height of this building ie to the highest part of the structure and not
            the finished floor or wall level?

            Summary of Response
            A response was provided by the Chief Executive Officer by letter dated 9 September, 2005
            a summary of which is as follows:

            In responding to this question, it is important to note that the building as approved, complied
            with the provisions of the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 5 with respect to the maximum
            permissible building height. The measurement of the height was calculated in the manner
            prescribed in the No. 5 scheme. The building has wall heights that comply with the 10.5
            metre limit prescribed by the No. 5 Scheme, together with projecting elements which are
            contained within a notional 25 degree envelope above the 10.5 metre wall height.


     5.2    PUBLIC QUESTION TIME : 27.9.2005

            Opening of Public Question Time
            The Mayor advised that Public Question Time would be limited to 15 minutes and the
            speakers must state their names and addresses. He further stated that priority would be
            given to any questions submitted in writing followed by questions from the gallery on a
            rotational basis. The Mayor then opened Public Question Time at 7.03 pm.




                                                   5
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           5.2.1   Mr Trevor K Sanders, 2 Kirkby Ridge, Salter Point

           Summary of Question
           In relation to high level residential nursing home proposed in Mt Henry, if it is zoned
           residential, why doesn’t Council do its best to keep it residential rather than jam a 2-storey
           32 bed extension on the front of the property?

           Summary of Response
           Council had deliberated this change previously. The height is a discretionary use and there is
           an operative height limit of 7 metres which accommodates two storey buildings.

           Summary of Question
           Why are they allowed a 3 metre setback?

           Summary of Response
           Proposed additions will be sited towards the western end of the site adjacent to Mettam
           Fairway. The applicants contend they require the 3 metre setback to accommodate their
           space requirements. The 3 metre setback is located on the other side which is an open space
           reserve. A setback variation is appropriate and there is discretionary power for Council.


           5.2.2   Ms June Davis, President, Collier Park Village Residents’ Committee, 123/43
                   McNabb Loop, Como

           Summary of Question
           Has there ever been any consultation with other Local Government authorities regarding
           their management of hostels, and in particular Canning City Council who own and manage
           42 beds at Canning Lodge in Willetton?

           Summary of Response
           Yes, there has been consultation with a number of local governments over the past years but
           Canning may not have been one of them

           Summary of Question
           Are all the Councillors aware that there has been a review of some kind concerning Collier
           Park Village and Hostel at least every two years since 1999, between 1999 and 2001 and in
           2003 and the 4th review has been recommended?

           Summary of Response
           Yes, some Councillors are aware but others may not be aware.

           5.2.3   Mr Geoff Defrenne, 24 Kennard St, Kensington

           Summary of Question
           When a question is answered by the CEO is that response of the Council, or the CEO or the
           officer?

           Summary of Response
           It is a response by the CEO on behalf of the Council.

           Summary of Question
           Who accepts responsibility for the response?

           Summary of Response
           The person who signs the letter. If it is the CEO, it is the CEO.

                                                 6
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           5.2.4   Mr Barrie Drake, 2 Scenic Crescent, South Perth

           Summary of Question
           Why do we have Public Open Question Time?

           Summary of Response
           The Mayor replied he thought it was very important and that it was a requirement under the
           Act that Councils do have Public Question Time.

           Summary of Question
           Is it always a requirement that questions are answered in a particular way?         I have been
           asking a lot of questions and a lot of them have not been answered correctly.

           Summary of Response
           The Mayor replied that the answers given are to the best knowledge of the officers and he
           believed they were the correct answers. The Chief Executive Officer added that whilst
           members of the public have had a month to consider the questions, the officers responding
           have only had a few seconds. Where they are not able to give due consideration, the
           questions are taken on notice. There was nothing to stop members of the public writing in
           during the month and they would be given due consideration.

           Summary of Question
           I have some questions from last month that were not answered and alternative questions
           were answered. The questions about No. 10 Jubilee St specifically. What is the “AS
           CONSTRUCTED” plot ratio of the building as it now is, not necessarily as calculated from
           the drawings that were originally submitted for approval? What is the maximum height of
           this building i.e. to the highest part of the structure and not the finished floor or wall level?
           Please provide the answers to the above two questions with the actual numerical answer i.e.
           for Question 1 the number and for Question 2 the height in metres and millimetres, and not
           just state that they comply.

           Summary of Response
           The Mayor asked if what he meant was that he asked questions and they were not answered,
           either to his satisfaction or the way he wanted. The Mayor said Council would take his
           questions on notice and the CEO would reply.

           5.2.5   Mr Geoff Defrenne, 24 Kennard St, Kensington

           Summary of Question
           Regarding my previous questions, if the CEO signs the letter does he take responsibility and
           what form does that responsibility take?

           Summary of Response
           The Mayor replied that the response was on behalf of the City and if he was not satisfied
           with the reply he could write back.

           Summary of Question
           Who accepts responsibility for the response and what form does that responsibility take? In
           the Westminster system if an incorrect answer was given the person normally resigns. Who
           accepts responsibility - is it the Mayor or the Council?




                                                  7
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Summary of Response
           Response to the questions would be prepared with the best knowledge, but if there was an
           incorrect answer we would look into it and come back with the right answer. This is not
           Parliament, it is local government. Responsibility resides with this Council - they are not
           here to make false statements.

           Summary of Question
           The definition in the Events Local Law which states that objects of dimensions greater than
           1.5 metres will be issued with an infringement notice. Will Council make any exemptions
           for the purpose of this law?

           Summary of Response
           This particular question gave the Council some difficulty because if the Council had to
           define every possible object the by-law would be unworkable. The function of the by law is
           to include those items other than sunshades, or marquees which are to protect the public
           from the sun.

           Close of Public Question Time
           The Mayor closed Public Question Time at 7.22pm



6.   CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES / BRIEFINGS

     6.1   MINUTES
           6.1.1 Ordinary Council Meeting Held:           23.8.2005


           COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 6.1.1
           Moved Cr Doherty , Sec Cr Trent

           That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held 23 August 2005 be taken as read
           and confirmed as a true and correct record.

                                                                                    CARRIED (10/1)

            NOTE: Cr JAMIESON REQUESTED HE BE RECORDED AS HAVING VOTED
                 AGAINST THE MOTION

     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.
           Note: As per Council Resolution 11.1 of the Ordinary Council Meeting held 21 December
                   2004 Council Agenda Briefings, with the exception of Confidential items, are now
                   open to the public.

           6.2.1   Agenda Briefing - August Ordinary Council Meeting Held: 16.8.04
                   Officers of the City presented background information and answered questions on
                   specific items identified from the August Council Agenda. Notes from the Agenda
                   Briefing are included as Attachment 6.2.1.



                                                8
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


            6.2.2   Concept Forum - Community Safety & Crime Prevention Plan and Municipal
                    Heritage Briefing Held: 30.8.2005
                    Officers of the City presented an overview of the proposed initiative of Local
                    Governments entering into a ‘partnership’ with the State Government towards the
                    establishment of a Community Safety & Crime Prevention Plan. Officers of the
                    City together with Consultants from Heritage Today presented an update on heritage
                    listings within the City. Questions were raised and responded to in relation to both
                    topics. Notes from the Concept Forum are included as Attachment 6.2.2.


            COUNCIL DECISION ITEMS 6.2.1 to 6.2.2 INCLUSIVE
            Moved Cr McDougall, Sec Cr Macpherson

            That the comments and attached Notes under Items 6.2.1 to 6.2.2 inclusive on Council
            Agenda Briefings held since the last Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23 August 2005
            be noted.
                                                                                CARRIED (11/0)

7.   PRESENTATIONS

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

     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   South Perth Diligence is Safety Gold Award (DISA)
                    The Acting CEO of Local Government Insurance Services WA, Mr John
                    Abercrombie presented to the City of South Perth the “Diligence in Safety Award”
                    (DISA). This Award aligns with the best practice principles of AS 4801:2001
                    Australian Standard on Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, and
                    has been used for Local Government Authorities since April 2003.
                          : The City of South Perth is the first local government to receive this award.

     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.

     Opening of Deputations
     The Mayor opened Deputations at 7.27pm and advised that each speaker would be permitted 10
     minutes to address the Council Members.


            7.3.1 Mr Andrew Coad, 16 Lockhart Street, Como                      - Agenda Item 9.2.1
            Mr Coad’s Request for a Deputation indicated that he spoke for the officer recommendation
                • $126,824 was not asked for in budget for this year
                • $20,000 spent on renovations by the club
                • Ceilings would cost $35,000 and club members would take responsibility
                • Electrical wiring was 1950’s
                • Club can install airconditioners
                • Club is viable and used for other functions
                • Have met with Engineering dept to discuss functions
                • Seeking as much assistance as possible from Council

                                                  9
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           7.3.2    Mr M Slavin, 46 David Street, South Perth of Slavin Architects representing
                    The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth, C/- David Barnao & Co., PO Box
                    750 Wembley WA 6913             - Agenda Item 9.3.3

           Mr Slavin spoke against the officer recommendation and made the following points:

                •   handed out photographs
               •    History of the church
               •    Modified over the years
               •    Structural issues
               •    Unlikely to revert to church use in the future
               •    Low density residential suburb
               •    Parking concerns
               •    Now an administration centre
               •    No connection with the local community


           7.3.3    Mr Henry S Calder of 77 Lockhart St, Como representing 10 Ratepayers
                    - Agenda Item 9.3.4

           Mr Calder spoke against the officer recommendation and raised the following points:

               •    Tabled petition of 7 people
               •    Distributed photos and statistics
               •    Officer’s report does not address the essence of the petition
               •    “comments” are biased in favour of closure and based on unsustainable theory
               •    Method of polling for petitioners was questionable
               •    No mention made of previous surveys
               •    No mention made of present condition of ROW
               •    Partial closure is worst option


           7.3.4    Mr Phil Perkins of 89A Lockhart Street, Como representing 10 Ratepayers
                      - Agenda Item 9.3.4

           Mr Perkins spoke against the officer recommendation and made the following points:
              • No. 98 Lockhart St was allowed to be subdivided 3 years ago
              • ROW should remain open

           7.3.5    Ms Claire Belton , 133 Douglas Avenue, South Perth- Agenda Item 9.3.6

           Ms Belton spoke against the officer recommendation and made the following points:
              • Apologised for working from home without approval
              • False accusations from complainant
              • Initially gave incorrect information to Planning Department in error
              • Currently seeing 7-8 clients per week
              • Have small business that does not have an adverse effect on amenity of the
                  neighbourhood
              • 2 car bays available
              • Signage not obtrusive
              • The business is her livelihood




                                                  10
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           7.3.6   Mr Mark Scott of 230 Coode Street, Como                 - Agenda Item 9.3.7

           Mr Scott spoke against the officer recommendation and made the following points:
              • Distributed photos of the site
              • Did not want his main entry to be from ROW
              • Few conflicting movements of vehicles because it was near a cul-de-sac
              • Streetscape would be more attractive if access is allowed from Coode Street
              • ROW provides access to 9 Units
              • Visitor parking on Coode Street was difficult due to school
              • Security - lack of lighting in ROW
              • Reference to other approvals
              • Democratic right to use front of property


           7.3.7 Mr Alan Gray, 416 Stirling Highway, Cottesloe                 - Agenda Item 9.3.8
           Mr Gray spoke for the officer recommendation
               • Only one variation from normal requirements is being sought - reduced setback from
                  western boundary
               • No impact on neighbourhood
               • Supports officer recommendation


           Note: The Mayor and Councillor Macpherson left the Chamber at 8.20 pm due to a
                      previously acknowledged conflict of interest on this Agenda item.

                   The Deputy Mayor took the Chair.

           7.3.8   Mr Robert K Mitchell, 7 Pilgrim Street, South Perth representing Owners of 7
                   Pilgrim Street, and Nos. 2 and 4 Fortune St, South Perth
                   - Agenda Item 9.3.1

           Mr Mitchell spoke against the officer recommendation and raised the following points.
              • The proposal logically must not be approved in current form
              • In particular, very inadequate car parking provision, even with Hospital meeting cost
                  of car park expansion
              • No acceptable and functional solution to new bulk store problem
              • No master plan/impact Assessment Report provided by Hospital despite request
                  from City officers
              • Council should consider the dangerous precedent being created
              • Traffic flow and safety issues inadequately considered or documented.
              • Called for deferral


           7.3.9   Mr Robert Mahar representing South Perth Hospital, South Tce, South Perth
                   - Agenda Item 9.3.1

           Mr Mahar spoke for the officer recommendation and made the following comments:
              • Day surgery now commonplace in community hospitals
              • Number of visitors reduced when maternity section closed
              • Visitor parking requirements are now minimal
              • Car park mostly used by people using Ernest Johnson Oval
              • Didn’t believe extra bays would all be utilised
              • Traffic study was undertaken

                                              11
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                •
                •   The bulk store and access from Burch Street is essential
                •   Patient delivery and pick-ups done in South Terrace
                •   Master plan was submitted for the hospital site only
                •   Officers calling for broader master plan beyond the main site
                •   Manager Development Services has advised the matter is negotiable to allow it to
                    meet the recommended condition of planning approval

                Note: The Mayor and Councillor Macpherson returned to the Chamber at 8.30 pm



     Closing of Deputations
     The Mayor closed Deputations at 8.30pm and thanked everyone for their comments.


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


8.   ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIRPERSON
     8.1    Method of Dealing with Agenda Business
            The Mayor advised the meeting of the en bloc method of dealing with the items on the
            Agenda. He then sought confirmation from the Chief Executive Officer that all the en bloc
            items had been discussed at the Agenda Briefing held on 16 August 2005.

            The Chief Executive Officer confirmed this was correct.


            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 8.1- EN BLOC RESOLUTION
            Moved Cr Maddaford, Sec Cr Trent

            That the officer recommendations in relation to Agenda Items 9.2.2,, 9.3.2. 9.3.5, 9.3.9,
            9.5.1, 9.5.3, 9.5.4, 9.6.1, 9.6.2, 9.6.3, 9.6.4, 9.6.5 and 9.6.6 be carried en bloc.

                                                                                               CARRIED ( 11/0)




                                                 12
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


9.   REPORTS

     9.0   MATTERS REFERRED FROM PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETINGS

           9.0.1   Delegated Legislation - Amendments to Special Events Local Law 2005 and
                   Parking and Amendments Local Law 2004 (Item 9.5.3 referred from July 2005)

           Location:                        City of South Perth
           Applicant:                       Council
           File Ref:                        GR/502
           Date:                            2 September 2005
           Author:                          Sean McLaughlin, Legal & Governance Officer
           Reporting Officer:               Cliff Frewing, Chief Executive Officer

           Summary
           At the July 2005 council meeting Council resolved to make particular amendments to the
           Special Events Local Law 2005 and the Parking and Amendments Local Law 2005 in
           accordance with concerns raised by the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
           (the Committee) relating to certain aspects of their implementation. The response was
           provided to the Joint Standing Committee and no further correspondence has been received
           on this topic.

           Part (f) of the Council resolution reads as follows:

           (f)     the CEO present amendments to the local laws as outlined above for a first
                   reading at the September 2005 Council meeting.

           The CEO was requested to present these amendments to the September 2005 Council
           meeting in order to initiate the procedure for making and amending local laws set out in
           section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA) so as to enable the amended local
           laws to be in place prior to January 2006 in support of the City’s strategy for managing
           special events such as Skyshow.

           The complete revised amendment draft Local Law is now ready for adoption for public
           advertising.

           Background
           At the November 2004 council meeting Council adopted a new Special Events Local Law
           and adopted the Parking and Amendments Local Law by which it amended the City’s
           Parking Local Law 2003.

           The Special Events Local Law and the Parking Amendments Local Law were intended to
           enable the City to better regulate and manage a range of anti-social behaviours associated
           with previous Skyshows.

           However, the manner in which these regulations was to be implemented pursuant to the new
           local laws was challenged by the Committee as being not authorised by the LGA,
           inconsistent with the Interpretation Act 1984 and arguably invalid.

           The City accordingly resolved to amend the offending provisions in line with the
           Committee’s deliberations but not so as to reduce their effectiveness in managing the
           Skyshow event.




                                                 13
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Comment
           It is proposed make the necessary amendments to the above local laws by putting them in a
           single document titled “Special Events and Parking Local Laws (Amendment) Local Law”.

           The text of the proposed local law is set out as Attachment 9.0.1.

           Purpose and effect of proposed law
           Section 3.12 of the LGA requires that, at a council meeting, the person presiding is to give
           notice to the meeting of the purpose and effect of the proposed law by ensuring that:

           (i)     the purpose and effect of the proposed law is included in the agenda for that
                   meeting; and;
           (ii)    the minutes of the meeting include the purpose and effect of the proposed law.

           Purpose and effect
           The purpose of the proposed law is to ensure that the Special Events and Parking local laws
           are authorised by, and are consistent with, the relevant legislation; but not so as to reduce the
           effectiveness of the local law in managing anti-social behaviour at special events conducted
           in and around the City of South Perth.

           Consultation
           The adoption of a local law is identified as requiring Level 2 consultation within the
           consultation matrix of the City’s Communication and Consultation Policy. This incorporates
           a number of consultation strategies which includes those required by the LGA with respect
           to local and state-wide public notices. For example, the proposed amendments to the local
           laws will be advertised in the West Australian and Southern Gazette newspapers.

           Members of the public have six weeks after these notices are published to make submissions
           to the City (the submission period).

           After the last day for submissions, the local government is to consider any submissions made
           and may make the local law as proposed or a local law that is not significantly different from
           what was proposed.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The proposal is consistent with the local law making procedure provided in the Local
           Government Act 1995.

           Financial Implications
           Nil.

           Strategic Implications
           The proposal is consistent with Strategic Goal 5:

           “To be a professional, effective and efficient organisation.”

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.0.1

           That….
           (a)    Council adopt the “Special Events and Parking Local Laws (Amendment) Local
                  Law” Attachment 9.0.1 for the purposes of public advertising and consultation and
                  other matters contained in the local law making procedure required pursuant to
                  section 3.12 of the Local Government Act; and
           (b)    at the conclusion of the submission period, a further report on the outcome be
                  presented to the earliest available meeting of Council.


                                                 14
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005



           The Mayor read aloud the Purpose and Effect from the Officer’s report
           “The purpose of the proposed law is to ensure that the Special Events and Parking local
           laws are authorised by, and are consistent with, the relevant legislation; but not so as to
           reduce the effectiveness of the local law in managing anti-social behaviour at special events
           conducted in and around the City of South Perth.”

           MOTION
           Cr Cala moved the Officer Recommendation. Sec Cr Maddaford.

           MEMBER COMMENTS FOR / AGAINST MOTION - POINTS OF CLARIFICATION

           Cr Jamieson against the Officer recommendation
               • There were serious problems with the local law and he wanted to get it
                  improved
               • Wanted definition of large objects
               • Wanted explanation of what was permitted to be up to 2.5 metres and
                  everything else less than 1.5 metres
               • CEO has acknowledged that the definition is flawed
               • Will there be exemptions?
               • Gave examples of blankets, tarpaulins and towels as being ‘large’ objects
                  within the current definition
               • Is the City going to pursue breaches without fear or favour?

           FORESHADOWED MOTION
           Cr Jamieson foreshadowed that if the motion was lost he would be moving an
           alternative motion to provide a non-flawed definition of a large object as Council
           must come up with a workable definition.

           Cr Jamieson stated that he would like the votes recorded.

           Mayor point of clarification
           Was Cr Jamieson calling for a division?

           Cr Jamieson Point of Order
           LGA, 5.25 Part (d) allows votes to be recorded without calling for a division.

           Mayor point of clarification
           Is it possible for Council to design a policy about exceptions to the definition of large
           items?

           The Chief Executive Officer responded that it would be something Council could
           look into.

           Cr Smith for the Officer recommendation
               • Could go on for years and still not come up with a definitive policy
               • Would have to define all the exceptions which is not practical
               • A good law may have some undefined elements but logic and good sense
                  should prevail
               • Cannot properly define all the variations you will encounter
               • Officers when adjudicating should use common sense
               • If the officers apply the local law inappropriately there is an avenue for
                  people to come back to the Council
               • Adopt the officer’s recommendation


                                                 15
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005



            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.0.1
           The Mayor put the Motion

           That….
           (a)    Council adopt the “Special Events and Parking Local Laws (Amendment) Local
                  Law” Attachment 9.0.1 for the purposes of public advertising and consultation and
                  other matters contained in the local law making procedure required pursuant to
                  section 3.12 of the Local Government Act; and
           (b)    at the conclusion of the submission period, a further report on the outcome be
                  presented to the earliest available meeting of Council.


            NOTE: Crs CALA, MADDAFORD, SMITH, DOHERTY, TRENT, McDOUGALL,
                 MACPHERSON, OZSDOLAY AND THE MAYOR VOTED IN FAVOUR
                 OF THE RECOMMENDATION.

                    CR JAMIESON AND WELLS VOTED AGAINST


                                                                                     CARRIED (9/2)


     9.1   GOAL 1 :       CUSTOMER FOCUS
           Nil

     9.2   GOAL 2:        COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT

            9.2.1   Request for Funding - Como Bowling and Recreation Club

           Location:                      Corner Sandgate and Hensman Streets
           Applicant:                     Como Bowling and Recreation Club
           File Ref:                      CP/602/2
           Date:                          1 September 2005
           Author:                        Neil Kegie, Acting Manager Community Development
           Reporting Officer:             Roger Burrows: Director Corporate and Community
           Services

           Summary
           This report is to consider a funding request from the Como Bowling Club for the upgrade
           and renovation to the club house and surrounds.

           Background
           The Como Bowling and Recreation Club is an incorporated not for profit sporting group that
           nominates bowling teams in state competitions and provides other bowling competitions and
           recreation. The Club operates from City owned premises on Crown land vested to the City
           for the purpose of recreation under a five year lease (2003 - 2008) with an option to renew
           for a further five years. Consistent with statewide and national trends regarding bowling
           clubs, membership of the Como Bowling Club has reduced in recent years with a current
           membership base of approximately 55.

           On 1 August 2005 the City received correspondence from the Club seeking up to $126,824
           to fund a range of upgrades to the club room and surrounds. This amount is based on a July
           2004 Building Condition report commissioned by the City, in which the most significant
           issues to be addressed were; boundary walls, fencing and gates, electrical system and

                                               16
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           internal ceilings. The club advises that it has spent over $20,000 on a range of internal and
           external maintenance plus voluntary labour, and donated goods and materials.

           The club would like to complete the maintenance and upgrades by January 2006 to coincide
           with a parliamentary carnival that has been scheduled.

           Comment
           The City implements a Funding Assistance program incorporating a range of funding
           categories that are available on a competitive basis to community groups and individuals.
           Because of the amount requested, and the nature and timing of the request the club is not
           eligible to be funded through this program. Funding from the City in response to this request
           could be made only through a loan or donation.

           This report recommends against the request based on the following;
           •     No funds have been allocated for this work in the 2005/06 annual Budget;
           •     No other organisations or agencies have been approached for funding. Typically this
                 type of request can be funded in part through the Community Sporting and Recreation
                 Facilities Fund (CSRFF) which is administered by the Department of Sport and
                 Recreation and through which the City generally allocates its funding for facility
                 developments;
           •     The City is about to commission a study which will focus on community demand for
                 sporting and recreational facilities. The aim is to combine the findings of this study
                 with the Building Condition report to determine the most equitable and efficient use of
                 budgets in the short, medium and long terms. Accordingly, it would be premature to
                 allocate substantial funds to this project without considering the needs and viability of
                 other community sporting and recreational clubs.
           •     Supporting the request would be inconsistent with the recommendations of a March
                 2003 Report into Bowling Facilities in the Metropolitan Area commissioned by Bowls
                 WA which indicated the sustainability of Bowling Clubs in the Perth Metropolitan
                 Region. In this report, Como Bowling Club was identified in a category of Clubs that
                 showed a weakness in membership or financial viability that would impact negatively
                 on their long-term future. In relation to these Clubs, it was recommended that
                 Councils examine their possible role and support in the process of rationalising club
                 provision in line with their existing studies, plans and funding programs. This
                 recommendation was also recently endorsed by the South East Regional Recreation
                 Advisory Group’s (SERRAG’s) update of its Regional Facility Strategy.

           Consultation
           The City received this request from the Como Bowling Club. City officers in the areas of
           Community Development, Parks and Environment, Planning and Chief Executive’s Office
           have been involved in the development of this report.

           Policy Implications
           Nil

           Financial Implications
           Nil should the recommendation be adopted

           Strategic Implications
           The recommendations of this report align with Goal 6 – Financial Viability of the City’s
           Strategic Plan

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

           The recommendations of this report are also consistent with the City’s Strategic Financial
           Plan 2005/2006 – 2009/2010 which lists the study to be undertaken in 2005/2006 into

                                                17
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           sporting and recreational facilities as a major initiative which will provide direction for the
           allocation of resources to maintain and upgrade these facilities.

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.2.1

           That the Como Bowling Club be advised that the City:
           (a)     is unable to accede to the funding request of $126,824 for the upgrade and
                   renovation of the clubhouse and surrounds on the grounds that:
                   (i) no funds have been allocated for this work in the 2005/06 annual Budget;
                   (ii) no other organisations or agencies have been approached for funding.
                   (iii) it would be inequitable to reallocate substantial funds to this project without
                         considering the needs and viability of other sporting and recreation clubs, and
                   (iv) supporting the request would be inconsistent with the recommendations of the
                         Bowls WA report, also recently endorsed by SERRAG’s update of its Regional
                         Facility Strategy.
           (b)     is able to assist the Club in identifying alternative potential sources of funding for
                   the project; and
           (b)     will consult with the Como Bowling Club as a part of the study into community
                   demand for sporting and recreational facilities.

           MOTION
           Cr Maddaford moved the Officer Recommendation. Sec Cr Trent

           MEMBER COMMENTS FOR / AGAINST MOTION - POINTS OF CLARIFICATION

           Cr Maddaford opening for the Motion
              • Not in a position to provide any money at this stage
              • Should be looking at all community facilities to assess how we can help them
              • Not slamming the door - we are just not in a position to address this request at
                 present

           Cr Trent for the Motion
               • Fully endorses that the state organisations are looking to consolidate, but are yet to
                  bring down reports.
               • Should support the Club as they are part of our community and get on with the
                  work

           Cr Smith against the Officer Recommendation
               • Council tried to rationalise bowling clubs a couple of years ago without success
               • Not the club’s fault the facility is of a 50’s era
               • Should be Council’s responsibility
               • Club is doing their best to attract patronage and we should be looking after them
               • Don’t believe Council hasn’t got the funds
               • Suggest that Council could liaise with the President to get a more accurate figure
               • If the officer recommendation was adopted, Cr Smith would move in 3 months time
                  to look at helping with the electricals
               • We have to protect our communities and sporting facilities and it’s about time we
                  helped them
               • Concerned about the public safety risk

           Mayor point of clarification
           I do not think that this Council is denying help to the bowling club. The deputation did not
           bring forward how much the works could be. The Mayor advised that on the information
           provided tonight Council might find it appropriate to defer as it is not essential that it be
           resolved tonight.


                                                  18
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

            Cr Ozsdolay for the Officer recommendation
                • It is entirely proper for Council not to accede to this funding request
                • Need tighter details of the required amounts
                • We need to sit down and discuss

            Mayor point of clarification
            If it is defeated tonight it cannot come back for three months?

            The Chief Executive Officer confirmed that this was correct. Council could defer it however,
            and consider it again sooner than in three months time.

            Cr McDougall against the Officer recommendation
               • We are not showing any compassion
               • Amount is not large
               • Some information in the Officer’s report is not correct eg. 55 members
               • Tonight’s deputation spoke of 72 playing members and 200 social members
                  involved in the club
               • Club has history
               • Have given support to other clubs

            Cr Doherty point of clarification
            Seeking guidance in moving a deferral.

            The Mayor replied that the Motion would have to be defeated. That would be against the
            wishes of the person who made the deputation.

            The Mayor put the Motion                                                        LOST (5/6)

            FORESHADOWED MOTION
            Moved Cr Doherty, Sec Cr Smith

            That this item be deferred to investigate options to support the club in identifying other
            funding possibilities and the results be brought to the next Council meeting.

            Cr McDougall point of clarification
            Are we asking the bowling club how much money is required?

            The Chief Executive Officer said Cr Doherty had moved for deferral to investigate funding
            options and that the matter be brought forward to the October meeting.

            Cr McDougall Question
            What is their financial position?

            The Mayor replied that the Club needed to advise how much they require for essential
            works.

             COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.2.1
            The Mayor put the Foreshadowed Motion

            That this item be deferred to investigate options to support the club in identifying funding
            possibilities and be brought to the next Council meeting.

                                                                                    CARRIED ( 11/0)
     Note: As at December 2005 Como Bowling Club did not come back with a submission to support
           their funding request. Therefore there was no further report to Council.


                                                  19
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           9.2.2   Draft Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan

           Location:                        City of South Perth
           Applicant:                       Council
           File Ref:                        CC/SA/3
           Date:                            1 September 2005
           Author:                          Neil Kegie, Community Services Coordinator
           Reporting Officer:               Roger Burrows, Director Corporate and Community Services

           Summary
           To present the City’s first Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan in draft form.

           Background
           A new approach to Community Safety and Crime Prevention was announced by the Minister
           for Community Safety in October 2003 which outlined a new role for Local Government
           Authorities in the coordination of Community Safety and Crime Prevention initiatives. This
           approach sees LGAs entering into Community Safety and Crime Prevention Partnerships
           with the State Government and then developing comprehensive Community Safety and
           Crime Prevention Plans in order to have priority access to a range of State Government
           Funding Programs coordinated by the Office of Crime Prevention. The development of a
           Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan for the City follows a Council resolution
           Council in July 2004 to enter into such a partnership.

           “That….
           (a)   the City proceeds with the first stage of the partnership process and enters into a
                 Community Safety and Crime Prevention Partnership agreement with the State
                 Government;
           (b)   City officers work with the Office of Crime Prevention (OCP) and other key
                 stakeholders to develop a Three Year Community Safety Plan; and
           (c)   in entering an agreement the City clearly articulates to the State Government that
                 it will not accept any responsibility for dealing directly with crime or the
                 perpetrators of crime, that ongoing responsibility belonging to the State
                 Government and Policy Service.”

           The development of the plan follows guidelines determined by the Office of Crime
           Prevention which set out four objectives:

           • Make the City of South Perth a safer community through community connectedness and
             ownership of community safety and crime prevention strategies;
           • Sustain a partnership between the City, State Government agencies, community and
             business to work towards community safety outcomes;
           • Identify community safety and crime prevention priorities for the City of South Perth by
             researching current criminal and antisocial activity and consulting with the community;
             and
           • Set up a process for monitoring and evaluating crime prevention initiatives and strategies
             that form part of the plan

           The draft plan, Attachment 9.2.2, brings together work already being undertaken by the
           City and other stakeholders as well as identifying initiatives for the future. It is intended to
           be a living document which will be monitored and reviewed on a regular basis by a Local
           Partnership Group comprising representatives from the City, WA Police, State Government
           Agencies and Community Stakeholder Groups.




                                                 20
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Comment
           The draft plan was developed over a three month period between March and June 2005 and
           included an extensive initial consultative phase. Over this time information was gathered
           regarding the perceptions of safety and crime in the community as well as factual data from
           the WA Police, Office of Crime Prevention and various other sources.

           Analysis of this information by the Local Partnership Group resulted in the identification of
           six issues considered to be significant in the City of South Perth community:
           • Fear of Crime
           • Home Burglary
           • Theft from Cars
           • Safety in Public Places
           • Antisocial behaviour
           • Road Safety

           Five broad strategies were developed to address these issues:
           • Develop cooperative partnerships with stakeholders to strengthen and sustain
              communities and neighbourhoods;
           • Provide information, education and services to the community to reduce the risks of
              being a victim of crime;
           • Apply Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles in broader community
              planning;
           • Ensure accurate crime data and information is available to the community; and
           • Provide activities and programs to support early intervention

           Each of the strategies contains a number of general activities and then a number of specific
           tasks related to the priority areas. Some of these tasks will be implemented by the City; some
           by the City in partnership with external groups and some solely by external groups.

           The development of the draft plan has been a very positive process, with a range of
           stakeholders bringing a significant collective experience to consider a wide range of
           community safety issues and ways to address them.

           Consultation
           The initial consultative phase to gather information for the draft plan included:
           • A community survey which was advertised in the City update, Neighbourhood Watch
             Newsletters, on the City’s website and distributed directly at libraries, seniors centres,
             schools, the Community Safety Resource Centre and businesses.
           • Two regular Neighbourhood Watch meetings were utilised as public forums to workshop
             the plan. These were advertised in the City update and through the NHW newsletter.
           • Stakeholder interviews were held with organisations including WA Police, SPARKYS
             (South Perth and Victoria Park Youth Services), Senior Citizens Centres, Curtin
             University, Southcare South Perth Church of Christ, Edventures (previously known as
             Karawara Community Project) as well as internal interviews with COSP officers.
           • The Local Partnership Group held 2 workshops to identify the issues and develop
             strategies to address them.
           • City officers have liaised closely with the Office of Crime Prevention to ensure that the
             development of the plan conforms to all necessary requirements.
           • A Council briefing on the draft plan was held on 30/8/05.

           It is envisaged that if endorsed in a draft from, the plan will undergo an ‘out for comment’
           period prior to being presented to council for final endorsement.




                                                21
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Strategic Implications
           The development of a Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan aligns with Goal 2 of
           the City’s Strategic Plan 2004 - 2008;

           ‘To foster a strong sense of community and a prosperous business environment’
           Specifically it relates to Strategy 2.3 - ‘Enhance the Safer City Program to support,
           develop and deliver residential and business initiatives that reduce crime and promote
           safety’.

           And also with Strategy 1.13 of the City’s Connected Community Plan 2005 - 2008 -

           ‘Implement the Safer City Action Plan and commence the development of a Community
           Safety Plan in line with the OCP funding and incorporating Crime Prevention through
           Environmental Design’

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           Nil.

           Financial Implications
           Endorsement of the plan will result in the payment of a $20,000 incentive grant from the
           Office of Crime Prevention to address key priority issues as identified in the plan. This
           amount has been incorporated in the 2005/06 Budget. Endorsement of the plan will also
           provide priority access to a range of Community Safety Funding Programs through the
           Office of Crime Prevention.

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND
            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.2.2

           That….
           (a)    the draft Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan, Attachment 9.2.2, be
                  endorsed, following which community feedback be sought though an ‘out for
                  comment’ period; and
           (b)    feedback received during the ‘out for comment’ period be considered and a report
                  presented to Council at the earliest available meeting for final adoption of the
                  Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan.

                                                               CARRIED EN BLOC RESOLUTION


     9.3   GOAL 3:        ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

            DISCLOSURE: MAYOR JOHN COLLINS : ITEM 9.3.1
            “I wish to declare a conflict of interest in Agenda Item 9.3.1 on the Council Agenda for
            the meeting to be held 27 September 2005.

            Due to my close association with Members of the Board of the South Perth Hospital in
            Fortune Street, South Perth I will leave the Council Chamber and not seek to discuss or
            vote on this matter.”

            DISCLOSURE: CR MACPHERSON : ITEM 9.3.1
            “I wish to declare a conflict of interest in Agenda Item 9.3.1 on the Council Agenda for the
            meeting to be held 27 September 2005.

            I disclose that I am a Member of the Board of the South Perth Hospital in Fortune Street, South
            Perth.

                                              22
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


            In view of this I will leave the Council Chamber and not seek to discuss or vote on this matter.”

            Note: The Mayor asked the Deputy Mayor to take over the Chair and he and Cr
            Macpherson left the Chamber at 9.10 pm


            9.3.1      Proposed two-storey extensions and refurbishment to the South Perth
                       Hospital. Lot 145 (No. 76) South Tce and (Nos. 25, 26) Fortune St, South
                       Perth.

           Location:                     Lot 145 (No. 76) South Terrace and (Nos. 25, 26) Fortune
                                         Street, South Perth
           Applicant:                    Silver Thomas Hanley, Architects for South Perth Hospital Inc.
           File Ref:                     11/349 11.2005.275.1 SO2
           Date:                         2 September 2005
           Author:                       Gina Fraser, Senior Planning Officer
           Reporting Officer:            Steve Cope, Director Strategic and Regulatory Services

           Summary
           The application for planning approval is for extensions to, and refurbishment of the South
           Perth Hospital involving the addition of 24 ‘day surgery’ beds and related facilities, and
           additional administrative offices on the first floor, among other modifications. The proposal
           will involve the removal of 12 existing hospital beds and the removal of 9 existing car bays.
           Council’s discretion is sought in regard to setback variations. The Council also needs to
           determine issues relating to car parking. The recommendation is for approval, subject to a
           number of standard and special conditions.

           Background
           Drawings related to this proposal are provided as Confidential Attachment 9.3.1(a) to this
           report. The applicant’s submission describing the proposal, including an explanation of the
           Day Surgery Unit Function and a Traffic Impact Assessment Report prepared for the
           Hospital by David Porter Consulting Engineer, is provided as Attachment 9.3.1(b).

           Zoning:                       Private Institution
           Density coding:               R15
           Lot area:                     8,330 sq. metres
           Height limit:                 7.0 metres
           Development Potential:        Additions and alterations to existing hospital ((Day surgery
                                         facilities and additional administrative offices).

           For the purpose of this report, the entire medical complex contained on Lot 145, including the
           Hospital, Endoscopy Consulting Rooms, Roy Richardson House Consulting Rooms, Perth
           Imaging Consulting Rooms, the Maxillo Facial Clinic Consulting Rooms, visiting doctors,
           surgeons and staff, and any other uses or personnel within the complex, are all jointly referred
           to as ‘the Hospital’.

           In accordance with Council Delegation DC342, the proposal is being referred to the Council
           meeting because it falls within the following categories described in the Delegation:

           (a)   Large Scale Development proposals: Proposals involving non-residential development
                 which, in the opinion of the delegated officer, are likely to have a significant effect on the
                 City.
           (b)   The Exercise of a Discretionary Power: Proposals representing a significant
                 departure from the No. 6 Town Planning Scheme (setbacks, car parking), where it is
                 proposed to grant planning approval.


                                                  23
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           In relation to item (a) above, the extent of amenity impact arising from the currently
           proposed additions will not be significant. However, as part of the overall Hospital
           operations, the impact on the neighbourhood of the entire establishment is already
           significant. The proposal will further intensify the use of the site.

           The location of the Hospital is shown on the aerial photograph below. The Hospital site, Lot
           145, consists of two amalgamated parcels of land, being No. 76 South Terrace (shown on the
           photograph as ‘26 Fortune Street’) and No. 25 Fortune Street, comprising part of the car
           park on the western side of Fortune Street. The two parcels were required to be
           amalgamated as a condition of a previous planning approval for Consulting Rooms within
           the Hospital complex. Lot 44 (No. 27) Fortune Street forms part of the Hospital car park on
           a separate lot, and is shown hatched. The City’s Ernest Johnson car park between Burch and
           Pilgrim Streets, which is referred to in this report, is also shown on the aerial photograph:




           (The above image may be viewed in colour electronically.)

           Comment


                                                24
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           (a)   Description of the Proposal
                 The applicant’s report, Attachment 9.3.1(b), describes the proposal. The application
                 is for two-storey additions to the South Perth Hospital, mainly comprising day surgery
                 facilities, and additional administrative offices and boardroom above. The proposed
                 works are located along the eastern (park) side of the site, predominantly towards the
                 southern (South Terrace) side of the site where the upper (administrative) storey is
                 being extended. In extending the building into this corner, the 9 existing car parking
                 bays will be removed. This issue is discussed under the ‘Car Parking’ heading below.

                 The proposal also includes other internal modifications to parts of the building, and
                 extensions to the building near Burch Street. More specifically, the proposal includes:
                 • addition of one Operating Theatre and one Endoscopy Procedure room and
                     associated clean-up areas;
                 • refurbishment and expansion of existing Recovery and Holding bays;
                 • refurbishment of existing Sterile Supply Department (SSD);
                 • expansion of existing Day Procedure Unit to 24 cubicles;
                 • provision of additional clean and dirty storage facilities;
                 • provision of new entry off existing lobby to expanded Day Procedure Unit;
                 • provision of new Reception, Waiting, WCs and office accommodation for the
                     expanded Day Procedure Unit;
                 • addition of a new lift from ground to first floor;
                 • deletion of 12 existing in-patient beds to accommodate the proposed Day Procedure
                     Unit expansion;
                 • removal of 9 doctors’ parking bays from the site.

                 The project will be constructed in five continuous stages to enable the maximum
                 functioning of the building over the construction period of approximately 12 to 14
                 months.

           (b)   Plot Ratio
                 The proposal complies with the requirements of Table 3 of Town Planning Scheme
                 No. 6 (TPS6) with respect to the maximum permitted plot ratio of 0.6 for the Private
                 Institution zone.

           (c)   Landscaping
                 The proposal complies with the requirements of Table 3 of TPS6 with respect to the
                 25% minimum required area of landscaping for the Private Institution zone.

           (d)   Setbacks
                 The applicant is asking Council to exercise discretion under clause 7.8 of TPS6 with
                 respect to the following setback variations:

                         Boundary        Prescribed by Table 3          Existing            Proposed
                                                of TPS6            Minimum Setback     Minimum Setback
                   Burch Street          7.5 metres              0 metres            1.0 metre to enlarged
                                                                                     reception / pick-up;
                                                                                     3.0 metres to new bulk
                                                                                     store
                   South Terrace         7.5 metres              4.8 metres          4.0 metres for stair well
                                                                                     and corner of main
                                                                                     building with balcony
                                                                                     above;
                                                                                     7.5 metres to main
                                                                                     building
                   Fortune Street        7.5 metres              3.5 metres          N/A - No new work
                                                                                     proposed
                   Eastern side (park)   4.5 metres              1.2 metres          1.2 metres to main

                                                25
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                                                                                    building


                The Hospital is currently constructed closer to all boundaries than the setbacks
                prescribed by TPS6. The following specific comments relate to the three boundaries
                affected by the current proposals:

                (i)   Burch Street
                      The northern side of the site is predominantly used for plant, storage, laundry
                      and kitchen facilities, in addition to the Perth Imaging Centre on the corner of
                      Fortune Street. Burch Street provides for Ambulance access to the Hospital and
                      leads to the southern entry to the City’s Ernest Johnson car park. There is one
                      residential property opposite the Hospital on the north-eastern corner of Burch
                      and Fortune Streets, facing the latter.

                      Proposed works along the Burch Street side of the Hospital site include:

                      •     New bulk store 3.0 metres back from Burch Street: This is proposed to be
                            set back approximately 3.0 metres from the lot boundary, with a new
                            vehicular access for deliveries to the store, immediately to the west of the
                            formal Hospital entrance. Comments from submitters raise concerns with
                            respect to functionality, location, setback, vehicular access and visual
                            appeal of this new facility. These issues have been raised with the
                            architect, who advises that the facility is in the most appropriate location
                            for the following reasons:
                            - It has not been possible to find a location for the bulk store which
                              provides as functional a work flow for the Sterile Supply Department
                              and the remainder of the hospital, as that proposed.
                            - Aesthetically, the new bulk store has provided the opportunity to screen
                              the existing service delivery area from the existing Burch Street hospital
                              entrance.
                            - Aesthetically, the Burch street elevation has also been enhanced by the
                              addition of the bulk store and additional screening along the street
                              boundary.

                            In terms of screening along the street, this would be difficult because a
                            new vehicular access point for deliveries to the new bulk store is also
                            proposed. The screening of the service courtyard by the bulk store
                            building would also be unnecessary if solid brick screening were to be
                            provided along the boundary, perhaps with some landscaping in front of
                            it.

                            Notwithstanding the project architect’s stated reasons for the proposed
                            siting of the new bulk store, the City officers are concerned about the
                            location and access to the bulk store. The setback of 3.0 metres does not
                            permit a delivery vehicle to reverse up to the roller-door without
                            protruding onto the street. This is unacceptable and a functional solution
                            needs to be found.

                      •     Expanded hospital entry set back 1.0 metre from Burch Street: The
                            existing reception/pick-up area on Burch Street is proposed to be
                            expanded under the existing roof. The entry is currently set back 2.5
                            metres from Burch Street. The infill under the main roof will bring the
                            newly enclosed portion of the entry to within 1.0 metre of the street
                            boundary. With growing reliance on car parking in Burch Street and in



                                              26
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                             the City’s Ernest Johnson car park by patients, visitors and doctors, this is
                             a necessary hospital entry facility.

                       Having regard to the existing minimal setbacks from Burch Street, the proposed
                       setback from Burch Street to the expanded entry / reception area would have
                       little effect on residential amenity. It is recommended that the reduced Burch
                       Street setback be approved for this portion of the application.

                       The proposed location of the bulk store is not acceptable. This is supported by
                       comments from submitters who were consulted during the neighbour
                       consultation process. The facility needs to be relocated, however the project
                       architect has advised that there is no suitable alternative location. The proposed
                       bulk store should be deleted unless a functional alternative location can be
                       found.     A condition of approval to this effect is contained in the
                       recommendation.

                (ii)   South Terrace
                       The proposed reduced setback from South Terrace will have limited impact on
                       residential amenity in the locality. Immediately adjoining the Hospital site is a
                       park and recreation reserve. Existing Hospital setbacks along South Terrace
                       range from 20 metres to 5.0 metres. The proposed additions are predominantly
                       set 7.5 metres back, with the closest corner being 4.0 metres. The proposed
                       additions comprise:

                       •     Ground floor: Day Procedure Unit facilities are to be provided at the
                             ground floor level, with corners of the building and an external stair at the
                             front set back approximately 4.0 metres from the street.

                       •     Upper floor: The external stairs lead from the ground to a balcony above.
                             The external edge of the roofed balcony is flush with the external wall of
                             the building below. The upper storey additions behind the balcony
                             comprise expanded administrative offices, boardroom and related
                             facilities, all set back 7.5 metres from South Terrace.

                       Comments have been received from submitters with respect to this setback,
                       particularly the reduced setback to the balcony. These comments are discussed
                       elsewhere in this report. However, the conclusion is that the reduced setback
                       for the lower floor and balcony is acceptable. With substantial portions of
                       building currently at approved setbacks of less than 7.5 metres, and the average
                       setback along South Terrace remaining at more than 7.5 metres (including the
                       proposed new works), the proposed additions will not be incompatible with the
                       building’s existing façade. It is recommended that the reduced South Terrace
                       setback be approved.

                (iii) Eastern Boundary
                      The only side of the site which does not face a street is the eastern boundary,
                      which faces the City’s Ernest Johnson Oval. In 1991-92, the Hospital acquired
                      some additional land then comprising a redundant right-of-way along this
                      boundary, and was later granted approval to build to within approximately 1.2
                      metres of the new boundary. The current proposal consists of:

                       •     Ground floor: Day Procedure Unit surgery and recovery cubicles which
                             have windows overlooking the park, set back approximately 1.3 metres
                             from the eastern site boundary, in line with the closest point of the
                             existing setback.



                                                27
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                       •     Upper floor: Above the new Day Procedure Unit are the administrative
                             rooms. The Manager’s office, Boardroom and an extension of the
                             balcony all extend beyond the prescribed 4.5 metre setback. At the upper
                             level, the main building is set back 2.7 metres from the boundary, with
                             full-width windows overlooking the park.

                       Comments have been raised by submitters living opposite in South Terrace
                       regarding the loss of views of City buildings resulting from the upper storey
                       additions. These comments are discussed elsewhere in this report. Having
                       regard to the fact that:
                       •       the park is raised to a higher level than the Hospital site;
                       •       there are no directly adjoining residential properties; and
                       •       the setback is consistent with existing approved setbacks;
                       it is recommended that the reduced eastern boundary setbacks at both levels be
                       approved.

           (e)   Building Height Limits
                 TPS6 prescribes a Building Height Limit of 7.0 metres to the site. The proposal
                 complies with the prescribed height limit.

           (f)   Parking
                 (i)  Current car parking provision on site
                      Historically, little car parking has been required for this site. The Hospital was
                      first approved as a 26-bed hospital with major and minor theatre facilities in
                      1954, when no car parking requirements existed. In 1958, 15 maternity beds
                      and labour ward were added. The Hospital has further expanded incrementally
                      over the years to its current size of 65 beds.

                       The City’s By-Law No. 1 ‘Classification of Districts’ operated between 1936
                       and 1972. During that period, hospitals were permitted in the Residential
                       District, and no car parking ratio was prescribed.

                       Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (1972-86), the City’s first district-wide Town
                       Planning Scheme, contained the City’s first car parking requirements for a
                       hospital. The ratio prescribed by TPS2 was ‘1 parking space for every patient’s
                       bed provided’. The same parking ratio was prescribed in TPS5 (1986 - 2003)
                       and later in TPS6 (2003). None of these Town Planning Schemes operated
                       retrospectively, so car parking was not required to be provided for pre-existing
                       development, only for new development approved under the respective
                       Schemes.

                       In 1993, Lot 44 (No. 27) Fortune Street, situated on the western side of that
                       street, was converted into a car park for 12 cars for use by the Hospital. In
                       2003, an application for conversion of the former Maternity ward into private
                       Consulting Rooms required the provision of a further 16 car bays under TPS6.
                       These were accommodated on Lot 45 (now part of Lot 145) adjoining and
                       expanding the existing car park on Lot 44 Fortune Street. In total, 40 car bays
                       have been provided on ‘hospital land’ for use by various medical functions
                       accommodated within the Hospital complex, as follows:
                       • 28 car bays on the western side of Fortune Street;
                       • 3 bays on the eastern side of Fortune Street; and
                       • 9 bays on South Terrace.

                       Table 1 within the David Porter Traffic Assessment Report, refer to
                       Attachment 9.3.1(b), identifies the actual parking provision for the various uses
                       within the Hospital complex. It calculates that, if assessed under current TPS6

                                               28
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                       standards, the site would be required to be provided with 156 bays - that is,
                       there is a historical ‘shortfall’ of 116 bays.

                (ii)   Current Proposal
                       The proposal involves new building works which will displace 9 existing on-site
                       car bays. Those bays are currently reserved for doctors’ use only. There is no
                       other space on the Hospital site for the provision of car parking bays. In terms
                       of its impact on car parking, the current proposal involves the following
                       development features:

                                            Proposal                        Car Parking Implication
                        Addition of 24 day surgery beds            +   need for 24 bays
                        Removal of 12 existing hospital beds       -   reduction in overall car parking shortfall
                                                                       by 12 bays
                        Removal of 9 on-site car bays              +   need for replacement of 9 bays

                       The Hospital argues that the removal of 12 hospital beds technically equates to a
                       reduced need for 12 car bays, which should be deducted from the total required
                       for the new facility and that this more than compensates for the loss of the 9 car
                       bays from the site. It is further suggested that the nature of the Day Procedure
                       Unit does not justify provision of additional long-term car bays, as patients will
                       not be permitted to drive to and from the Hospital for their day surgery
                       procedures, but will be dropped off by taxi or family. Rather, it is suggested
                       that the City could convert the existing kerbside bays along South Terrace to
                       short-stay bays for this purpose.

                       After careful consideration of this argument, the City does not agree that the
                       loss of 12 hospital beds compensates for the removal of the 9 doctors’ car bays
                       from the site, on the grounds that those hospital beds were not supported by on-
                       site car parking provisions initially. This argument would have been valid if the
                       existing hospital beds had been provided with adequate on-site car parking.

                       Further, while the Hospital has suggested that South Terrace kerbside bays
                       should be converted into short-stay bays, this is not an essential part of the
                       current application. Rather, this is a suggestion that the Council could consider
                       independently in the future, if the need is demonstrated following completion of
                       the proposed additions.

                       Despite their argument, the Hospital has offered to contribute towards the cost
                       of redesigning the City’s Ernest Johnson car park to accommodate
                       approximately 30 additional car bays. The improved design has not yet been
                       finalised, although preliminary assessment by the City’s Engineering
                       Infrastructure Department indicates that it is possible to increase the total
                       number of bays in the Ernest Johnson car park and in Burch Street by around 30
                       bays. Representatives of the Hospital have commenced discussions with the
                       City’s Engineering Infrastructure management, but no firm conclusions have
                       been reached.

                       Some of the Ernest Johnson car park bays could be designated by the City for
                       use by hospital doctors, surgeons and patients. This arrangement is permitted
                       under the City’s relevant Local Law. The recommendation in this report
                       addresses the need for car bays to be designated for such use.

                (iii) Town Planning Scheme No. 6 Provisions
                      Table 6 of TPS6 prescribes car parking ratios for different land uses. In the case
                      of a hospital, the requirement is one car bay per bed.


                                                   29
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                       Clause 6.3(1) states that “…in the case of Uses listed in Table 6, car parking
                       bays shall be provided to the respective numbers prescribed in that table”.

                       In order to establish the level of need for additional parking provision, it must
                       first be established that the proposal involves an additional number of beds.
                       The proposal adds 24 short-stay trolley beds for day surgery recovery. The
                       length of stay by a patient is immaterial in terms of the definition of a ‘bed’.
                       The word has many meanings and interpretations, but most definitions include
                       the specification that a bed is typically a flat piece of furniture used for
                       reclining, sleeping, rest, recuperation, or treatment.

                       Thus, the 24 new beds used by patients recuperating after day-surgery generate
                       a need for 24 car bays under Table 6 of TPS6.

                       The question now arises as to whether Council discretion ought to be exercised
                       to reduce the required number of car bays, taking into account:
                       • the removal of 12 hospital beds;
                       • the amount of public car parking already provided in the locality; and
                       • the current level of use of the existing public parking in the locality.

                       Table 2 of the David Porter report calculates that there is a total of 326 public
                       and private car parking bays in the vicinity. Of this total, however, the 46
                       privately owned bays should not be included, as they have been provided for
                       use in conjunction with other private developments, and it would be
                       inappropriate to include those bays in the Council’s consideration of the current
                       proposal. TPS6 does not contain any provisions enabling the parking for one
                       development to be made available for another independent development nearby.

                       In addition, in calculating the number of public bays nearby, the David Porter
                       total includes 100 car bays at the City’s Lesser Hall car park, and a further 10
                       along the western kerbside of Coode Street. Both of these locations are too far
                       from the Hospital site to be a realistic option for hospital patients, or for visitors
                       or doctors and surgeons. This leaves a total of 170 public car parking bays in
                       the vicinity of the Hospital which could be available for hospital patients in
                       competition with other uses in the area. In this regard, it is noted that some
                       public parking is used by a variety of users, including shoppers, residents, users
                       of Ernest Johnson Oval and clubrooms, patients of other medical rooms in the
                       area, and users of the Civic Centre Lesser Hall on specific occasions. Thus, not
                       all of the 170 bays will always be available for hospital use.

                       The Council needs to determine the total number of car parking bays, if any,
                       which will be realistically and actually needed as a result of this hospital
                       expansion proposal. It is suggested that the following calculation provides a
                       realistic number, having regard to the intensive nature of the use of the site, the
                       limited number of car bays currently provided on hospital land (40), the
                       provisions of Table 6 of TPS6, and competition by other users for use of other
                       public car parking in the area:

                                          Proposal                          Car Parking Requirement
                       Addition of 24 day surgery beds             +   24 new car bays
                       Removal of 9 on-site car bays               +   9 bays
                       TOTAL REQUIREMENT                           =   33 CAR BAYS

                (iv)   Car Parking Concession and ‘Cash in Lieu’ Provisions




                                                    30
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                    In relation to proposed improvements to, and expansion of public car parking
                    facilities in the near vicinity of the Hospital, comments from the City’s Manager,
                    Engineering Infrastructure are provided in Attachment 9.3.1(d).
                    Council discretion needs to be exercised regarding the lack of car parking proposed
                    on the Hospital site. The maximum number of car bays that the Council could
                    require for the proposal is 33, as calculated above. The Hospital has argued that
                    by removing 12 hospital beds, this reduces the car parking requirement for the
                    current proposal by 12, to 21 car bays. However, the City is of the view that the
                    ‘non-provision’ of 12 new car bays based on this rationale, when the Hospital
                    historically has an overall deficiency of around 116 bays, would be
                    inappropriate, particularly as on-site car parking was not required for hospital
                    beds, until after 1972. The notional 12 car bays are essential in reducing this
                    historic shortfall. Under these conditions, a car parking reduction representing
                    the 12 hospital beds should not be supported in calculating the total number of
                    car bays required.
                    Submissions have been received from some residents in the area who comment
                    on parking congestion in surrounding streets. These submitters urge the
                    Council not to approve a car parking concession, which they fear will place
                    more reliance upon street parking by users of the Hospital. These comments are
                    summarised, with officer responses, in Attachment 9.3.1(b). However, if the
                    Council is prepared to support a car parking concession in some form, two clauses
                    within TPS6 are relevant for consideration:
                    Clause 6.3(5) relating to cash in lieu of deficit car parking: The required number
                    of car parking bays that the Hospital should provide based on calculated need is
                    33 bays. It is not possible for these bays to be provided on site without
                    considerable demolition of existing buildings. Clause 6.3(5) of TPS6 is
                    intended for this situation. It provides that where a development needs to
                    provide car parking bays which cannot be accommodated on the development
                    site, the Council may accept cash in lieu of those ‘deficit bays’, subject to the
                    following requirements:

                    (A)      The Council must have firm proposals to carry out one or more of the
                             following range of car parking improvements in the vicinity of the
                             development site within five years of the planning approval:

                          “the provision of additional public parking bays in the vicinity of the
                          development site;
                          the acquisition of land for the purpose of providing such additional bays;
                          the construction or installation of facilities which will regulate the
                          permissible duration of stay of a vehicle occupying an existing bay; and
                          the implementation of measures designed to encourage the full capacity use
                          of existing public parking bays in the vicinity of the development site.”

                    (B)      The amount of the cash payment must be calculated according to the
                             following formula:

                                  The cost of constructing the deficit bays (estimated by Council to be in the order
                                  of $50,000 for approximately 30 car bays)
                              +   The market value of land component for the development site (i.e. for land that
                                  would have been needed for the deficit bays), has been calculated by the Valuer
                                  General on 7 September 2005 to be $920 per sq. metre, which equates to
                                  $644,920 for 33 bays, or $19,543 per bay.

                              =    50,000 + 644,920 = $ 694,920 TOTAL


                                                31
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


                    There is no discretionary power for the Council to vary the method of
                    calculating the amount of this cash payment of $694,920 for the required 33 car
                    bays. In this instance, since the Council is required to use the full amount of the
                    cash payment for the improvement of car parking facilities in the area within
                    five years, but the calculated cost for necessary works is only $50,000, clause
                    6.3(5) is inappropriate for consideration. In fact, the sum of $50,000 would
                    equate to only 2.6 car bays in monetary terms, which would involve granting a
                    ‘concession’ of around 30 car bays.

                    Implementation of clause 6.3(5) is not recommended.

                    Clause 7.8 relating to discretion to permit variations from Scheme provisions:
                    Clause 7.8 of TPS6 enables the Council to grant approval to a proposal which does
                    not comply with the Scheme with respect to a number of site requirements,
                    including car parking. The relevant provisions of clause 7.8(1)(a) read as follows:

                    “… if a development … does not comply with site requirements prescribed by the
                    Scheme with respect to … (v) car parking; … and (vii) related matters … the
                    Council may, notwithstanding that non-compliance, approve the application
                    unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Council thinks fit”.

                    This situation is safeguarded by paragraph (b) of clause 7.8(1), which reads:

                    “The power conferred by this sub-clause may only be exercised if the Council is
                    satisfied that:
                    (1) approval of the proposed development would be consistent with the orderly
                           and proper planning of the precinct and the preservation of the amenity of
                           the locality;
                    (2) the non-compliance will not have any adverse effect upon the occupiers or
                           users of the development or the inhabitants of the precinct or upon the
                           likely future development of the precinct; and
                    (3) the proposed development meets the objectives for the City and for the
                           precinct in which the land is situated as specified in the precinct Plan for
                           that precinct.”

                    Recommendation regarding car parking concession: In the case of the current
                    application, none of the required 33 car bays are proposed to be provided on
                    site. The extent of the variation would therefore comprise all of the 33 car bays.
                    It is recommended that the concession be conditionally granted under clause
                    7.8 of TPS6. This will enable almost the entire required number of car parking
                    bays to be provided at no cost to the City in a more realistic way. The
                    suggested condition be imposed under clause 7.8(1), would be that the Hospital
                    contribute the sum of $50,000 towards the cost of the City constructing at least
                    30 additional car bays in the near vicinity of the development site. The
                    provision of these additional car parking bays would help alleviate current
                    parking congestion in surrounding residential streets, thus improving the
                    amenity to nearby residents, while also supporting an established significant
                    regional facility, consistent with TPS6 objective 1.6(2)(l).

                    Future hospital expansion beyond current proposals: It is coincidental that a car
                    parking solution is available within the Ernest Johnson car park which will
                    enable provision of the required car bays for the current proposal. However,
                    should the Hospital wish to expand further in the future, such a consideration
                    might not be possible. The Hospital is urged to consider its long-term future


                                              32
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                       expansion needs, and to share this knowledge with the City to better assist the
                       long-term planning of the locality.

                       Possible consideration of a charge relating to hospital parking: Separately, the
                       Council may wish to consider the possibility of charging the Hospital for long-
                       term dedicated use of specific car bays in the Ernest Johnson car park. This
                       matter is raised for possible future consideration and is not presented for
                       detailed consideration as part of this report. The recommendation calls for a
                       further report to be presented to a later Council meeting regarding this
                       possibility.

                 (v)   Bicycle Parking
                       In addition to prescribing car parking requirements, Table 6 of TPS6 also
                       prescribes the number of bicycle parking bays to be provided, being 1 per 10
                       beds for use by staff and visitors. Under the current proposal, the requirement
                       for the proposed 24 additional beds would be 3 bicycle bays. None are
                       indicated on the plan, but could be easily accommodated. A condition to this
                       effect is included in the recommendation.

           (g)   Design
                 While the overall design of the building is acceptable to the City, it is noted that the
                 proposed Recovery Cubicles within the Day Procedure Unit are provided with wide
                 windows overlooking the adjoining Ernest Johnson oval and gardens. Although this is
                 pleasant for patients during their recovery period, the wide expansive windows could
                 result in some loss of privacy to patients lying in those cubicles. The adjoining
                 reserve has a higher ground level than the Hospital site, resulting in a clear view into
                 the proposed recovery area. Appropriate screening should be provided.

           (h)   Heritage
                 The ‘South Perth Community Hospital’ is listed in the City’s Municipal Heritage
                 Inventory (MHI) as Category ‘C’. This Category is defined as follows:

                 “Retain and conserve if possible: endeavour to conserve the significance of the place
                 through the provisions of the City of South Perth 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.”

                 The South Perth Hospital is said to have ‘aesthetic, historic, scientific, social and
                 rarity cultural heritage significance’ (MHI). It is as much important for its historic and
                 social role as a major community facility, as for its architectural qualities representing
                 the style of the 1950s and 60s. It was built in a “unique spirit of civic cooperation”,
                 lobbying and fund-raising by the residents of South Perth (West Australian, 26 April
                 1956), and by the South Perth Community Centre Association.

                 The relatively low heritage classification of the site, combined with the sympathetic
                 design of the additions, leads to the conclusion that no special consideration needs to
                 be given to the proposal in relation to ‘heritage’.

           (i)   Master Plan / Impact Assessment Report
                 Clause 7.6 of TPS6 enables the City to require the submission of an Impact
                 Assessment Report before considering an application. This has been required for
                 other major developments having a wide impact on the surrounding residential
                 neighbourhood. In the case of the South Perth Hospital, the use of the site has been
                 growing incrementally over the last 50 years, to the extent that it is now approaching
                 its limits in terms of TPS6 provisions relating to floor space and landscaped area,

                                                 33
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                 while providing limited car parking facilities on site. While the Hospital began as a
                 community venture, it now operates as a private commercial business, and continues
                 to purchase additional land in the vicinity, presumably for possible future expansion
                 of its operations.

                 To assist both the South Perth Hospital and the City in better assessing and
                 understanding the future long-term and immediate needs of the Hospital, the City has
                 requested the Hospital to provide it with an overall Master Plan / Impact Assessment
                 Report. Clause 7.6 of TPS6 reads as follows:

                 “Before considering an application for planning approval, the Council may require
                 an Impact Assessment Report addressing any or all of the matters referred to in
                 clause 7.5 and any issues in the relevant Precinct Plan. Any such Impact Assessment
                 Report is required to demonstrate that the application for planning approval is
                 complying with the objectives for the precinct in which the development will be
                 situated.”

                 Until now, the approach reflected in the various development applications lodged over
                 many years has been somewhat ‘piecemeal’ or ‘ad hoc’, with limited overall co-
                 ordination apparent to the City. It was considered that the requested Impact
                 Assessment Report would better assist the Hospital in its planning, while also
                 enabling the City to provide the best assistance to the Hospital to facilitate the most
                 appropriate future development. The Hospital’s continuing acquisition of additional
                 land indicates that future proposals are being considered by the Hospital.

                 It was requested that the Impact Assessment Report should address all of the
                 following matters, as well as any other relevant matter listed in clause 7.5 of TPS6 :

                 (i)   The overall expansion needs of the Hospital.
                 (ii)  The anticipated range of uses to be contained within the Hospital and proposed
                       to be established on surrounding hospital-owned land.
                 (iii) Operating hours of the various uses referred to in (ii) above.
                 (iv) A parking and traffic survey, examining all aspects of current and future
                       vehicular and pedestrian traffic to and from the Hospital and surrounding
                       hospital-owned land, based on current and future uses within the complex, and
                       the effect on surrounding residential streets.
                 (v) The anticipated built form and bulk of any proposed additions to the Hospital,
                       having regard to the maximum permitted floor space and other TPS6
                       limitations.
                 (vi) An examination of possible amenity impacts resulting from any proposed future
                       works.
                 (vii) A suggestion of possible solutions to problems identified in the Impact
                       Assessment Report, including various means of accommodating all of the
                       required car parking.

                 The current proposal has been adequately described in a report. However, to date, no
                 long-term Master Plan / Impact Assessment Report has been provided. The Council
                 will need to decide whether or not it wishes to pursue this request before considering
                 either the current or future expansion proposals. The recommendation which follows
                 calls for the Hospital’s submission of an expanded Impact Assessment Report prior to
                 any further development applications being lodged.

           (j)   Scheme Objectives
                 Relevant Scheme Objectives listed in Clause 1.6 of TPS6 include the following:




                                               34
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                 (1)   The overriding objective of the Scheme is to require and encourage
                       performance-based development in each of the 14 precincts of the City in a
                       manner which retains and enhances the attributes of the City and recognises
                       individual precinct objectives and desired future character as specified in the
                       Precinct Plan for each precinct.

                 The concept of performance-based development relates mainly to residential
                 development. However, the proposal is required to retain and enhance the attributes
                 of the City while meeting any relevant Precinct objectives. The proposal enhances the
                 key attribute of Precinct 3 : ‘South Perth Civic’, being the South Perth Hospital, a
                 prominent development within the Precinct. The proposal supports the following
                 Precinct objective relating to the South Perth Hospital:

                 To encourage the further development and integration of a civic/community node and
                 streetscape between the South Perth Community Hospital and the Council' Civic  s
                 Centre by facilitating additional para-medical facilities to develop adjacent to South
                 Terrace between Fortune and Sandgate Streets.

                 The proposal has also been assessed under, and has been found to meet, the following
                 general objectives listed in clause 1.6(2) of TPS6:

                 Objective (h): Utilise and build on existing community facilities and services and
                                make more efficient and effective use of new services and facilities.
                 Objective (l): Recognise and facilitate the continued presence of significant
                                regional land uses within the City and minimise the conflict between
                                such land use and local precinct planning.

           (k)   Other Matters to be Considered by Council
                 In addition to the issues relating to technical compliance of the project under TPS6, as
                 discussed above, in considering an application for planning approval, the Council is
                 required to have due regard to, and may impose conditions with respect to, other
                 matters listed in clause 7.5 of TPS6 which are, in the opinion of the Council, relevant
                 to the proposed development. Of the list of 24 listed matters, the following are
                 particularly relevant to the current application and require careful consideration:

                 “(b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any relevant
                      proposed new town planning scheme or amendment which has been granted
                      consent for public submissions to be sought;
                 (i)  the preservation of the amenity of the locality;
                 (j)  all aspects of design of any proposed development, including but not limited to,
                      height, bulk, orientation, construction materials and general appearance;
                 (m) the need for new or replacement boundary fencing having regard to its
                      appearance and the maintenance of visual privacy upon the occupiers of the
                      development site and adjoining lots;
                 (n) the extent to which a proposed building is visually in harmony with
                      neighbouring existing buildings within the focus area, in terms of its scale, form
                      or shape, rhythm, colour, construction materials, orientation, setbacks from the
                      street and side boundaries, landscaping visible from the street, and
                      architectural details;
                 (s) whether the proposed access and egress to and from the site are adequate and
                      whether adequate provision has been made for the loading, unloading,
                      manoeuvre and parking of vehicles on the site;
                 (t)  the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the proposal, particularly in
                      relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probable effect
                      on traffic flow and safety;



                                                35
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                 (w)   any relevant submissions received on the application, including those received
                       from any authority or committee consulted under clause 7.4;
                 (x)   any other planning considerations which the Council considers relevant.”

           (l)   Conclusion
                 No. 6 Town Planning Scheme compliance: The proposal complies with the Scheme
                 requirements with respect to plot ratio and landscaping.

                 Council discretion: The application requires the Council to exercise discretion to
                 approve reduced setbacks and car parking provision on site. It is recommended that
                 the reduced setbacks generally be approved, and that a concession be granted with
                 respect to on-site parking provision, subject to the applicant meeting the cost of works
                 required to achieve a 30-bay increase in off-site parking provision, estimated to be
                 $50,000.

                 Building design: The building design has been assessed by the City’s Design
                 Advisory Consultants as being compatible. Concern has been expressed by some
                 submitters regarding some design features, principally the location of the new bulk
                 store, fencing along Burch Street, and the location and overall height of the two-storey
                 portion of the additions. The issues have been discussed in the Schedule of
                 Submissions, Attachment 9.3.1(c), and modifications or conditions have been
                 recommended to achieve appropriate design improvements.

                 Car parking and traffic issues: Concern has been expressed by some residents with
                 respect to car parking and traffic issues, and their effect on the amenity of surrounded
                 residents. Some of these concerns have been upheld and appropriate conditions
                 applied. The issues are addressed fully in this report and in the accompanying
                 Schedule of Submissions.

                 The application has been assessed with particular regard to the wide range of matters
                 required by clauses 1.6, 6.3, 7.5, 7.8, Table 3, Table 6 and other relevant parts of
                 Town Planning Scheme No. 6, and it is recommended that the application be
                 conditionally approved.

           Consultation

           (a)   Design Advisory Consultants’ Comments
                 The design of the proposal was considered by the City’s Design Advisory Consultants
                 at their meeting held on 18 July 2005. The proposal was favourably received by the
                 Consultants. Their more specific comments are summarised below:

                 (i)   The Advisory Architects considered that the proposed additions are entirely
                       compatible with the design of the existing building.
                 (ii) The Advisory Architects noted that the listing in the Municipal Heritage
                       Inventory is primarily in relation to the social contribution of the Hospital rather
                       than the architecture of the building.
                 (iii) No concern was expressed regarding the functioning of the proposed additions.
                 (iv) The Advisory Architects supported the proposed setback variations noting the
                       setback variations of the existing building in relation to South Terrace and also
                       noting the open expanse of parkland adjacent to the eastern side boundary.

           (b)   Neighbour Consultation
                 Neighbour Consultation has been undertaken for this proposal to the extent and in the
                 manner required by Policy P104 ‘Neighbour and Community Consultation in Town
                 Planning Processes’. In general terms, the owners of all properties in Fortune Street
                 and in South Terrace between Coode and Hazel Streets were invited to inspect the


                                                 36
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                 application and comment on it. A total of 65 neighbour consultation notices were
                 mailed to individual property owners and occupiers. In addition, signs were placed on
                 site inviting comment from any other interested person. During the 21-day
                 advertising period, 9 submissions were received, 5 in favour and 4 against the
                 proposals. The submissions have been summarised and responses provided to all
                 comments, in Attachment 9.3.1(c) to this report.

                 The comments in favour of the proposal generally refer to the enhanced convenience
                 of the facilities to the local community.

                 The comments objecting to the proposal can be categorised into the following general
                 topics, although they are more specifically referred to in the Schedule of Submissions
                 contained in Attachment 9.3.1(c):
                     Concern about requested Council discretion for reduced setbacks and car parking;
                     Comment on compliance with other TPS6 provisions (eg. plot ratio and
                     landscaping);
                     Scale, design and height;
                     Proposed new bulk store in Burch Street and suggested solutions;
                     Lack of car parking on site;
                     General car parking / traffic impacts on surrounding streets;
                     Inadequacy of plans and information provided;
                     Increased delivery noise and general reduction of residential amenity;
                     Presumption of right to continue to expand;
                     Presentation of submissions to Council; and
                     Inappropriate and inadequate public consultation process.

                 An Officer response to all of the issues raised is contained in the schedule of
                 submissions.

           (c)   Manager, Engineering Infrastructure
                 The Manager, Engineering Infrastructure, was invited to comment on a range of issues
                 relating to car parking and traffic, arising from the proposal. His comments are
                 contained in Attachment 9.3.1(d). The general conclusion is as follows:
                      There are inconsistencies in the survey provided by David Porter regarding the
                      realistic number of nearby private and public car bays that can be used by the
                      Hospital - Only street parking in South Terrace, Fortune Street and Burch Street
                      and car parks owned by the Hospital in Fortune Street and the Ernest Johnson car
                      park should be considered. This equates to 141 car parking bays;
                      The only times the Ernest Johnson car park reaches or exceeds capacity is after
                      5.30pm on sports training nights at Ernest Johnson Oval;
                      Hospital staff, patients and visitors are the predominant users of the Ernest
                      Johnson car park during the day;
                      Increasing the capacity of the Ernest Johnson car park by 27-30 car bays would
                      meet the parking needs for the after 5.30pm users, as well as the long-term staff
                      parking needs of the Hospital;
                      Pilgrim Street remains an option in the unlikely event that the expanded Ernest
                      Johnson car park is filled;
                      Street parking adjacent to most sports reserves is a necessity because public
                      parking is rarely sufficient on every occasion;
                      Burch Street could be widened from 8.0 metres to 11.0 metres to accommodate
                      parking on both sides and two-way through traffic, without compromising the
                      residential property on the corner of Burch Street and Fortune Street, reducing the
                      verge width to 4.5 metres.




                                                37
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           (d)   Other City Departments
                 Comments have also been invited from the Building and Environmental Health areas
                 of the City’s administration. The Team Leader, Building Services had no comments
                 to make on the proposal at this stage; however, if approved, the proposal will be the
                 subject of a building licence application which will be thoroughly examined at a later
                 stage.

                 The Acting Manager, Environmental Health Services provided comments with respect
                 to noise from delivery vehicles to the site. She recommends that to avoid
                 unreasonable disturbance to nearby residents, deliveries should be restricted to the
                 period between 7:00am and 7:00pm Monday to Saturday and 9:00am to 7:00pm
                 Sundays and public holidays.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           Comments in relation to various relevant provisions of the No. 6 Town Planning Scheme
           have been provided elsewhere in this report.

           Financial Implications
           The issue has some impact on this particular area, to the extent of:
           (a)     payment of the required Planning Fee by the applicant; and
           (b)     payment by the applicant for the full cost of works to be undertaken by the City’s
                   Engineering Infrastructure and Parks and Environment Departments in connection
                   with the provision of additional parking bays in public parking areas near the
                   Hospital.

           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….
           (a)    pursuant to the provisions of the City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme No. 6
                  and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, this application for two-storey extensions and
                  refurbishment to the South Perth Hospital, incorporating a Day Procedure Unit,
                  administrative offices and other works, on Lot 145 (No. 76) South Terrace and (Nos.
                  25, 26) Fortune Street, South Perth, be approved, subject to:

                  (i)     Standard Conditions
                          330 (3 bays), 390, 425, 470, 471, 505, 508, 550, 660, 664.
                          Footnote: A full list of Standard Conditions and Advice Notes is available for
                               inspection at the Council Offices during normal business hours.
                  (ii)    Specific Conditions:
                          Revised drawings shall be submitted, and such drawings shall incorporate
                          the following:
                          (A) The northern boundary of the site, west of the existing boiler shall be
                                 screened by solid brick fencing to provide a visual barrier to the
                                 service courtyards within the site. Details of the proposed landscaping
                                 and fencing shall be included.
                          (B) The fence along the eastern boundary of the site shall be constructed
                                 of solid brick for the length of boundary adjacent to the Day
                                 Procedures Recovery Cubicles, or alternative measures shall be taken


                                               38
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                                 to prevent overlooking into the Recovery Cubicles from the adjoining
                                 Ernest Johnson oval. Details in this respect shall be included.
                          (C) Deletion or relocation of the new bulk store near Burch Street to
                                 eliminate direct vehicular access from the bulk store to Burch Street
                                 alongside the Hospital entrance on a driveway only 3.0 metres long;
                  (iii) In accordance with clause 7.8(1) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, the
                        applicant shall pay to the Council a cash payment of $50,000 being the
                        estimated cost of works within public parking areas to increase the available
                        public parking by at least 30 bays.
                  (iv) To avoid unreasonable disturbance to nearby residents, deliveries shall be
                        restricted to the period between 7:00am and 7:00pm Monday to Saturday, and
                        9:00am to 7:00pm Sundays and public holidays.
                  (v) Standard Important Advice Notes
                        640, 645, 646, 648, 651.
                         Footnote: A full list of Standard Conditions and Advice Notes is available for
                              inspection at the Council Offices during normal business hours.

           (b)   South Perth Hospital Incorporated be advised that:
                 (i)   prior to any future development application and in order to assist the Hospital
                       and the City in better understanding and planning for the future needs of the
                       Hospital and to avoid ongoing ad hoc development, a conceptual Master Plan /
                       Impact Assessment Report shall be prepared covering a range of relevant issues,
                       including:
                       (A) The overall expansion needs of the Hospital, including all of the land
                              owned by the South Perth Hospital in the vicinity.
                       (B) The anticipated range of uses to be contained within the Hospital and
                              proposed to be established on surrounding hospital-owned land.
                       (C) Operating hours of the various uses referred to in (B) above.
                       (D) A parking and traffic survey, examining all aspects of traffic movements
                              in the area by the various hospital uses and other key uses in the locality
                       (E) The anticipated built form and bulk of any future additions to the
                              Hospital.
                       (F) An examination of possible amenity impacts resulting from any proposed
                              future works.
                       (G) A suggestion of possible solutions to any problems identified in the
                              Impact Assessment Report, including various means of accommodating
                              all of the required car parking; and
                   (ii) should the South Perth Hospital require parking bays within City controlled
                         public land to be designated for its use, further details should be provided and
                         should include the number of bays required, hours of use and financial
                         contribution to Council.


           VERBAL REPORT BY DIRECTOR STRATEGIC & REGULATORY SERVICES
           Subsequent to finalisation of the Planning Officer’s report (AGENDA ITEM 9.3.1) on
           2 September, a revised site plan was received from the applicant on 12 September. The
           revised site plan responded to officers’ concerns relating to the proposed new bulk store off
           Burch Street. The revised site plan addresses many of the officers’ concerns. The Manager,
           Engineering Infrastructure is generally satisfied with the modified proposal. A copy of the
           modified plan was provided to Council Members by memorandum on 22 September 2005.
           Some details are still required with respect to the proposed elevational treatment of the
           modified bulk store design. In light of this, the City officers now favour modification of the
           recommendation, and in particular, condition 9.3.1 (a)(ii)(C) as follows:




                                                39
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.1

           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 two-storey extensions and
                  refurbishment to the South Perth Hospital, incorporating a Day Procedure Unit,
                  administrative offices and other works, on Lot 145 (No. 76) South Terrace and (Nos.
                  25, 26) Fortune Street, South Perth, be approved, subject to:

                  (i)     Standard Conditions
                          330 (3 bays), 390, 425, 470, 471, 505, 508, 550, 660, 664.
                          Footnote: A full list of Standard Conditions and Advice Notes is available for
                               inspection at the Council Offices during normal business hours.
                  (ii)    Specific Conditions:
                          Revised drawings shall be submitted, and such drawings shall incorporate
                          the following:
                          (A) The northern boundary of the site, west of the existing boiler shall be
                                 screened by solid brick fencing to provide a visual barrier to the
                                 service courtyards within the site. Details of the proposed landscaping
                                 and fencing shall be included.
                          (B) The fence along the eastern boundary of the site shall be constructed
                                 of solid brick for the length of boundary adjacent to the Day
                                 Procedures Recovery Cubicles, or alternative measures shall be taken
                                 to prevent overlooking into the Recovery Cubicles from the adjoining
                                 Ernest Johnson oval. Details in this respect shall be included.

                          (C) (1)      The design of the proposed new bulk store near Burch
                                       Street    shall    indicate     that   the     vehicular
                                       loading/unloading bay appurtenant to the bulk store is
                                       contained wholly within the Hospital site; and
                                (2)    Eastern, northern and western elevations of the new
                                       bulk store to ensure compatibility with the remainder
                                       of the Burch Street façade of the Hospital building;

                  (iii) In accordance with clause 7.8(1) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, the
                        applicant shall pay to the Council a cash payment of $50,000 being the
                        estimated cost of works within public parking areas to increase the available
                        public parking by at least 30 bays.
                  (iv) To avoid unreasonable disturbance to nearby residents, deliveries shall be
                        restricted to the period between 7:00am and 7:00pm Monday to Saturday, and
                        9:00am to 7:00pm Sundays and public holidays.
                  (v) Standard Important Advice Notes
                        640, 645, 646, 648, 651.
                         Footnote: A full list of Standard Conditions and Advice Notes is available for
                              inspection at the Council Offices during normal business hours.

           (b)   South Perth Hospital Incorporated be advised that:
                 (i)  prior to any future development application and in order to assist the Hospital
                      and the City in better understanding and planning for the future needs of the
                      Hospital and to avoid ongoing ad hoc development, a conceptual Master Plan /
                      Impact Assessment Report shall be prepared covering a range of relevant issues,
                      including:
                      (A) The overall expansion needs of the Hospital, including all of the land
                             owned by the South Perth Hospital in the vicinity.


                                               40
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                       (B)   The anticipated range of uses to be contained within the Hospital and
                             proposed to be established on surrounding hospital-owned land.
                       (C) Operating hours of the various uses referred to in (B) above.
                       (D) A parking and traffic survey, examining all aspects of traffic movements
                             in the area by the various hospital uses and other key uses in the locality
                       (E) The anticipated built form and bulk of any future additions to the
                             Hospital.
                       (F) An examination of possible amenity impacts resulting from any proposed
                             future works.
                       (G) A suggestion of possible solutions to any problems identified in the
                             Impact Assessment Report, including various means of accommodating
                             all of the required car parking; and
                   (ii) should the South Perth Hospital require parking bays within City controlled
                         public land to be designated for its use, further details should be provided and
                         should include the number of bays required, hours of use and financial
                         contribution to Council.

           MOTION
           Cr Smith moved the Alternative Officer Recommendation. Sec Cr Cala

           MEMBER COMMENTS FOR / AGAINST MOTION - POINTS OF CLARIFICATION

           Cr Smith opening for the Motion
               • Officers have done a very good job
               • Hospital has to move with the times
               • Every regional hospital has to change to suit present conditions
               • It is an icon

           Cr Cala for the Motion
               • Parking the only problem
               • Visitor parking has reduced over the years as a result of the hospital changes
               • Statutory requirements don’t reflect this

           Cr Doherty Point of Clarification
           In respect of section (b) Mr Mahar mentioned a Management Plan had been sent to Council.


           The Director Strategic and Regulatory Services stated that the applicant had provided a
           Master plan in relation to the hospital site, however the City’s future requirements go outside
           that, in that the City requires a Concept master plan/impact assessment report for the
           hospital site and any land outside the site in which the Hospital has an interest.

           Cr Ozsdolay Question
           Does that confirm that the plan was received?

           The Director Strategic and Regulatory Services replied that the Master plan had been
           received for the Hospital site but not for any land outside the site.



            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.3.1
           Deputy Mayor put the Motion

           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 two-storey extensions and

                                                41
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                  refurbishment to the South Perth Hospital, incorporating a Day Procedure Unit,
                  administrative offices and other works, on Lot 145 (No. 76) South Terrace and (Nos.
                  25, 26) Fortune Street, South Perth, be approved, subject to:

                  (i)     Standard Conditions
                          330 (3 bays), 390, 425, 470, 471, 505, 508, 550, 660, 664.
                          Footnote: A full list of Standard Conditions and Advice Notes is available for
                               inspection at the Council Offices during normal business hours.
                  (ii)    Specific Conditions:
                          Revised drawings shall be submitted, and such drawings shall incorporate
                          the following:
                          (A) The northern boundary of the site, west of the existing boiler shall be
                                 screened by solid brick fencing to provide a visual barrier to the
                                 service courtyards within the site. Details of the proposed landscaping
                                 and fencing shall be included.
                          (B) The fence along the eastern boundary of the site shall be constructed
                                 of solid brick for the length of boundary adjacent to the Day
                                 Procedures Recovery Cubicles, or alternative measures shall be taken
                                 to prevent overlooking into the Recovery Cubicles from the adjoining
                                 Ernest Johnson oval. Details in this respect shall be included.

                          (C) (1)      The design of the proposed new bulk store near Burch
                                       Street    shall    indicate     that   the     vehicular
                                       loading/unloading bay appurtenant to the bulk store is
                                       contained wholly within the Hospital site; and
                                (2)    Eastern, northern and western elevations of the new
                                       bulk store to ensure compatibility with the remainder
                                       of the Burch Street façade of the Hospital building;

                  (iii) In accordance with clause 7.8(1) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, the
                        applicant shall pay to the Council a cash payment of $50,000 being the
                        estimated cost of works within public parking areas to increase the available
                        public parking by at least 30 bays.
                  (iv) To avoid unreasonable disturbance to nearby residents, deliveries shall be
                        restricted to the period between 7:00am and 7:00pm Monday to Saturday, and
                        9:00am to 7:00pm Sundays and public holidays.
                  (v) Standard Important Advice Notes
                        640, 645, 646, 648, 651.
                         Footnote: A full list of Standard Conditions and Advice Notes is available for
                              inspection at the Council Offices during normal business hours.

           (b)   South Perth Hospital Incorporated be advised that:
                 (i)  prior to any future development application and in order to assist the Hospital
                      and the City in better understanding and planning for the future needs of the
                      Hospital and to avoid ongoing ad hoc development, a conceptual Master Plan /
                      Impact Assessment Report shall be prepared covering a range of relevant issues,
                      including:
                      (A) The overall expansion needs of the Hospital, including all of the land
                             owned by the South Perth Hospital in the vicinity.
                      (B) The anticipated range of uses to be contained within the Hospital and
                             proposed to be established on surrounding hospital-owned land.
                      (C) Operating hours of the various uses referred to in (B) above.
                      (D) A parking and traffic survey, examining all aspects of traffic movements
                             in the area by the various hospital uses and other key uses in the locality
                      (E) The anticipated built form and bulk of any future additions to the
                             Hospital.

                                               42
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                        (F)  An examination of possible amenity impacts resulting from any proposed
                             future works.
                        (G) A suggestion of possible solutions to any problems identified in the
                             Impact Assessment Report, including various means of accommodating
                             all of the required car parking; and
                    (ii) should the South Perth Hospital require parking bays within City controlled
                         public land to be designated for its use, further details should be provided and
                         should include the number of bays required, hours of use and final
                         contribution to Council.


                                                                                        CARRIED (9/0)


           Reason for change
           In recognition of the revised site plan received on 12 September 2005, after completion of
           the officer’s report on 2 September 2005, and which now meets many of the officers’
           concerns with respect to the proposed new bulk store, the related condition of approval
           needs to be modified to reflect the most recent situation.


           Note: The Mayor and Cr Macpherson returned to the Chamber at 9.10pm.
                  Cr McDougall left the Chamber at 9.10pm and returned at 9.12pm.


            9.3.2    Proposed Four x Two Storey Grouped Dwellings to Replace Four Existing
                     Single Storey Grouped Dwellings. Lot 650 (No. 22) Ryrie Avenue NE cnr
                     Axford Street, Como

           Location:                Lot 650 (No. 22) Ryrie Avenue NE cnr Axford Street, Como
           Applicant:               Bahman Alimoradian
           File Ref:                11/5741: RY1.22
           Date:                    2 September 2005
           Author:                  Rajiv Kapur, Planning Officer
           Reporting Officer:       Steve Cope, Director, Strategic and Regulatory Services

           Summary
           To consider an application for planning approval for four x two storey Grouped Dwellings.
           It is proposed to replace the existing four single storey Grouped Dwellings on the lot under
           the provisions of Clause 6.1 ‘Replacement of Existing Buildings not Complying with
           Density, Plot Ratio, Use or Height Limits’ of Town Planning Scheme No. 6. The
           recommendation is for approval subject to standard and special conditions.

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

           Zoning:               Residential
           Density Coding:       R15
           Lot Area:             989 sq. metres
           Height Limit:         7.0 metres
           Development Potential: Single House (in accordance with Table 1 of the Residential Design
                                  Codes)
                                  Four Grouped Dwellings (in accordance with Clause 6.1 of Town
                                  Planning Scheme No. 6)


                                                 43
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           In accordance with Council Delegation DC342, the proposal is being referred to the Council
           meeting because the recommendation of approval relies upon the exercise of discretion by
           the Council, with neighbour consultation, under Clauses 6.1 of the Town Planning Scheme
           No. 6.

           The locality of the subject property in Como is shown on the plan below.




           Comment

           1.   Town Planning Scheme No. 6 Provisions
                The proposal involves removal of the existing four single storey Grouped Dwellings
                and replacement with four x two storey Grouped Dwellings in accordance with the
                provisions of Clause 6.1 ‘Replacement of Existing Buildings not Complying with
                Density, Plot Ratio, Use or Height Limits’ of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS6).
                Sub-clause (1) states that:

                “(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Codes but subject to the provisions of sub-
                     clause (3), if, on the date of gazettal of the Scheme a site contained a residential
                     development that exceeded:
                     (a) the density coding indicated on the Scheme Maps; or
                     (b) the Building Height Limit; or
                     (c)   both the density coding and the Building Height Limit;
                     the Council may approve redevelopment of that site:
                     (i)   to the same density or height or both, and with the same use as those of the
                           development which existed on the site on the date of gazettal of the
                           Scheme; and
                     (ii) with a plot ratio exceeding the maximum prescribed by the Residential
                           Design Codes.”

                Sub-clause (2) applies to sites containing a non-residential development, and therefore
                is not applicable to the current proposal. Sub-clause (3) states:

                “(3) The power conferred by sub-clauses (1) and (2) may only be exercised if:
                     (a) in the opinion of the Council, the proposed development will contribute
                          more positively to the scale and character of the streetscape, the

                                               44
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                             preservation or improvement of the amenity of the area, and the objectives
                             for the precinct than the building which existed on the site on the date of
                             gazettal of the Scheme; and

                       (b)   except where proposed development comprises minor alterations to the
                             existing development which, in the opinion of the Council, do not have a
                             significant adverse effect on the amenity of adjoining land, advertising of
                             the proposed development has been undertaken in accordance with the
                             provisions of clause 7.3.”

           2.   Streetscape - Design, Scale and Character of the Dwellings
                The existing streetscape in the focus area along Ryrie Avenue and Axford Street
                comprises single houses (single storey) with large front yards and open space around
                the built forms. This presents as a low density character. On the portion of Axford
                Street south of Ryrie Avenue, two storey single houses exist with similar proportion
                open spaces around them.

                In connection with the proposed development, the applicant has had several meetings
                with City Planning Officers over the last six months. Preliminary planning
                assessments and discussions have resulted in the proposed development achieving
                compliance with most of the ‘Planning’ requirements before the formal lodgement of
                the application.

                The general form and design of the proposed Grouped Dwellings are compatible with
                the existing streetscape. Along Ryrie Avenue, the existing streetscape in the focus
                area comprises single houses with front setbacks of more than 6.0 metres and large
                open front yards. To maintain consistency with the existing setbacks from Ryrie
                Avenue, an average setback of 6.0 metres is proposed for the development. A
                proposed boundary wall between Nos. 22 and 24 Ryrie Avenue with a front setback of
                6.0 metres is considered acceptable. Even though the existing house on the right side
                adjoining property (No. 24 Ryrie Avenue) is set back more than 6.0 metres, there is a
                thick growth of vegetation on the boundary between the two lots which acts as a visual
                barrier between them.

                As viewed from Axford Street, to ensure that the proposed development contributes
                more positively to the streetscape than the existing dwellings on the site, measures
                have been taken to reduce the building bulk of the two storey dwellings. Greater
                building setbacks ranging from 3.18 metres to 4.5 metres have been provided,
                compared with the required minimum setback of 2.5 metres. This has resulted in the
                provision of reasonably larger front open spaces along the street. The upper floors
                have been provided with greater street setbacks than the ground floor setbacks, ranging
                from 4.38 metres to 5.46 metres. Separation between the dwellings at the ground floor
                and the first floor levels has been provided along the sides - a 1.0 metre separation
                distance at the ground floor level and separation distances of 1.5 metres to 2.7 metres
                on the upper floor levels. To enhance visual aesthetics, shrubs have been proposed in
                the landscaped front open spaces along with retention of the existing street trees.
                Vehicular movement on Axford Street has been minimised by providing vehicular
                access to the corner dwelling from Ryrie Avenue.

           Consultation

           Neighbour Consultation
           The application was advertised to the owners of eight neighbouring properties located along
           both sides of the subject lot as well as across Ryrie Avenue and Axford Street. Consultation
           was carried out for a period of 14 days. The City received objections from some neighbours



                                                45
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           during the consultation period. The concerns expressed, and the Planning Officer’s
           responses, are presented as follows:

                   Neighbours’ Objections                                     Planning Officer’s Response
           The density of the development and the       The proposal has been assessed against the elements of design and
           resultant mass of the building will be out   streetscape compatibility, as identified in the City’s Policy P370_T ‘General
           of keeping with the residential character    Design Guidelines for Residential Development’. The primary elements
           of R15 density coding of this area.          are scale, colour, form and rhythm. The secondary elements are
                                                        construction materials, setbacks from the street and side boundaries,
                                                        extent and nature of landscaping visible from the street and architectural
                                                        details. Generally, the proposed development is seen to comply with
                                                        these requirements. However, some aspects of the design require
                                                        modifications and these have been addressed by recommended
                                                        conditions of planning approval.

                                                        It is also noted that the proposed building height of 6.1 metres is below the
                                                        permissible maximum building height of 7.0 metres.

           The proposed density actually equates to     The proposal is in accordance with the City’s No. 6 Town Planning
           R40 which has a potential for excessive      Scheme provisions (Clause 6.1), which allows replacement of the existing
           noise and devaluation of our properties.     four dwellings at the same density i.e. by four new dwellings.

                                                        Since there will not be an increase beyond the existing number of
                                                        dwellings on the lot, there is no reason to expect any increase in noise,
                                                        while the increased usable space in each of the dwellings will facilitate
                                                        better living conditions. Additionally, the new development with a
                                                        contemporary design will contribute to an improved streetscape character.

           There are concerns in relation to visual     Recommended conditions of planning approval require major openings to
           privacy of our properties. Drawings          the Living area and Bedroom 2 on the first floor of the dwelling on the
           show that major openings to habitable        proposed Lot 1 to be adequately treated to ensure visual privacy is
           rooms on the first floor overlook our        maintained for the occupiers of the adjoining lot. All other windows comply
           backyards.                                   with the Visual Privacy requirements of the Residential Design Codes.

           The height of the boundary wall does not     In accordance with Policy P376_T ‘Residential Boundary Walls’, a
           meet the requirements set out in City’s      condition has been recommended to reduce the height of the proposed
           Boundary Wall Policy.                        boundary wall on the eastern boundary.


           Design Advisory Consultants’ Comments
           The application was referred to the City’s Design Advisory Consultants for comment in
           relation to the form and design of the proposed development and its compatibility with the
           streetscape. Their comments are as follows:
           (i) The Advisory Architects commented that the boundary wall to the garage to Unit 4
                  needs to be assessed in accordance with the City’s Boundary Wall Policy.
           (ii) The Advisory Architects considered that the design is satisfactory in relation to
                  building form and bulk, and streetscape compatibility.
           (iii) It was noted that three of the dwellings will have Colorbond metal roofs while the
                  fourth dwelling will have a tiled roof. The Advisory Architects expressed the view that
                  matching Colorbond metal roofs should be used for all dwellings.
                  The Advisory Architects also commented that the east elevation should be modified to
                  provide more visually acceptable roofing at the ground floor level and also to improve
                  shading of habitable room windows. Particular concern was expressed in relation to
                  the skillion roof projection over the dining room of Unit 2. To address these concerns,
                  it was suggested that verandahs should be provided over the courtyard and outdoor
                  areas of Unit 1, 2 and 3 adjacent to the respective living and / or dining rooms.




                                                        46
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           In response to these issues raised by the Advisory Architects, conditions of planning
           approval have been recommended.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The relevant Town Planning Scheme provisions have been discussed in the ‘Comment’
           section above.

           Financial Implications
           This application 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 sustainably manage, enhance and maintain the City’s unique, natural and built
           environment.

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND
            COUNCIL DECISION 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 four x two
                 storey Grouped Dwellings on Lot 650 (No. 22) Ryrie Avenue, Como be approved
                 subject to the following conditions:
                 (i)   Standard Conditions
                       340 (wall, eastern), 377, 390 (crossovers), 416, 427 (in addition, matching
                       external materials and colour finish for the dwellings shall be used), 455, 456,
                       458, 625, 630, 660
                       Footnote:    A full list of standard conditions is available for inspection at the Council Offices
                                    during normal business hours.

                (ii)   Specific Conditions
                       (A) Roof projection over east-facing openings of Living / Dining areas of all
                             dwellings shall be increased in width to at least 600mm.
                       (B) Having regard to the provisions of Policy P376_T ‘Residential Boundary
                             Walls’, the proposed boundary wall on the eastern boundary shall not
                             exceed an average height of 3.0 metres and a maximum height of 4.0
                             metres as measured from the surrounding natural ground level.
                       (C) The Garage for Unit 4 shall have the minimum internal depth of 5.5
                             metres measured clear of the face of any wall, column, pier or fence in
                             order to comply with the requirements of clause 6.3 (8) of Town Planning
                             Scheme No. 6. Additionally, the double garage doorway widths for Units
                             1, 2 and 3 shall be a minimum of 5.0 metres taking into account the
                             minimum parking bay dimensions prescribed by Town Planning Scheme
                             No. 6.
                       (D) The proposed crossover for Unit 1 shall be no wider than 4.8 metres at
                             the front property boundary and aligned at right angles to the street
                             alignment in accordance with the Clause 3.5.4 ‘Vehicular Access’ of the
                             Residential Design Codes.
                       (E) Having regard to Clause 3.5.4 ‘Vehicular Access’ of the Residential
                             Design Codes and the prescribed maximum width of 6.0 metres, the
                             crossovers and driveways serving Units 2 and 3 shall be separated by a
                             1.0 metre wide landscape strip.
                       (F) The upper floor east-facing window of Bedroom 2 shall be relocated
                             further from the northern lot boundary and the north-facing staircase


                                                   47
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                               window of Unit 1 (which provides a view from the upper storey Living
                               area) shall be adequately treated to maintain visual privacy of adjoining
                               properties in accordance with Clause 3.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the
                               Residential Design Codes.
                         (G) The finished floor level of Unit 2 shall be no higher than RL 10.70 in
                               accordance with Clause 6.10 ‘Maximum Ground and Floor Levels’ of
                               Town Planning Scheme No. 6.
                         (H) As advised by the City’s Parks and Environment department, the
                               following minimum clearances shall be maintained between the existing
                               street trees and proposed crossovers:
                               1.5 metres between Queensland Box tree and the proposed crossover
                               for Unit 1;
                               1.5 metres between Jacaranda tree and the proposed crossover for Unit 1;
                               2.0 metres between Queensland Box tree and the proposed crossover
                               for Unit 2;
                               1.2 metres between Queensland Box tree and the proposed crossover
                               for Unit 3; and
                               1.5 metres between Queensland Box tree and the proposed crossover
                               for Unit 4.
                         (I)   The applicant shall liaise with the City’s Parks and Environment
                               Department with respect to suitable relocation of the existing grass trees
                               (Xanthorrea Preisseii) on the site or along the street verge. These trees
                               shall be shown on the site plan submitted as part of the working drawings
                               accompanying the building licence application.
                         (J)   The approved drawings show that the proposed crossover for Unit 1 will
                               interfere with an existing street tree (Eucalyptus Globulus) situated within
                               the road reserve. The applicant is required to pay a sum of $1496.00 for
                               the cost of removing this tree, prior to the issuing of a building licence.
                (iii)    Standard Important Notes
                         647 (Specific Conditions ii {A to J}), 648, 651

                                Footnote:   A full list of standard advice notes is available for inspection at the Council
                                            Offices during normal business hours.


                                                                         CARRIED EN BLOC RESOLUTION


            9.3.3       2004/05 Review of the Municipal Heritage Inventory

           Location:                         City of South Perth
           Applicant:                        Council
           File Ref:                         LP/302
           Date:                             2 September 2005
           Author:                           Gina Fraser, Senior Planning Officer
           Reporting Officer:                Steve Cope, Director, Strategic and Regulatory Services

           Summary
           This report presents the draft revised Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) for preliminary
           endorsement by the Council in preparation for advertising it for public comment, prior to
           possible adoption at a later time. It is recommended that 20 additional places be added to
           the former MHI. The draft assessments of these places have been included in the revised
           MHI for public advertising. It is recommended that the draft revised MHI, including the
           new places, now be advertised for public comment.




                                                   48
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Background
           The Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires all local governments to prepare a
           Municipal Heritage Inventory of places of local cultural heritage significance within four
           years of the Act coming into operation, and then to be updated annually and reviewed every
           four years. The City’s first MHI was adopted in December 1994, after which it was updated
           every year, and reviewed every four years, as required. The current process represents the
           MHI’s second four-yearly review, which is described as the 2004/05 review. Consultants,
           “Heritage Today”, were appointed to undertake this review.

           Comment

           Review List
           One of the key features of the current review is the possible addition of 20 places to the
           MHI. This has come about as an initiative to respond to the ‘Review List’ which was
           created during the 1998/2000 review. The Review List identifies places suggested by
           members of the community for future consideration of possible listing on the MHI. The
           review process is the ideal opportunity for this to take place.

           As part of their commission, Heritage Today were required to examine all of the remaining
           53 places on the Review List and to discontinue such a formal list and remove it from the
           MHI. The objective was to reduce the number of places on that Review List by deleting all
           reference to some of the unsuitable places, and by transferring some of the worthy places to
           a permanent listing in the MHI. The consultants were requested to select the most
           appropriate 20 places for possible inclusion in the MHI. The remaining places would either
           be deleted or would remain on an informal list to avoid confusion with ‘full’ listing in the
           MHI. The consultants have complied with this request.

           The 20 Additional Places
           To assist the consultants in this task, the City provided a suggested list of 21 places taken
           from the Review List, for examination by Heritage Today. In their examination of these
           places, the consultants suggested a modified approach. Rather than selecting an arbitrary
           range of sites from a confined list, the consultants have taken a more structured approach,
           but with the selected places still drawn in part from the Review List. They have examined
           the current MHI and the Review List, and have suggested that the Council examine all of the
           sites within particular categories of places. They have therefore concentrated on church
           sites, schools, and small ‘corner shops’ within the City. The City agreed with this approach,
           and the consultants have prepared full assessments of 20 such sites for consideration by the
           Council.

           The 20 additional places are listed below:

                   Street Name          St                 Name of Place                Precinct   Review
                                        No.                                             Number     Man Cat
           Banksia Terrace              73     Kensington Primary School, Kensington       K4        C
           Cale Street                  58     St Augustine’s Church and Parish Hall,      C4        C
                                               Como
           Canning Highway              135a   Shop – 135a Canning Highway, South         A4         B
                                               Perth
           Canning Highway              151    Shop – 151 Canning Highway, South          A5         C
           cnr Douglas Avenue *                Perth
           Coode Street foreshore      R241    Wesley Rowing Shed, South Perth            H4         C
                                        12
           Coode Street cnr Hensman     91     Corner Shop - 91 Coode Street, South     SPCv10       B
           Street                              Perth
           David Street *                46    i.d.entity.wa fmr Catholic Care            K3         C
                                               Administration Centre, Kensington


                                                49
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           Dyson Street cnr Vista Street      52     St Martin-in-the-Fields Church and              K5         B
                                                     Durbridge Hall, Kensington
           First Avenue cnr Lansdowne         27     Residence – Former Corner Shop,                 K2         C
           Road *                                    Kensington
           Hobbs Avenue                              Collier Primary School, Como                    C3         C
           Labouchere Road                    201    Corner Shop - 201 Labouchere Road,             CB11        B
                                                     Como
           Ley Street                                Manning Primary School, Manning                 M1         C
           Mill Point Road                    333    Shop – Bowen’s Deli, South Perth                A6         C
           Mill Point Road cnr Douglas        273    Shops - 273 Mill Point Road, South Perth        A8         B
           Avenue *
           Nenagh Grove                      R377    Waterford Wetlands, Waterford                   W2         A
                                              12
           Robert Street cnr Canning          111    Como Baptist Church, Como                      CB9         C
           Highway
           Salter Point Parade               R239    Salter Point Lagoon and Foreshore,             SPt5        A
                                              67     Salter Point
           Thelma Street                             Como Primary School, Como                      CB10        C
           Thelma Street                      45     Church of the Holy Family, Como                CB8         C
           Welwyn Avenue                      46     Church of St. Peter, Manning                    M2         C
           * NOTE: Each of the places in italics is the subject of an owner objection presented for Council’s
                     determination. Refer to the ‘Consultation’ section below, and to Attachment 9.3.3(b).

           A list of all of the places forming part of the draft revised MHI now presented for Council’s
           preliminary endorsement is provided as Attachment 9.3.3(a). The 20 additions are shown
           on this list in bold font. Due to its large size and draft nature, a complete version of the
           revised MHI has not been provided to each Council Member. However, the document is
           available for examination in the Council Members’ Lounge.

           As discussed in Attachment 9.3.3(b), the owners of each of the 20 additional places have
           been consulted and invited to comment. The comments received are fully discussed in the
           Attachment. One submission has caused a modification to the description of the place at 27
           First Avenue. The original Place Record Form which was provided to the owner for
           comment described the place as Residence / Former Corner Shop. The owner makes the
           point that the site is still rated and zoned in TPS6 as a commercial property, and that the
           Shop building is only temporarily vacant. It could legitimately be reinstated as a Shop at
           any time. Further, the asbestos house does not contribute to the heritage value of the
           property. The only feature of the site which is considered to have ‘heritage value’ is the
           Corner Shop. It is recommended that the Place Record Form for the site be modified to
           remove reference to the asbestos house as having heritage significance, referring only to the
           importance of the Corner Shop.

           As well as the addition of the above places, the Review also proposes the following
           modifications to the MHI:
           (a) Deletion of the Residence, 16 Salter Point Parade (Category D)
                 This matter has arisen through a written request from the owners. The Residence, 16
                 Salter Point Parade is currently listed as a Category ‘D’ place, which means that
                 while the place is significant, it is not essential to the understanding of the history of
                 the district. A Category D place should be photographically recorded prior to any
                 major redevelopment or demolition. A Category ‘D’ place may be demolished
                 because it is considered to contribute little to the long-term appreciation of the City’s
                 heritage. Although most attractive in its setting, the place is no longer one of the best
                 examples of architecture in the area. It is therefore appropriate for the place to be
                 removed from the MHI. The request is UPHELD, and the residence in question is not
                 included in the list of places (Attachment 9.3.3(a)) now included within the draft
                 revised MHI.



                                                       50
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           (b)   Reclassification of Hurlingham Hotel (Fmr) from Category C to Category E (Site-
                 only significance
                 The Council recently granted permission for the Hurlingham Hotel (Fmr) to be
                 demolished as part of a development application. It would be erroneous to retain the
                 place on the MHI in this situation. However, the significance of the former place will
                 be commemorated by means of a plaque and it is recommended that it be transferred
                 to Category E in recognition of its continued relevance to the history of the City.

           (c)   Reclassification of Aquinas College from Category B to Category A.
                 The consultants recommend that Aquinas College be upgraded from Category B (a
                 high level of local significance) to Category A (worthy of State listing). The City
                 agrees with this suggestion.

           As previously, the revised MHI is divided into the following sections:
           • Indices listing places by street name, Precinct and place name;
           • Part A - Process (including methodology, classification categories, and suggested
               management of listed places);
           • Part B - Thematic Framework (comprising a historic background to the growth and
               development of the City which provides a historic context to the listed places); and
               Place Record Forms for each of 80 places, arranged by Precinct.

           As part of the Review, the formatting has been slightly improved, and the MHI has been
           updated throughout generally.

           Consultation
           One of the first stages of the MHI review process involved community consultation. This
           was organised by Heritage Today in the form of a community Heritage Information Forum.
           This event was held in September 2004, and was attended by around 120 members of the
           community. The purpose of this event was to encourage people to consider heritage and
           what it means to this City.

           Later, during their assessment of the 20 possible additional places, as many as possible of
           the owners of those places were contacted by the consultants as part of their research
           process. The City followed up on this, after the draft assessments had been completed, with
           written invitations to each of the owners to comment on their respective heritage assessment.
           This process attracted five written submissions, as well as verbal responses from school
           representatives. The collective written and verbal responses relate to the following
           properties:

           Objection
           • i.d.entity.wa - Catholic Care Administration Centre (Fmr), 46 David Street, Kensington.
           • Shops, 273 Mill Point Road, South Perth.
           • Shop, 151 Canning Highway, South Perth.
           • Residence and Shop, 27 First Avenue, Kensington.

           No Objection
           • Manning Primary School.
           • Verbal support for possible inclusion in the MHI were received with respect to the other
             primary schools.

           A summary of the owners’ objections has been provided in Attachment 9.3.3.(b) along with
           a response and recommendation by the officer.

           Following the specific consultation with the owners of the 20 possible additional places, the
           owners of the remaining 60 places within the draft revised MHI were advised of the
           Council’s review of the entire MHI, and were invited to attend the September Council

                                                51
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           meeting. Should the draft revised MHI receive preliminary endorsement of the Council, as
           recommended in this report, wider community consultation will then commence. This
           would be for a period of six weeks, with notification by letter, a notice in two consecutive
           issues of the Southern Gazette newspaper (as identified in Policy P104 for Planning Policies,
           although the MHI is not strictly a ‘policy’ document), and on the City’s website. These
           advertising procedures are in accordance with the provisions of Council’s recently adopted
           Policy P104 ‘Neighbour and Community Consultation in Town Planning Processes’.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The Municipal Heritage Inventory does not have ‘policy’ status, but is merely an
           information tool relating to the heritage of the City. However, when approved, it will form
           the basis of a ‘Heritage List’ which will later be prepared as a Policy document under Town
           Planning Scheme No. 6.

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

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.3

           That....
           (a)      The draft revised Municipal Heritage Inventory, modified and expanded as
                    described in this report and including Place Record Forms for each of the places
                    listed in Attachment 9.3.3(a), be endorsed for the purpose of advertising the
                    document for community comment.
           (b)      The draft revised Municipal Heritage Inventory be advertised for a period of six
                    weeks by means of letters to each affected owner, an invitation to comment
                    published in two consecutive editions of the Southern Gazette newspaper and on the
                    City’s web site.
           (c)      One copy of the draft revised MHI be placed for reference purposes on the City’s
                    web site, at the Civic Centre counter and in each Library and Heritage House during
                    the advertising period.
           (d)      Heritage Today be thanked for their assistance to date with this project.


           COMMENT ON DEPUTATION
           The Director Strategic and Regulatory Services commented that if Council supports
           retention of the place on the draft revised document landowners will have further
           opportunity to make submissions at the close of advertising. The City’s heritage consultants
           have reviewed the owners’ comments, have advised the arguments put forward are not
           ‘heritage’ arguments and further, the relatively low classification of (C) in this case is
           relevant.

           MOTION
           Cr Maddaford moved the Officer recommendation. Sec Cr Ozsdolay




                                                 52
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           MEMBER COMMENTS FOR / AGAINST MOTION - POINTS OF CLARIFICATION

           Cr Maddaford for the Officer recommendation
              • It would be advertised for a period of six weeks and that will provide ample time for
                 affected property owners as well as other members of the public to lodge
                 submissions
              • Nothing wrong with the Officer recommendation

           Cr Ozsdolay had no further comment.

           Cr Trent against the Motion
           There was only one person speaking against and Councillor Trent would rather not put the
           owner of the building through any more aggravation. We should remove the building from
           the MHI at 46 David Street, Kensington for the reasons espoused.

           AMENDMENT
           Moved Cr Trent , Sec Cr Cala

           That part (a) be amended to read as follows:
           (a)     The draft revised Municipal Heritage Inventory, modified and expanded as
                   described in this report, less the building at 46 David Street, Kensington and
                   including Place Record Forms for each of the places listed in Attachment 9.3.3(a),
                   less the building at 46 David Street, Kensington, be endorsed for the purpose of
                   advertising the document for community comment.

           Cr Cala spoke for the Amendment

           Cr Macpherson against the Amendment
           The original motion is asking us to endorse the officer recommendation for the purposes of
           advertising for public comment. We will have gathered more information after the six week
           period of advertising about this item and other items listed on the heritage inventory.

           Cr Smith for the Amendment
               • Convinced building is not worthy of retention
               • We should not waste time on it
               • We should consider the buildings that are worthy
               • Not convinced the building should be on the heritage list

           Cr MacDougall against the Amendment
              • Concern for owners of other properties recommended for inclusion on the heritage
                 inventory, who may be opposed to inclusion, yet no consideration is being given to
                 the removal of those other properties
              • We had a briefing from the Heritage people who saw fit to include this property at
                 46 David Street because they consider it has heritage significance

           Cr Trent for the Amendment
           The consultants presented Council with a list of buildings to be considered for inclusion in
           the MHI, however the owners have objected and rather than them have to state their
           objections again we could delete this building now from the proposed additions to the MHI.

           Mayor put the Amendment

                                                                                           LOST (4/7)



                                               53
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Cr Jamieson Question
           With regard to the four schools in respect of which comments have been provided by school
           representatives, who provided comments - the principal or the P&C or both? The comments
           would be more significant coming from the P&C rather than from the principal who is only
           transient in the area.

           The Director Strategic and Regulatory Services replied that he could not answer, and it
           would have to be researched. An answer would be provided to Cr Jamieson.

           Mayor point of clarification
           Would you formulate another amendment depending on what comes forward in the
           response? Is this imperative to your voting.?

           Cr Jamieson indicated that it was not imperative.

           Cr Maddaford in summary supported the Officer recommendation.


            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND
            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.3.3
           Moved Cr Maddaford Sec Cr Ozsdolay

           That....
           (a)      The draft revised Municipal Heritage Inventory, modified and expanded as
                    described in this report and including Place Record Forms for each of the places
                    listed in Attachment 9.3.3(a), be endorsed for the purpose of advertising the
                    document for community comment.
           (b)      The draft revised Municipal Heritage Inventory be advertised for a period of six
                    weeks by means of letters to each affected owner, an invitation to comment
                    published in two consecutive editions of the Southern Gazette newspaper and on the
                    City’s web site.
           (c)      One copy of the draft revised MHI be placed for reference purposes on the City’s
                    web site, at the Civic Centre counter and in each Library and Heritage House during
                    the advertising period.
           (d)      Heritage Today be thanked for their assistance to date with this project.

                                                                                    CARRIED ( 10/1)


           9.3.4   Request for Partial Closure of Right-of-Way No. 106 situated within block
                   bounded by Cale, Lockhart, Henley and Robert Streets, Como

           Location:                        Right-of-Way No. 106 within block bounded by Cale,
                                            Lockhart, Henley and Robert Streets, Como
           Applicant:                      Ms T Marshall and others
           File Ref:                       ROW 106
           Date:                           1 September 2005
           Author:                         Sarah Brown, Planning Officer
           Reporting Officer:              Steve Cope, Director Strategic and Regulatory Services

           Summary
           This report responds to a petition submitted in August 2005, requesting partial closure of
           Right-of-Way No. 106 situated within the block bounded by Cale, Lockhart, Henley and
           Robert Streets, Como. The report recommends that Council commence procedures towards



                                                54
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           partial closure of Right-of-Way No. 106 (ROW 106) to the extent indicated on the plan
           forming Attachment 9.3.4.

           Background
           The location of the right-of-way is indicated below:



                                                            CALE ST



                                                                                      ROW 106




                                                                        LOCKHART ST
                                           ROBERT ST



                                                                                                CANNING HWY




                                                            HENLEY ST




           The request is being referred to the September meeting because, in accordance with the
           procedures set out in the Land Administration Act, a Council resolution is required in order
           to commence the right-of-way closure process.

           In June 2005, the residents abutting ROW 106 were advised by a letter from Engineering
           Infrastructure Services that drawings for the upgrading of that right-of-way were available
           for comment. The upgrading was about to be implemented in accordance with the Rights-
           of-Way Upgrade Program.

           As a result of the City’s letter, a number of submissions were received which presented
           various points of view regarding the preferred status of the right-of-way. In addition, a
           petition was received from Ms T Marshall and 33 other signatories (tabled at the August
           2005 Council meeting) which requests partial closure of ROW 106. These 34 signatories
           represent 30 dwellings situated on 17 (71%) of the 24 lots abutting the ROW. The petition
           organiser’s covering letter noted that:
                  the owners of six dwellings did not wish to sign the petition (one dwelling is not
                  counted as it is on a green titled lot which does not abut the ROW); and
                  the owners of 10 dwellings were not successfully contacted by the petition organiser.

           It must be noted that:
                 a ‘lot’ may consist of two or more ‘strata lots’; and
                 it is the response of the owners or strata company representing the overall ‘lot’ which
                 is considered, not the response of individual strata owners.


                                                       55
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           The terms of the petition are as follows:

           “We the undersigned electors of the City of South Perth do respectfully request Right-of-Way
           No. 106 be added to the “Rights-of-Way in the Process of Partial or Full Closure” listed in
           Clause 2.1 of Policy P388_T “Development of Land adjoining Rights-of-Way” for the
           following reasons:
           •     Electors are concerned about increased non-local traffic using the ROW especially
                 with the new Canning Bridge Train Station in the near future;
           •     Electors are concerned about the levels of speeding through the ROW by non-local
                 traffic and do not want speed bumps creating noise pollution;
           •     Electors are concerned about the security of their properties; and
           •     Electors want the opportunity to partially close this Right-of-Way after further
                 community consultation and agreement.”

           Comment

           Ownership of ROW 106
           The City’s records show that ROW 106 was transferred by endorsement on 23 August 1921
           to James Gardiner, Howard Street, Perth, Auctioneer, Manager and Receiver of Estate of
           Henry John Saunders. The Land Administration Act 1997 gives the Minister for Lands
           power to acquire and dispose of land such as this. At a later date Council needs to resolve to
           request the Minister for Lands to make such acquisition, should the Council agree to
           continue with the closure process following consideration of submissions resulting from
           statutory advertising (see ‘Future Process’).

           Petitioners’ Request
           The applicants’ request for partial closure is on the basis of the three reasons stated in the
           petition text. The first reason, that there is an increase in non-local traffic using the ROW,
           may be linked with the second reason being the level of speeding vehicles. The Planning
           Officer’s response is as follows:

           Right-of-ways are not public property for access by any member of the community, and they
           were not designed to carry ‘through’ traffic. They were only ever meant to be used as rear
           access to the abutting properties. The petitioners are saying that there are persons using the

           ROW as a ‘short cut’. Such a claim cannot be substantiated without the use of considerable
           resources (i.e. round the clock video monitoring of the usage of the ROW to identify non-
           local vehicles). The petitioners’ claim in this respect is disputed by certain property owners
           who do not support the proposed closure. If the ROW is upgraded, there will be increased
           usage by the owners of abutting properties and it is conceivable that there may then be an
           increase in non-local ‘through’ traffic. The petitioners’ claim that the bus / train transfer
           station would attract ‘through’ traffic in ROW 106 also cannot be substantiated without
           considerable resources.

           The third reason for requesting the partial closure is that the ROW is a security risk. It is not
           possible to provide comment on this issue as it is no longer possible to obtain crime data
           from the Police, and the City does not keep such records.

           In all of these matters, the issue comes down to the perception of residents. The 34
           signatories to the petition believe that there is a security risk while the ROW remains open,
           that the ROW is being used as a short cut by non-local traffic, and that speeding occurs in
           the ROW. Other residents may have a different perception, although it cannot be said that
           the owners of the seven dwellings who did not sign the petition necessarily hold a directly
           opposite view. Some of the owners who have not signed the petition may agree with some



                                                 56
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           claims, but not others. Similarly, their support or opposition to closure of the ROW is
           unknown at this stage.

           Relevant Comments from Submitters on the City’s Proposed Upgrading of ROW 106
           A number of letters and telephone calls have been received by the City in relation to the
           request for closure. It is not appropriate at this time to provide a full analysis and response
           to the residents’ comments as not all adjoining owners have been afforded an opportunity to
           comment. An opportunity will be provided to all residents at a later date, should Council
           agree to initiate the right-of-way closure process. However within the report currently under
           consideration, it is appropriate to identify the range of concerns in regard to the petitioners’
           request for partial closure which have been expressed in writing. These are summarised as
           follows:

           (a)   Reasons for supporting partial closure
                      Excessive speed of non-local vehicles in a confined space.
                      Use of ROW by non-local traffic as a thoroughfare:
                      o      Situation brought about by traffic control measures implemented in
                             Lockhart and Robert Streets.
                      o      Non-local traffic increases noise, dust and fumes to dwellings located at
                             the rear of properties.
                      o      Danger to cyclists and pedestrians using the footpaths at the entry / exits
                             to the ROW.
                      ROW’s encourage break-ins to properties.
                      Reduces maintenance costs.
                      Takes responsibility for accidents within the ROW away from the Council.
                      Encourages planting of trees and shrubs to balance greenhouse gases.
                      Creates good public relations between the Council and residents.
           (b)   Reasons against closure
                      The Western Power transformer at the northern end of the ROW (western side)
                      blocks approximately one third of the entrance to the ROW which, if a partial
                      closure occurred, would prevent access by heavy vehicles to the rear of
                      properties wishing to redevelop. Heavy vehicles can presently enter and leave
                      the ROW via the southern end.
                      Speeding can be controlled by broad speed humps.
                      Wish to retain access to rear of property for boat and car parking in back yard.
                      Proceed with ROW upgrading without delay.

           Concerns have also been expressed verbally by some owners to City officers.

           Access to Approved Carports / Garages
           Of the nine lots which have vehicular gates accessing the right-of way, Nos. 71, 73, 79 and
           89A Lockhart Street and No. 88 Robert Street rely on the right-of-way for access to a
           Council-approved garage. A partial closure would therefore be appropriate, in order to
           maintain this access.

           The Proposal
           The proposal which is recommended is shown on Attachment 9.3.4. This proposal takes
           account of the need to maintain access to Council-approved garages which rely on access
           from the right-of-way, while eliminating ‘through’ traffic and reducing the security risk
           associated with the existing unimpeded right-of-way. The plan comprising Attachment
           9.3.4 shows a skewed alignment for the new lot boundaries at the ends of the northerly and
           southerly retained sections of the right-of-way. By employing this technique, vehicular
           access is maintained for the centrally located properties that will acquire land from the
           partial right-of-way closure.




                                                 57
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           Alternative Option
           An alternative option to partial closure is to place bollards part way along the ROW which
           would also result in access to all properties being maintained while ‘through’ traffic is
           prevented. This action would be implemented under section 3.50 of the Local Government
           Act 1995. This option also requires a resolution from Council to commence the process and
           could be substituted for the officer recommendation if considered appropriate.

           Both options equally address the vehicle ‘through’ traffic concern expressed by some of the
           residents. With both options being equally effective in this respect, other factors must be
           considered in order to decide upon a preferred option. The petition organiser indicates that
           there are at least two owners of properties adjoining the portion proposed to be closed, who
           are interested in purchasing the land (although there is always the possibility that this
           interest may be withdrawn once the costs are known). The Council’s policy is to close
           ROW’s wherever possible and therefore the partial closure should be considered ahead of
           bollards, where affected property owners have requested closure.

           Closure Process
           If the Council agrees to initiate the closure process for ROW 106, formal agreement will be
           sought from the each of the adjoining owners regarding their acceptance of:
           (a) the proposed extent of closure and the allocation of the land to the abutting lots; and
           (b) the future fees and costs likely to be incurred, as charged by the Department for
                  Planning and Infrastructure.

           When responses have been received, a report on the submissions will be presented to
           Council for consideration of whether to proceed with the closure (with or without
           modification), or to consider alternative options or to abandon the process.

           In the meantime, the purchase price and associated costs need to be established, as closely as
           is possible. It may be the case that the participating owners who will benefit from land
           acquisition as a result of the closure will be required to pay market price for acquisition of
           the land, in addition to fees and charges, and the cost of the required sewer easement to the
           extent necessary. None of the associated fees and costs is charged by the City for its part in
           the lengthy and complicated procedure.

           In order to provide the opportunity for all affected owners to comment on the proposal, it is
           recommended that the process be initiated towards the partial closure of ROW 106 to the
           extent indicated in Attachment 9.3.4.

           If Council wishes to pursue an alternative option of bollards within the laneway a further
           report will be necessary from Engineering Infrastructure. That further report would consider
           the need, advertising, and likely location of such bollards.

           Consultation
           To date, no consultation has been undertaken by the City, as this will be carried out at the
           next stage of the right-of-way closure process, if Council should accept the recommendation
           of partial closure.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The City’s current Planning Policy P388_T relates to development of land adjoining rights-
           of-ways, and nominates those rights-of-way to be wholly or partially retained as private
           streets, those to be paved, and those to be closed. ROW 106 is identified in that Policy as
           one to be wholly retained.

           Council has considered the draft Residential Design Policy Manual which includes Policy
           No. 17 relating to rights-of-way. The City has undertaken a dedicated closure program over
           many years, and is now nearing the end of the program. The draft Policy No. 17 recognises


                                                58
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           this fact, and accordingly the content of the Policy has been considerably updated. The
           proposed policy, instead of listing and categorising each right-of-way according to whether
           it is to be closed, partially closed or retained, contains a statement to the effect that the
           Council will generally support closure of a right-of-way unless it is required for essential
           access to an approved parking structure or approved parking bays; as a preferred alternative
           to access from Canning Highway; or to provide rear access to commercial premises.

           At the time of deciding on the current request for closure of ROW 106, Planning Policy No.
           P388_T is still current. If supporting either full or partial closure of ROW 106 (currently
           identified for full retention), the normal procedure would be for Council to resolve to modify
           Policy P388_T. However, in view of the high level of support from residents, and the
           modified approach in the draft Policy 17 within the proposed Manual, it is suggested that a
           modification to Policy P388_T is not warranted. Instead, the current request can be
           supported as a variation from the current policy. This would be the second such variation
           from the policy, with Council resolving at the August 2004 meeting in the same manner as
           now recommended in relation to ROW 106.

           One of the concerns expressed by the petitioners is that the right-of-way is a security risk.
           Irrespective of any possible link between the right-of-way and local crime, the Council’s
           policy position is clearly stated in Planing Policy P388_T which relates to the closure or
           retention of the various rights-of-way throughout the City. The position is expressed in the
           following terms:

           “While some rights-of-way are still required to allow either primary or secondary access to
           property, many others are no longer in regular use and have become obsolete. Numerous
           rights-of-way within the City have been used as a place to deposit rubbish, have the potential
           to become a fire hazard and are perceived to be a security risk to adjacent properties.

           Largely as a result of continuing requests from ratepayers, Council resolved in December
           1991 to close as many rights-of-way as possible throughout the district.”

           Financial Implications
           If the right-of-way remains partially open, there will be financial implications in relation to
           the ongoing maintenance of the right-of-way.

           There are significant costs to the City, associated with the substantial amount of
           administrative processing and other tasks involved in the closure of any right-of-way. The
           adjoining owners receive the benefits from closure of a right-of-way, while the City receives
           no payment of any kind. Under these circumstances, it is appropriate for the affected
           residents to engage a consultant to facilitate the remainder of the right-of-way closure
           process. This is intended to be standard procedure in the future, as stated in the draft Policy
           P17 referred to above, and is currently the case for ROW 82. In this regard, it is suggested
           that the petition organiser should be invited to liaise further with the City with a view to the
           adjoining owners engaging a suitable consultant to undertake and manage the process for
           them, at their cost. Such a consultant could be a land surveyor familiar with the process and
           the requirements of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. The consultant would
           be required to liaise closely with the City at key stages of the process, particularly after
           receipt of the adjoining owners’ submissions on the proposed closure. This approach has
           been used in the preparation of certain Scheme Amendments from time to time, and is
           currently the case for ROW 82. The City’s recent experience is that the right-of-way closure
           process in its entirety can extend over a significantly long period of time (two to four years).

           Should Council resolve to partially close ROW 106 as per the recommendation, when it has
           later been confirmed that the partial closure will definitely occur, the upgrading of the
           retained portion of the right-of-way should be undertaken without delay. However the
           necessary confirmation that the partial closure is proceeding is not likely to be obtained for


                                                 59
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           some considerable time. In the meantime, it will be necessary to reallocate the funds
           currently allocated in Council’s budget to upgrade ROW 106. Those funds would be
           allocated to another right-of-way upgrading project. A report on the budget reallocation will
           be presented by the Manager, Engineering Infrastructure when the outcome is known
           regarding Council’s intention for ROW 106.

           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....
           (a)      in order to provide the opportunity for all affected owners to comment on the
                    proposal to request that the Minister for Lands acquire and then partially close the
                    private street known as Right-of-Way No. 106, Council hereby proposes pursuant to
                    Section 52 of the Land Administration Act 1997 to commence the procedure
                    towards possible partial closure of the Right-of-Way No. 106 situated in the block
                    bounded by Cale, Lockhart, Henley and Robert Streets, Como described as being
                    portion of Swan Location 42 and being the portion coloured green on Plan 3458(2)
                    on Certificate of Title Volume 812 Folio 182, with the intention that, following
                    finalisation of the partial closure, the land contained therein will be allocated, in the
                    manner indicated on the plan comprising Attachment 9.3.4; and
           (b)      pursuant to Section 52(3)(b) of the Land Administration Act 1997, owners of land
                    adjoining the right-of-way be invited to comment on the proposal to partially close
                    Right-of-Way 106, during a period of not less than 30 days;
           (c)      the petition organiser be advised that while the Council supports the partial closure
                    of Right-of-Way No. 106 to the extent shown in Attachment 9.3.4, the adjoining
                    owners, at their own cost, are required to engage a consultant to undertake and
                    manage the remainder of the closure process on their behalf while liaising with the
                    City throughout the process.

           COMMENT ON DEPUTATION
           The Director Strategic and Regulatory Services said that additional information had been
           conveyed in Deputations and the matter may benefit from further research, however there
           was no alternative Motion.

           The Chief Executive Officer said that there was a petition from one group of owners of
           properties abutting the ROW and another group who had a different view. From his own
           opinion he thought Council should proceed in accordance with the recommendation
           contained in the report. The proposal would then be advertised for comments from all
           affected owners and, when Council had obtained the views of all ratepayers, it should be
           able to make a better informed decision.

           The Mayor commented that if the Officer recommendation was approved, the final decision
           is effectively being deferred until Councillors have further information.

           MOTION
           Cr Cala moved the Officer recommendation, Sec Cr Ozsdolay




                                                  60
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           MEMBER COMMENTS FOR / AGAINST MOTION - POINTS OF CLARIFICATION

           Cr Cala opening for the Motion
           We are starting a process here and I have no problem with this.

           Cr Ozsdolay supported these comments.

           Cr Macpherson against the Motion
              • Had been brought to her attention from this evening’s petitioners that those
                 representing the alternative view did not present their petition at a previous meeting.
              • None of the petitioners contacted herself but the people here tonight contacted
                 herself and Cr Hearne
              • The motion will refer the matter for further consultation
              • We should look at other options and consider traffic, speeding etc.

           The Mayor commented that in the Deputations there were certain allegations and the
           Director has indicated that these warrant further investigation before Council makes any
           decision. Therefore the Mayor said he would push for a deferral until we have investigated
           those accusations and the officers have provided further information to this Council. The
           matter is not urgent and therefore it would be advisable to defer it.

           MOTION
           Cr Cala moved the Motion
                                                                                              LOST (5/6)

           MOTION
           Moved Cr Macpherson, Sec Cr Ozsdolay

           That…
           (a)   a decision on this matter be deferred to enable officers to address some of the issues
                 raised in Deputations this evening and a further report be presented to the earliest
                 practicable Council meeting; and
           (b)   When a decision has been made, the deputees and petitioners be advised of the
                 outcome.



            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.3.4
           That…

           (a)     a decision on this matter be deferred to enable officers to address some of the issues
                   raised in Deputations this evening and a further report be presented to the earliest
                   practicable Council meeting; and
           (b)     When a decision has been made, the deputees and petitioners be advised of the
                   outcome.

                                                                                       CARRIED ( 11/0)

           Reason for change
           To allow time for the officers to address some of the issues raised in tonight’s deputation
           and report back at the earliest opportunity to allow the deputees and petitioners to be advised
           of the outcome of the officers’ further investigations.




                                                61
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           9.3.5     Proposed Naming of Right-of-Ways Nos. 75 and 76 situated within block
                     bounded by Thelma Street, Canning Highway, Alston Avenue, and Coode
                     Street, Como

           Location:                       Right-of-Ways Nos. 75 (north-south portion) and 76 (east-
                                           west portion) within block bounded by Thelma Street,
                                           Canning Highway, Alston Avenue and Coode Street, Como
           Applicant:                     Ms E G Hardie
           File Ref:                      ROW 75
           Date:                          5 September 2005
           Author:                        Sarah Brown, Planning Officer
           Reporting Officer:             Steve Cope, Director Strategic and Regulatory Services

           Summary
           To consider a request to initiate the process towards the naming of Right-of-Way No. 75
           (ROW 75) which is owned by the City of South Perth. In conjunction with this request, the
           naming of the connecting Right of Way No. 76 (ROW 76) also needs to be considered. The
           recommendation is that the ‘naming’ process now be initiated for both right-of-ways.

           Background

           Location
           ROW 75 (north-south portion) and ROW 76 (east-west portion) are situated within the block
           bounded by Thelma Street, Canning Highway, Alston Avenue and Coode Street, Como.
           The applicant’s request relates to ROW 75. The right-of-ways are indicated on the plan
           below:




                                              THELMA STREET                    CANNING
                                                                               HIGHWAY




                     ROW 75

           Como
           Primary                                                 ROW 76
           School




                                  ALSTON AVENUE




           Condition and Usage of Right-of-Ways
           The full length of ROW 75 is paved and ROW 76 is also paved for almost its entire length.
           Rubbish is collected from the right of ways.

           ROW 75 appears to be much wider than usual because the garages and parking bays on its
           western side are set back 1.5 metres and the full 1.5 metre setback is paved. Therefore a 5




                                               62
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           metre wide right-of-way appears to be 7.5 metres wide. The right-of-way is signposted for
           ‘one-way’ vehicular movement from Thelma Street south to Alston Avenue. Twenty-one
           (21) car bays for occupiers of the adjacent dwellings and two visitor bays are accessed from
           the right-of-way.

           There are a further 18 car bays adjacent to ROW 76 which rely upon access from ROW 75
           to then access ROW 76 because ROW 76 is closed at the eastern (Canning Highway) end.
           These parking bays are Council-approved.

           The right-of-way is not required for pedestrian access to dwellings and there are no mail
           boxes in the right-of-way.

           Previous Right-of-Way Naming
           At Council’s December 2001 meeting, five right-of-ways were approved for naming.
           Separate requests for naming had been received from three owners, each from a different
           right-of-way. The right-of-ways approved for naming were Nos. 86, 93, 94, 103, and 104.
           All of these are parallel to Canning Highway and the reason for Council’s support for
           naming was that there were a range of difficulties in relation to giving directions to visitors
           to the abutting properties. Prior to naming, there was a trial of ‘location signs’. The
           ‘location signs’ were placed at each end of the right-of-way and indicated that the laneway
           provided rear access to certain properties which front on to Canning Highway. The trial had
           mixed results.

           Right-of-Way 75 Naming Request
           The request to name ROW 75 is from Ms EG Hardie, the owner / occupier of a unit which
           has vehicle access from the ROW. Ms Hardie advises that:

                 ROW 75 is extensively used by residents and visitors.
                 it is difficult to direct tradespersons to her unit from the ROW.
                 the difficulties in giving directions would be undesirable in an emergency situation.
                 the Thelma Street entrance is sometimes confused as a continuation of McDonald
                 Street.
                 various trades and service personnel access the right-of-way, including rubbish
                 collectors.

           Comment
           The fact that occupiers of dwellings use the right-of-way is not reason enough to name a
           right-of-way. However, the fact that there are Council-approved visitor bays accessed from
           the right-of-way is a valid reason to consider naming a right-of-way. The benefits of naming
           are that it simplifies instructions to visitors wishing to find the visitor bays accessed from the
           right-of-way, and the right-of-way will gain recognition in street directories.

           The Department for Planning and Infrastructure’s Geographic Names Committee has a
           policy on naming right-of-ways (quoted in ‘Policy and Legislative Implications’ section of
           this report). The policy states that “Laneways will normally only be named if a name is
           required for addressing purposes”. With regard to this, the Team Leader, Building Services
           advises that it is only appropriate to renumber dwellings which have direct frontage to the
           right-of-way. There are presently no dwellings which would qualify for renumbering on this
           basis. Despite this, it is still appropriate to name the right-of-way for the reasons referred to
           above.

           There is, then, the question of naming ROW 76 as well as ROW 75. If it is agreed that
           ROW 75 should be named, then ROW 76 should also be named. If ROW 75 is named and
           ROW 76 is not named, this could be confusing to residents and visitors.

           Turning finally, to possible names for the right-of-ways, the following comments are made:


                                                  63
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           The theme of the right-of-ways that have already been named is flowering plants and shrubs.
           In this vein, Ms Hardie suggested the name “Jacaranda Lane” as there are Jacaranda trees at
           both ends of the right-of-way and in the near vicinity. The policy of the Geographic Names
           Committee is that short names are to be used for lanes. Therefore names such as Wattle
           Lane, Boronia Lane, Waratah Lane and Acacia Lane would also be appropriate. It is
           recommended that the name “Jacaranda Lane” for ROW 75 and “Boronia Lane” for ROW
           76 be advertised for comment.

           Consultation
           Advice has been sought from the Manager, Engineering Infrastructure regarding the cost of
           signage and that advice is conveyed in the ‘Financial Implications’ section of this report.

           Advice was also sought from the Team Leader, Building Services on the matter of street
           numbering and that advice is conveyed in the ‘Comment’ section above.

           At this stage, no consultation has been undertaken with affected adjoining property owners.
           The request for this right-of-way naming has come from one unit owner. Therefore, it is not
           known whether other owners abutting the right-of-way would also like to have the right-of-
           way named. The City does not have a policy regarding consultation on the matter of right-
           of-way naming, however the City has previously consulted affected residents in regard to
           previous right-of-way naming and road naming. Prior to finally determining whether the
           right-of-ways should be named and if so, selecting the actual names, the Council should
           undertake 21-day advertising to all the owners of properties which directly abut the right-of-
           way. A subsequent report to Council will then consider submissions and at that time,
           Council will decide whether to name the right-of-way or not, and will also select the names.
           Should the Council decide to name the right-of-ways, the proposal requires Geographic
           Names Committee approval prior to implementation.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           Council does not have a policy to guide decisions as to whether or not the naming of
           particular right-of-ways will be supported, and if so, how names will be selected.

           The Geographic Names Committee policy titled “Road Naming Guidelines (2001)” provides
           the following guideline for the naming of right-of-ways:

           “The increase in urban density in new development and urban redevelopment has resulted in
           many narrow short lanes and right-of-ways requiring names. The naming of such roads is
           supported with a preference for use of the road type Lane and short names. Laneways will
           normally only be named if a name is required for addressing purposes. The leg of a
           battleaxe lot is not a laneway.”

           Financial Implications
           At a later date if Council resolves to name the right-of-ways, the cost to install a sign at each
           end will be approximately $300 per sign. The cost varies according to the length of the
           name.

           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.



                                                 64
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005



            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND
            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.3.5

           That....
           (a)      the proposal to name Right-of-Way No. 75 “Jacaranda Lane” and Right-of-Way No.
                    76 “Boronia Lane” be advertised to the owners and occupiers of properties abutting
                    the right-of-ways for a period of 21 days;
           (b)      a report on submissions be submitted to the first available Council meeting; and
           (c)      the applicant be advised of Council’s resolution as above.

                                                                   CARRIED EN BLOC RESOLUTION



           9.3.6   Application for Retrospective Approval of Home Occupation: Massage
                   Therapist / Counsellor. Lot 11 (No. 133) Douglas Avenue, South Perth

           Location:                      Lot 11 (No. 133) Douglas Avenue, South Perth
           Applicant:                     Claire Belton
           File Ref:                      11/4059; LA6.98
           Date:                          2 September 2005
           Author:                        Gavin Davey, Planning Officer
           Reporting Officer:             Steve Cope, Director, Strategic and Regulatory Services

           Summary
           To consider an application for retrospective approval for ‘Home Occupation’ - Massage
           Therapist and Counsellor at Lot 11 (No. 133) Douglas Avenue, South Perth. The
           recommendation is for refusal due to conflict with certain requirements of the No. 6 Town
           Planning Scheme relating to Home Occupation.

           Background
           On 1 June 2005 the City received a written complaint about vehicular noise emanating from
           the subject property and enquiring as to whether the currently operating business being
           conducted from the residence had been approved. On 3 June, another similar enquiry was
           received. The complaint and enquiry were referred to the City’s Compliance Officer who
           conducted an investigation into the matter. This revealed that an unauthorised business was
           being conducted from the property.

           Precinct:                      Precinct 5 - Arlington
           Zoning:                        Residential
           Density Coding:                R40
           Lot Area:                      621 sq. metres
           Height Limit:                  7.0 metres
           Development Potential:         One Single House

           Attachment 9.3.6 is a photograph of the front of the subject property, showing the existing
           advertising signs.

           In accordance with Council Delegation DC342, the proposal is being referred to the Council
           meeting because the recommendation of refusal relies upon the exercise of discretion by the
           Council, with neighbour consultation, under Clauses 6.1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6.




                                               65
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005




           Under the City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme No.6, ‘Home Occupation’ requires
           Planning Approval from the City.

           Comment
           The complainant claimed that a business was been conducted from the premises, operating
           seven days a week and all hours of the night, and that this activity was having an adverse
           effect on the value of neighbouring properties.

           On 9 June 2005, the City’s Compliance Officer visited the property with a view of
           undertaking an inspection and interviewing with the operator, however at the time of the
           visit a gentleman advised that the business operator was away from home for a few days.
           On 14 June, the business operator telephoned the City’s Compliance Officer. The following
           information was recorded:

           •     A business is being conducted which includes massage therapy and counselling.
           •     These activities are conducted at various times of the day and sometimes into the
                 evening, during all weekdays.
           •     One room of the house is used for the purpose of the business activities.
           •     No employees are engaged in business activities on the premises.
           •     Signs are displayed in association with the business.
           •     The business operator receives approximately 30 clients per week (average estimate).
           •     Business activities commenced in February 2005.
           •     The business operator is not the owner of the property.
           •     The business operator was not aware that her activities are unauthorised or that she
                 was required to seek approval for such activities from the City.

           During her discussion with the City’s Compliance Officer on 14 June, the business operator
           was advised that the number of clients she receives each week would need to be reduced
           significantly if Council were to consider approval of an application for retrospective
           planning approval.

           Following thorough investigation of the unauthorised Home Occupation, the City wrote to
           the occupier of No. 133 Douglas Avenue on 13 June 2005 informing her that she requires
           approval to conduct the business activity which involves massage therapy and counselling.
           This application was required to be lodged by a specified date which the business operator

                                              66
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           did not meet. She requested an extension of time to submit the relevant documentation, and
           an extension was granted until 15 July 2005. Despite this extension having been granted, the
           application was not received by 15 July. Therefore the City again wrote to the business
           operator and advised that the unauthorised activities were to cease on or before 15 August
           2005. This led to the submission of the current application.

           A formal application for retrospective planning approval for the Home Occupation was
           lodged with the City on 12 August 2005. Following advice from the City both verbally and
           in writing regarding the City’s ‘Home Occupation’ requirements, the City’s Compliance
           Officer received a telephone call from the applicant shortly prior to lodging an application
           for planning approval. During that telephone conversation, verbal advice was provided by
           the applicant that the number of clients being consulted was approximately 30 per month
           rather than 30 per week. This number is also reflected in the application which refers to an
           average clientele of 7 - 8 clients per week being consulted. This figure contradicts the
           business operator’s initial advice to the City and also the advice provided by the
           complainant.

           After considering all aspects of the applicant’s Home Occupation application and the
           provisions of the City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme No. 6 relating to ‘Home
           Occupation’, it is evident that the business activities do not comply with restrictions imposed
           by the No. 6 Scheme. Concern is expressed regarding increased traffic volume caused by
           the number of clients visiting and the resultant adverse effect on the amenity of the
           neighbourhood. The ‘A-frame’ signs at the front of the property are also well in excess of
           the maximum permissible size.

           Consultation
           In accordance with normal procedure, adjoining neighbours were consulted following the
           submission of the application for planning approval. The standard 14-day notification
           period did not result in any further objection letters being received. The assessing Planning
           Officer received one telephone call from a consulted neighbour who did not have any
           objections to the Home Occupation.

           Prior to the lodgement of this application, the operator of the unauthorised Home
                                           s
           Occupation, contacted the City' Development Services Administration/Compliance Officer
           to seek information about the manner in which the application would be assessed. The
           Compliance Officer advised that all details submitted as part of the application would be
                                                         s
           considered against the background of the City' requirements and, should the application be
           found to be satisfactory in all respects, it would be determined relatively quickly under
           delegated authority. However following the completion of assessment, concerns were
           identified as described in this report. Therefore it was found to be necessary to refer to
           application to the Council meeting for determination. The applicant has been informed
           accordingly.


           Policy and Legislative Implications
           In the ‘Comment’ section above, reference has been made to the provisions of the No. 6
           Town Planning Scheme relating to Home Occupation. These provisions are contained in the
           definition in Schedule 1. An extract from that definition, identifying the areas of conflict in
           the case of the particular Home Occupation under consideration, is presented as follows:

           ‘Home Occupation’ : means an occupation carried out in a dwelling or on land around a
           dwelling by an occupier of the dwelling which -
           (a) .....
           (b) will not cause injury to or adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood;
           (c) .....
           (d) does not display a sign exceeding 0.2 square metres;


                                                67
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           (e)   .....
           (f)   in relation to vehicles and parking, does not result in the requirement for a greater
                 number of parking facilities than normally required for a Single House or an increase
                 in traffic volume in the neighbourhood, does not involve the presence, use or calling
                 of a vehicle more than 1 tonne tare weight, and does not include provision for the
                 fuelling, repair or maintenance of motor vehicles;
           (g)   .....
           (h)   .....
           (i)   .....
           (j)   .....

           The Home Occupation in question is in conflict with the provisions identified.

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

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.6

           That....
           (a) pursuant to the provisions of the City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme No. 6,
                  this application for retrospective approval of Home Occupation - Massage Therapist /
                  Counsellor on Lot 11 (No.133) Douglas Avenue, South Perth be refused as the No. 6
                  Scheme’s requirements have not been met in full due to:
                  (i)    the increase in traffic volume since the business commenced, brought about by
                         the excessive number of clients visiting per week. This has had an adverse
                         effect on the amenity of the neighbourhood; and
                  (ii) the size of the advertising signs exceeding the prescribed 0.2 sq. metre
                         maximum.
           (b) the applicant be instructed to cease all business activities being conducted from No.
                  133 Douglas Avenue within 14 days of receiving written advice of the Council’s
                  decision.


           COMMENT ON DEPUTATION
           The Director Strategic and Regulatory Services advised that the officers had prepared a
           report based on the information gathered in the course of investigating a complaint and
           based on information provided in the application. If the application were refused on the
           basis of the information provided, a fresh application can be submitted, modified in
           accordance with Council policy.

           MOTION
           Cr Smith, Sec Cr Macpherson

           That....
           (a) pursuant to the provisions of the City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme No. 6,
                  this application for retrospective approval of Home Occupation - Massage Therapist /
                  Counsellor on Lot 11 (No.133) Douglas Avenue, South Perth be refused as the No. 6
                  Scheme’s requirements have not been met in full due to:



                                                 68
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                 (i)   the increase in traffic volume since the business commenced, brought about by
                       the excessive number of clients visiting per week. This has had an adverse
                       effect on the amenity of the neighbourhood; and
                 (ii) the size of the advertising signs exceeding the prescribed 0.2 sq. metre
                       maximum.
           (b)   the applicant be instructed to cease all business activities being conducted from No.
                 133 Douglas Avenue within 14 days of receiving written advice of the Council’s
                 decision.

                                                                                           LOST (5/6)


           MEMBER COMMENTS FOR / AGAINST MOTION - POINTS OF CLARIFICATION

           Cr Smith opening for the Motion
               • Difficult to comprehend validity of the applicant’s case
               • Uncertain
               • about number of clients and no. of hours worked

           Cr MacDougall against the Motion
              • Traffic flow and volume
              • Advertising sign
              • Parking
              • No objection from neighbours
              • Show compassion to applicant

           Cr Ozsdolay Question
           Requested clarification specifically how the applicant does not comply with the
           requirements of the City?

           The Director Strategic and Regulatory Services replied that there were issues concerning the
           size of the sign, parking and the volume of traffic.

           Cr Cala against the Motion
           If the number of clients was 30 per week eg. 4 people a day, this would not contribute a
           major traffic issue.

           The Mayor enquired whether, if it was not this particular business that was being run as a
           home occupation but was a recreational activity such as knitting, we could be considering
           the same traffic situation as for a home business purpose?

           The Director Strategic and Regulatory Services replied that it depends on the expected
           volume of clientele.

           The Mayor advised that the applicant did not get the approval of the owner or the Council.
           You would have thought that she would want the business to grow therefore it caused
           confusion with regard to numbers. Her complaint was that the numbers in the report were
           wrong but it was later discovered that the numbers were in fact correct. The business is
           open 7 days per week and is likely to grow. Traffic will be assessed in terms of a growing
           business taking into consideration it is a residential area.

           Cr McDougall stated that he understood it was not open seven days a week.

           Cr Cala Question
           Are we refusing the application on the basis of 30 clients per week?


                                                69
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Cr Macpherson against the Motion
              • A memo was distributed recently about the applicant’s operation of a home
                 business.
              • There will be many people working from home in the future
              • Is there a danger of setting a precedent?
              • Ensure processes are followed correctly

           Cr Jamieson against the Motion
               • Applicant has not followed due process
               • Sympathy for applicant, not used to the systems and processes
               • Applicant to submit new application
               • Make sure it is dealt with effectively

           Mayor point of clarification
           If the Officer recommendation is lost can the applicant make a fresh application?

           Cr Jamieson question
           If the officer recommendation was accepted, would the applicant be out of business for 14
           days?

           Cr Wells against the Officer Recommendation
              • Applicant did not obtain permission from Council to run business from home
              • Confusion of numbers of clientele
              • Applicant to submit fresh application with proper advice from the City

           Mayor question
           If the Officer recommendation is lost, will the applicant be out of business for 14 days?

           The Director Strategic and Regulatory Services replied that according to the
           recommendation before Council the applicant would have 14 days to cease the business.
           Another option is deferral. It would be essential for officers to liaise with the applicant and
           for all points to be clarified. Either way there is still a breach.

           Cr Smith stated that the City will be under pressure because of the growing need for home
           occupation in the City. There was a need to protect the residential quality of the City.

           Point of Order Cr Wells
           There are many signs in South Perth and one home occupation is not going to start a trend.

           Cr Smith for the Motion
           If you have home occupations you are not going to have ‘a’ single sign to trip over, but
           many signs. Please remember we either protect our residential precincts where people do not
           run businesses or they must meet very strict criteria.


            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.6
           Mayor put the Motion

           That....
           (a) pursuant to the provisions of the City of South Perth Town Planning Scheme No. 6,
                  this application for retrospective approval of Home Occupation - Massage Therapist /
                  Counsellor on Lot 11 (No.133) Douglas Avenue, South Perth be refused as the No. 6
                  Scheme’s requirements have not been met in full due to:



                                                70
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                   (i)   the increase in traffic volume since the business commenced, brought about by
                         the excessive number of clients visiting per week. This has had an adverse
                         effect on the amenity of the neighbourhood; and
                   (ii) the size of the advertising signs exceeding the prescribed 0.2 sq. metre
                         maximum.
           (b)     the applicant be instructed to cease all business activities being conducted from No.
                   133 Douglas Avenue within 14 days of receiving written advice of the Council’s
                   decision.

                                                                                              LOST (5/6)


           MOTION
           Moved Cr Wells, Sec Cr Cala

           That a decision on this matter be deferred to the next meeting.


           MEMBER COMMENTS FOR / AGAINST MOTION - POINTS OF CLARIFICATION

           Cr Cala for the Motion
           Refusal is based on traffic volume issue and needs to be pursued further.

           Cr Maddaford Question
           Is the business listed and does the applicant pay GST?

           The Director Strategic and Regulatory Services replied that we do not have that information.


            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.3.6
           Moved Cr Wells, Sec Cr Cala

           That a decision on this matter be deferred to the next meeting.

                                                                                       CARRIED (9/2)
           Reason for Change
           To enable the officers to further clarify the details of the application.



           9.3.7     Reconsideration of Refusal of Planning Approval for Proposed Two Storey
                     Single House. Lot 217 (No. 230) Coode Street, Como.

           Location:                Lot 217 (No. 230) Coode Street, Como
           Applicant:               Mr M L L Scott
           File Ref:                11/4772 / CO8.230
           Date:                    6 September 2005
           Author:                  Rod Bercov, Manager, Development Services;
                                    Frank Polglaze, Planning Officer
           Reporting Officer:       Steve Cope, Director, Strategic and Regulatory Services




                                                  71
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Summary
           On 8 August 2005, planning approval was refused under delegated authority for a two storey
           Single House on Lot 217 (No. 230) Coode Street, Como. The application was refused on the
           basis of the proposed dwelling having vehicular access to the primary street, rather than
           exclusively from the rear right-of-way as is required by clause 3.5.4 (A4.1 and P4) of the
           Residential Design Codes. The applicant has submitted another application and has
           requested that it be referred to the Council meeting for a review of the decision made under
           delegated authority. The Officer’s report recommends that the original decision should
           stand, as the decision is consistent with clause 3.5.4 “Vehicular Access” of the Residential
           Design Codes.

           Background
           Zoning:                 Residential
           Density coding:                 R20/30
           Lot area:               1012 sq. metres
           Height limit:           7.0 metres




           In accordance with normal procedure, the Notice of Determination issued under delegated
           authority offered a right of review at a Council meeting if the applicant was aggrieved by the
           delegated decision. The owner has requested that this review process be implemented.

           Comment
           The explanatory text for “Element 5” of the R-Codes dealing with vehicular access, states
           that:

           “The advantages of not having vehicles access directly from the primary street are:
           •    The streetscape will be more attractive;
           •    There will be fewer driveways and so more space for kerbside parking for visitors;
                and
           •    There will be fewer conflicting movements of vehicles.”


           The R-Codes Performance Criteria clause 3.5.4 P4 “Vehicular Access” states the following:




                                                72
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           “Vehicular access provided so as to minimise the number of crossovers, to be safe in use,
           and not detract from the streetscape.”


           The refused application for No. 230 Coode Street shows vehicular access to one garage from
           the rear right-of-way and to another garage from Coode Street. It was determined by the
           City’s Officers that the Performance Criteria were not met because the proposed
           development requires a crossover for vehicular access from Coode Street and therefore does
           not minimise the number of possible crossovers.

           The applicants have lodged a submission by email dated 23 August 2005 in support of the
           request for reconsideration of their proposal, Attachment 9.3.7 refers. Their primary case is
           based upon perceived inconsistencies by the Council in the use of clause 3.5.4 of the
           R-Codes. They say in their submission:

           “Why have we been penalised when other properties have been granted approval which do
           not comply with clause 3.5.4?”

           In support of their contention regarding inequitable treatment, the applicants have cited eight
           examples of properties with rear right-of-ways which also have vehicular access from the
           primary street. Each of these alleged precedents cited by the applicants has been examined
           by the City’s Officers and the findings are presented as follows:

           Applications Lodged Prior to Gazettal of Residential Design Codes (October 2002)
           Prior to the gazettal of the current Residential Design Codes in October 2002, the previous
           Residential Planning Codes did not contain a provision equivalent to clause 3.5.4 relating to
           a restriction on primary street access where a paved rear right-of-way exists. The following
           examples cited by the applicant were all lodged prior to October 2002 and therefore were
           not constrained in this regard:
           •      24 Robert Street          Lodged 2000
           •      64a Leonora Street        Lodged 2000
           •      30a Norfolk Street        Lodged 2001
           •      77 Robert Street          Lodged August 2002


           Applications Lodged After Gazettal of Residential Design Codes (October 2002)
           In respect of each of the further examples cited by the applicant, which were lodged after
           October 2002, the following comments are provided:

           (a)   23 Carr Street - Lodged 19 November 2002
                 At the time of approval of this application, the right-of-way was not paved. Clause
                 3.5.4 does not require parking to be accessed from a right-of-way unless it is
                 adequately paved and drained from a constructed street to the property boundary.

           (b)   27 Lockhart Street - Lodged 15 November 2002
                 The new dwelling at 27 Lockhart Street has the garage located to the rear, with its
                 main vehicular access being from the right-of-way. The City approved an open
                 parking bay within the front setback area. That decision was inconsistent with clause
                 3.5.4 (A4.1 and P4) of the Residential Design Codes. This was a short time after the
                 revised R-Codes had been gazetted and the decision was due to a lack of
                 familiarisation with the revised Codes at that early stage.




                                                73
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           (c)   80 Hensman Street - Lodged 29 January 2004
                 The parking structure for 80 Hensman Street is accessed from the right-of-way located
                 at the rear of the property. No parking facilities were shown on the approved
                 drawings within the front setback area. Condition 9 of the Notice of Determination
                 dated 13 February 2004 reads as follows:

                 “The existing crossover shall be removed and the verge and kerbing shall be
                 reinstated to the satisfaction of the Director, Infrastructure Services.”

                 A new crossover and driveway have since been constructed from Hensman Street to
                 the property for the purpose of parking a vehicle within the front setback area. No
                 planning approval was issued for a parking bay in this location.

           (d)   38 Norfolk Street - Lodged 2 November 2004
                 By way of the Performance Criteria path prescribed under clause 3.5.4 P4 of the R-
                 Codes, this variation was approved on the basis that the right-of-way does not extend
                 for the full length of the Norfolk Street properties. The following map shows the
                 limited extent of the right-of-way. In view of this, it was recognised that the
                 streetscape will always be characterised by vehicular access and parking structures as
                 a dominant feature of the Norfolk Street streetscape. Therefore no useful purpose
                 would have been served by enforcing vehicular access from the right-of-way. Under
                 these special circumstances, the City was satisfied that primary street access to
                 parking facilities could be provided under clause 3.5.4 P4 of the R-Codes.




           Available Parking for Visitors
           The applicant has expressed concern about the absence of family and visitor parking space
           at the front of their property when functions are being held at the school hall (three to four
           times per week during evenings and on most Sundays). The Como Primary School is
           located opposite their property. The refused development application showed a rear garage /
           workshop which can accommodate three vehicles if solely used for the purpose of a garage.
           Furthermore, the paved driveway area providing access to the rear garage can accommodate
           a further five vehicles.

           The background explanation within Element 5 of the R-Codes relating to access and car
           parking states that fewer driveway access points from the primary street allows for more
           kerbside parking. In the current instance, with the elimination of the vehicle crossover from
           Coode Street, there will be an increase in kerbside parking available to both visitors to the
           applicant’s property and the school hall.




                                                74
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Rubbish Being Dumped on Right-of-Way
           The applicant says that vehicular access to their site via the right-of-way is obstructed by
           rubbish which has been dumped. However during three site inspections conducted by the
           Planning Officer along the full length of the right-of-way, there was no evidence of rubbish
           or any other obstacle which impedes vehicular movement along the right-of-way.

           Conclusion
           As evidenced by the preceding comments relating to previously approved applications, the
           applicant’s assertion that applications have not been assessed consistently by City Officers is
           not demonstrated. With the exception of the approval for development at 27 Lockhart
           Street, which is attributed to a lack of familiarisation with the Codes at their inception, there
           have been no inconsistent decisions. Further, that previous approval only permitted a
           parking bay rather than a garage accessed from the primary street, unlike the applicant’s
           current proposal. The Council’s responsibility in dealing with the current application is to
           apply the provisions of the R-Codes correctly. This leads to the conclusion that the current
           application must be refused.

           Consultation
           In relation to this issue, the Planning Officer has engaged in dialogue with the applicant on
           numerous occasions. During these discussions, the Planning Officer has explained that the
           examples cited do not demonstrate inconsistency of ‘Planning’ decisions for the reasons
           explained above.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The relevant provisions of clause 3.5.4 of the R-Codes have been discussed in the
           “Comment” section of the report.

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

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.7

           That, in respect to the refusal of planning approval for a Single House on Lot 217 (No. 230)
           Coode Street, Como, the applicant be advised that Council is not prepared to overturn the
           refusal issued under delegated authority having regard to the circumstances explained in the
           Planning Officer’s report dated 6 September 2005.

           The Officer’s recommendation was not supported.

           ALTERNATIVE MOTION
           Moved Cr Trent, Sec Cr Macpherson

           That, consideration of the refusal of planning approval for a Single House on Lot 217 (No.
           230) Coode Street, Como be deferred to allow officers time to further investigate this matter
           and report back to the earliest available Council meeting.




                                                 75
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           MEMBER COMMENTS FOR / AGAINST MOTION - POINTS OF CLARIFICATION

           Cr Trent opening for the Alternative Motion
           • I have visited the property and spoken to the two Ward Councillors requesting that the
              matter be deferred pending further advice from the officers.
           • It is unfortunate that the ROW is at the rear of the property where more traffic is moving
              up and down rather than in Coode Street. Coode Street has a cul-de-sac at Thelma
              Street. Only movement in that street for parents bringing children and out of hours
              people using the school hall.

           The Director Strategic and Regulatory Services read aloud the relevant section of the R-
           Codes. (Explanatory text for Element 5 and Clause 3.5.4 P4 Vehicular Access) and advised
           that the R-Codes are adopted under Council’s Town Planning Scheme.

           Cr Macpherson against the Officer recommendation
           • Owner will have no access to the front of his property
           • Access to the property at the back of his property
           • R-Codes are incorrect and need to be modified

           Point of Clarification
           The Director Strategic and Regulatory Services clarified that the R-Codes were intended to
           restrict vehicle access directly from the primary streets.

           Cr Maddaford Statement
           If this application was refused under delegated authority, I doubt by deferring it the matter
           would be resolved.

           Cr Cala against the Alternative Motion
           • Believe Council is not in breach of the Codes
           • If Council overturns the officer’s recommendation for refusal in order to maintain the
              principles of the R Codes we would be interpreting the principle outlined in the Code.

           FORESHADOWED MOTION
           Cr Cala foreshadowed that if the Alternative Motion was lost he would be moving to grant
           the application.

           Cr McDougall
           If the Officer’s recommendation is not adopted, the applicant is successful.

           Cr Wells Point of clarification
           Basically in a diplomatic manner “we want it settled tonight”.

           Mayor Question
           What is the legality of this Council departing from the R-Codes?

           The Director Strategic and Regulatory Services advised that Councillors are required to
           observe the R-Codes, however deferral would enable investigation of justification for
           approval under the performance criteria of the R-Codes.

           Cr Smith’s comment
           Council can opt to make departures from legislation and I could give you many examples
           which were made contrary to the Act or by-law.




                                                76
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Cr Jamieson question
           Cr Jamieson sought confirmation whether Council is legally entitled to put aside the
           R-Codes? He was of the view the R-Codes are legally binding and required to be adhered
           to.

           Mayor comment
           If a decision on the officer recommendation is deferred, the legalities of the R-Codes could
           be further investigated, therefore it gives the opportunity to be brought back to Council for
           consideration.

           Cr Trent closing for the alternative motion
           Cr Trent spoke against the officer recommendation and in support of his alternative Motion
           for deferral for further investigation. He stated that the R-Codes were contrary to what he
           was suggesting.

           The Mayor put the Alternative Motion

           The Motion was LOST.                                                           LOST ( 4/7)


            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.3.7
           Moved Cr Cala, Sec Cr Wells

           That, in respect to the refusal of planning approval for a Single House on Lot 217 (No. 230)
           Coode Street, Como, the applicant be advised that Council is prepared to overturn the
           refusal issued under delegated authority having regard to the circumstances explained in the
           Planning Officer’s report dated 6 September 2005.
                                                                                      CARRIED (10/1)
           Reascn for Change
           To allow vehicular access to the primary street as requested.

           NOTE: CR JAMIESON ASKED THAT HE BE RECORDED AS HAVING VOTED
                 AGAINST THE MOTION


           Note: Cr Doherty left the Chamber at 10.22pm
                 Legal and Governance Officer retired from the Chamber at 10.24pm
                 Director Corporate and Community Services left the Chamber at 10.25pm

           9.3.8   Proposed Additions to High Level Residential Aged Care Facility. Lot 11
                   (No. 1) Gentilli Way, Salter Point

           Location:               Lot 11 (No. 1) Gentilli Way, Salter Point
           Applicant:              Loughton Patterson
           File Ref:               CL3.2 11/295
           Date:                   1 September 2005
           Author:                 Gabriela Poezyn
           Reporting Officer:      Steve Cope, Director, Strategic and Regulatory Services

           Summary
           The proposal is for the addition of a two storey building alongside the western boundary of
           the lot. The new building provides 32 additional en-suite bedrooms and associated facilities
           such as common living rooms, as an extension to the existing High Level Residential Aged
           Care Facility.



                                                77
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           With the exception of a setback variation that is sought in relation to the western boundary,
           the proposal complies with the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS6) and is
           recommended for approval subject to conditions.

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

           Consistent with the terms of Council’s “Delegation DC 342”, the proposal is being referred
           to the Council meeting because the application involves additions to a High Level
           Residential Aged Care Facility.

           Precinct:               Precinct 13 - Salter Point
           Zoning:                 Residential
           Density Coding:         R20
           Lot Area:               12, 446 sq. metres
           Height Limit:           7.0 metres

           The location of the subject land is shown below:




           The current facility contains 68 beds. With the proposed additions, the capacity of the
           facility will increase to 100 beds.

           The Council considered and approved a proposal to provide additional beds for this facility
           in May 2004. Some aspects of this proposal have been implemented. However in general,
           the single storey structure previously approved is no longer favoured, which has resulted in
           the current application.




                                                78
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Comment
           The development application has been assessed against the requirements set out in Tables 4
           and 6 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6. With the exception of the setback from the western
           lot boundary and the absence of bicycle parking facilities, the proposal comfortably
           complies with the standard development requirements of the Scheme. In this regard, the
           following is noted:
           • With the inclusion of the proposed additions, the overall plot ratio will increase to 0.29.
               A maximum plot ratio of 0.5 is permitted.
           • 75 car parking bays have been provided which compares favourably with the 46 bays that
               are required.
           • An area of 4896 sq. metres has been provided as landscaped area, which represents the
               required 40% of the site area. “Landscaped area” excludes all land used for vehicular
               access, car parking or occupied by buildings.

           Setback from Western Boundary
           Table 4 of Town Planning Scheme No 6 prescribes a 6.0 metre minimum setback from the
           street, while the setback from all other boundaries is to be in accordance with Tables 2a and
           2b and Figure 3 of the Residential Design Codes for residential uses. In accordance with
           Table 4, a minimum setback of 6.0 metres from Mettam Fairway would normally be
           required.

           The development proposes a setback of 3.0 metres from Mettam Fairway, being the western
           boundary of the site. Clause 7.8 of TPS6 enables the Council to exercise discretion in regard
           to setbacks.

           Mettam Fairway is a short road that is located parallel to the Kwinana Freeway and only
           serves the subject site and Lot 202, a portion of open space located between Mettam Fairway
           and the freeway. The proposed setback variation therefore only impacts on Mettam Fairway
           and the public open space. Given the openness of this area, the proposed setback variation
           will not have any negative impact, and therefore is supported.

           Provision of Bicycle Parking
           Table 6 of TPS6 requires the provision of bicycle parking facilities at a rate of one bicycle
           bay per 10 beds. As the proposal does not provide for bicycle parking, a condition should be
           imposed requiring the provision of four bicycle bays.

           Landscaping
           Although the proposal complies with the minimum landscaping requirement of 40% of the
           site area, a condition is required in regard to new landscaping where areas have been
           disturbed as a result of building works.

           Relocation of the Western Power Transformer
           The proposal also includes the removal of a portion of retaining wall within the Mettam
           Fairway road reserve and the relocation of a Western Power transformer. Access to the car
           parking area traverses Lot 201, which is the lot that accommodates the transformer, owned
           by Western Power and located within the Mettam Fairway road reserve. The applicant has
           advised that negotiations are currently under way with Western Power in regards to these
           issues.

           The City’s Engineering Infrastructure Department has advised that there are no issues with
           the proposed access point, provided that Western Power has no concerns about the proposed
           crossover traversing their land.

           A condition to address Western Power’s interest is included in the recommendation.



                                                79
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Consultation

           Neighbour Consultation
           The application was advertised to all adjoining property owners for the standard period of 14
           days. Two submissions were received. Listed below is a summary of the concerns raised,
           together with the officer’s response to each:

                            Submitter’s Comment                                          Officer Response
            The addition will result in an increase in service         Although the use of the site as a High Level
            vehicles accessing the site, which is not acceptable       Residential Aged Care Facility is discretionary within
            given the residential zoning of the lot.                   the Residential Zone, the original facility was
                                                                       approved many years ago, with the current proposal
                                                                       being an extension of the existing use. While the
                                                                       proposal represents an increase in activity, the
                                                                       development is well within its maximum development
                                                                       potential. Vehicle access to the proposed additions
                                                                       is via Mettam Fairway which has no residential
                                                                       properties fronting on to it. The additional vehicle
                                                                       movement will be entirely compatible with the
                                                                       neighbouring residential area.
            Due to its scale and height the proposed development       With the exception of the undercroft that is only
            is out of character with the residential area as it will   visible from Mettam Fairway, the proposed addition
            appear to be a “hospital” rather than residential in       presents as a two storey building from all other sides.
            nature.                                                    This is not uncommon for residential development.
                                                                       While its scale is larger than a residential dwelling, it
                                                                       must be noted that this building is located on what is
                                                                       effectively the edge of the residential area.

                          Submitter’s Comment                                            Officer Response
            The proposal does not achieved the required setback        Given the location of the proposed building in relation
            from Mettam Fairway.                                       to the Public Open Space and the Freeway, there will
                                                                       be no negative impact from the proposed setback
                                                                       variation on any residential properties.
            The retaining wall along Mettam Fairway should not be      The City’s Engineering Infrastructure Department
            permitted to be altered.                                   has advised that they have no objection to the
                                                                       access proposed from Mettam Fairway. There is no
                                                                       valid reason why the retaining wall should not be
                                                                       altered as proposed.
            With the proposed addition that consumes land that is      The proposal meets the required 40% landscaped
            currently lawned and landscaped, recreational space        area. Adequate recreational space is available
            for the residents of the development is lost.              elsewhere on the site.

           Design Advisory Consultants’ Comments
           The proposal was considered by the Design Advisory Consultants at their August 2005
           meeting. The following comment was provided:

           “The Advisory Architects considered the proposal to be satisfactory in terms of
           compatibility with the existing buildings and streetscape. However, they observed that the
           design of the staircase does not provide sufficient headroom and that particular element of
           the elevation is not in keeping with the design generally. Therefore the design of the
           stairwell requires modification.”

           The project architect has modified the plans in accordance with the Design Advisory
           Consultants’ recommendation.




                                                        80
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The proposal has been assessed against relevant provisions of Town Planning Scheme No.
           6. Comments relating to the relevant provisions are contained in the ‘Comment’ section of
           this report.

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

           Strategic Implications
           This 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 AND
            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.3.8
           Moved Cr Cala, Sec Cr Trent

           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 additions to a
           High Level Residential Aged Care Facility on Lot 11 (No. 1) Gentilli Way, Salter Point be
           approved subject to the following conditions and important notes:
           (a) Standard Conditions
                 330 (four), 352, 354, 390, 425, 508, 560, 660, 664
           (b) Specific Conditions
                 (i)   All proposed works in relation to the existing retaining wall in Mettam Fairway
                       shall be completed at the applicant’s cost. Details of the proposed works shall
                       be included in the working drawings submitted with the building licence
                       application.

                 (ii)   The applicant shall provide the City with written documentation from Western
                        Power confirming that they are in agreement with the proposed relocation of the
                        Western Power transformer, and with the proposed vehicle crossover traversing
                        Lot 201, where the existing transformer is located.
                 Footnote:    A full list of standard conditions is available for inspection at the Council Offices during normal
                              business hours.

           (c)   Standard Important Notes
                 648, 651.
                 Footnote:    A full list of standard conditions is available for inspection at the Council Offices during normal
                              business hours.

           (d)   Special Important Notes
                 (i)  With reference to Condition 560 above, it is advised that the size of the existing
                      bin store needs to be increased to cater for the additional bins required for waste
                      disposal. The applicant should consult with the City’s Environmental Health
                      Department for detailed information in this respect.
                 (ii) The two ‘Living’ areas detailed on the plans are classified as a public building.
                      Therefore, in conjunction with the submission of a building licence application,
                      the following documents need to be provided:
                      (A) A Form 1 - Application to Alter, Construct or Extend a Public Building;
                             and




                                                      81
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


                       (B)      Drawings incorporating the following:
                                (1) Location of approved exit signs in the building over all designed
                                     exits, ‘directions’ exit signs where necessary, and emergency
                                     lighting in accordance with the Building Code of Australia and
                                     Australian Standard 2293 “Emergency Evacuation Lighting 1
                                     Buildings” Part 1 and 2;
                                (2) Areas where normal lighting is dimmed or extinguished shall be
                                     provided with permanent effective safety light for:
                                     (aa) foyers and passages;
                                     (bb) floors that are ramped at an inclination steeper than 1 in 12;
                                     (cc) main aisles between block fixed seats; and
                                     (dd) the tread of each step.
                                (3) Provision of approved exit door fittings and the direction in which
                                     the doors swing.
                                (4) Provision of hand rails to steps, stairways and any other changes in
                                     floor level which may present a hazard to the public.
                                (5) Decorative treatment in the building that is not referred to in the
                                     Building Regulation 1989 which shall be made of non-toxic
                                     materials.

                                                                          CARRIED (10/0)
           Note: Cr Doherty returned to the Chamber at 10.24pm
                 The Director Corporate and Community Services returned to the Chamber at
                 10.28pm


            9.3.9   Lombardy Poplar Tree - South Perth Esplanade

           Location:                         City of South Perth
           Applicant:                        Council
           File Ref:                         PR/603
           Date:                             6 September 2005
           Author:                           Mark Taylor, Manager Parks and Environment
           Reporting Officer:                Glen Flood, Director Infrastructure Services

           Summary
           On 7 June 2005 one of the two remaining Lombardy Poplar (Populus nigra ‘ITALICA’)
           trees on Sir James Mitchell Park opposite the South Shore Piazza was blown over in a storm
           and damaged two cars. As a result of this incident, it was considered appropriate that the
           remaining tree should be inspected by a qualified Arborist and a report prepared as to its
           condition.

           This report reviews the Arborist’s report and recommends an appropriate course of action
           for Council to take.

           Background
           There were originally three Lombardy Poplar trees growing on Sir James Mitchell Park
           opposite the South Shore Piazza. One died and was removed about 18 months ago. The
           second tree was blown over in a storm on the evening of 16 August, 2005.

           The trees are thought to have been planted over 100 years ago and have been a recognisable
           feature of the South Perth Esplanade foreshore for a long time.




                                                 82
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           There have been several informal approaches made to the City over the years to remove the
           trees. The City’s and Swan River Trust’s position (the trees are in the Swan River Trust
           ‘Management Area’) has always been that these trees should be retained.

           Comment
           The consultant arborist’s report, Attachment 9.3.9(a) refers, provides some history on the
           trees and an analysis of the characteristics of the species.

           The report is quite clear that the remaining tree is ‘post mature’, which means that it is
           effectively past its normal life expectancy. Given the prominent location of this tree, the
           fact that the other two trees have either recently died or fallen over in a storm and the fact
           that it grows adjacent to a car park and a popularly used portion of the foreshore, it should
           be removed.

           This leads to the issue of replacement. A theme of Date Palms (Phoenix Canariensis) has
           already been established along the South Perth Esplanade and it is recommended that two
           mature specimens of this species be used to replace the Lombardy Poplars. To that end, a
           plan has been prepared that shows the proposed replacement theme, Attachment 9.3.9(b)
           refers.

           Consultation
           If Council approves the replacement of the remaining Lombardy Poplar, the following
           communication is proposed:
           • The community be notified via a notice placed on the tree and in the ‘City Update’
               column in the Community Southern Gazette;
           • As is required due to the tree being located in the ‘Management Area’, the Swan River
               Trust will be notified.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           Nil

           Financial Implications
           • The cost to remove the remaining Lombardy Poplar and grind the stump is estimated to
              be $1,700;
           • The cost to supply and install two mature replacement Date Palms is estimated to be
              $5,000.
           The removal and replacements will be funded out of existing budgets.

           Strategic Implications
           This item is consistent with Goal 3 Environmental Management of the City’s Strategic Plan
           - “To sustainably manage, enhance and maintain the City’s unique natural and built
           environment”.

             OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND
             COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.3.9

           That...
           (a)     the remaining Lombardy Poplar (Populus nigra ‘ITALICA’) growing on the Sir
                   James Mitchell Park Foreshore opposite the South Shore Piazza be removed due to
                   its age, apparent health and risk to the community associated with its location,
           (b)     the trees be replaced by two mature ‘Date Palms’ (Phoenix canariensis) as per
                   Attachment 9.3.9(b), to continue the theme already established along the South
                   Perth Esplanade; and
           (c)     the community be suitably advised of the above action by a Notice in the Southern
                   Gazette newspaper.
                                                                 CARRIED EN BLOC RESOLUTION

                                                83
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005



            9.3.10 Street Trees - Anstey Street verge of the new Supermarket cnr Angelo and
                   Anstey Streets

           Location:                        City of South Perth
           Applicant:                       Council
           File Ref:                        PR/603
           Date:                            6 September 2005
           Author:                          Mark Taylor, Manager Parks and Environment
           Reporting Officer:               Glen Flood, Director Infrastructure Services

           Summary
           There are two post-mature WA Peppermints (Agonis flexuosa) growing on the Anstey Street
           verge of the new supermarket site on the corner of Angelo Street.

           The owners of the site have requested the replacement of the trees at their expense.

           This report recommends the replacement of these trees with the Golden Ash (Fraxinus
           griffithii), which is the verge theme tree for the Angelo Street Shopping Precinct.

           Background
           The City issued a Grant of Planning Consent to construct a supermarket on the old service
           station site in September 2002. The consent did not provide approval to remove or interfere
           with the two street trees on the Anstey Street verge of the site.

           The building is near completion and the City is currently working with the developer to tidy
           up the surrounds of the site. The developer, acting on behalf of the owners of the site, has
           approached the City requesting replacement of the two WA Peppermints.

           Comment
           The two WA Peppermints are post-mature which means they are in decline. They are in
           poor visual condition and will more than likely require replacement within the next five
           years.

           The current Street Tree Management Plan theme tree for the verges of the Angelo Street
           Shopping Precinct is the Golden Ash (Fraxinus griffithii). The theme tree for Anstey Street
           is the WA Peppermint, however continuing the theme around the corner of the supermarket
           site into Anstey Street fits in with the expansion of the shopping precinct into that street.

           The owner of the site has agreed to meet the costs to replace the trees. The result will
           greatly improve the visual amenity of the streetscape at not cost to the City. For these
           reasons, the replacement of the trees is recommended.

           Consultation
           If Council resolves to replace the trees, adjacent residents will be advised of this as per the
           requirements of the Street Tree Management Plan.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The City’s Policy P308, Street Trees, states in part:

           The City recognises and values the significance of street trees within the urban setting in
           terms of creating functional and aesthetic streetscapes and in the provision of natural
           habitat.




                                                 84
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           The City will plan for the provision, retention and maintenance of suitable street trees and
           streetscapes in accordance with the strategies established in the Street Tree Management
           Plan. The City recognises the need to remove unsuitable or unsafe trees.

           The City’s Street Tree Management Plan states the following in regard to the removal of
           street trees:

           10 (b) Removal of Street Trees
                  Removal of street trees will take place under the following circumstances:
                  • Trees that are dead or diseased and remedial treatment is not considered
                     worthwhile.
                  • Hazardous trees or those causing damage to public and private property, where
                     repair and specific treatment options are not appropriate.
                  • Trees conflicting with road works, drainage, services and/or construction on
                     road reserves, following an assessment of trees and examination of all other
                     options to tree removal.
                  • Senescent (ageing) trees or dead, diseased or structurally unsound trees where
                     replacement strategies are in place.

           Financial Implications
           The cost to remove the two WA Peppermints and replace them with advanced Golden Ashes
           is estimated to be $2,000. The owners have agreed to meet this cost.

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

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


             OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.3.10

           That...
           (a)     Council approve the replacement of two post mature Western Australian
                   Peppermints (Agonis flexuosa) on the Anstey Street verge of the supermarket
                   development on the corner of Angelo and Anstey Streets with two Golden Ashes
                   (Fraxinus griffithii); and
           (b)     the costs of removal and replacement ($2,000) be met by the owners of the
                   supermarket site.

           MOTION
           Cr Trent moved the Officer recommendation, Sec Cr Ozsdolay

           MEMBER COMMENTS FOR / AGAINST MOTION - POINTS OF CLARIFICATION

           Cr Trent opening for the Motion
           The trees proposed are well aged, I support their removal and the planting of 2 golden ashes.

           Note: Cr Doherty left the Chamber at 10.26pm

           Cr Maddaford against the Motion
           In September 2002 a planning consent did not provide approval to remove or interfere with
           the two trees on the Anstey Street site however the 2 trees in question have been hacked
           back.


                                                85
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Note: The Director Corporate and Community Services returned to the Chamber at .
                 10.28pm. Cr McDougall left the Chamber at 10.29pm and returned at 10.31pm




           Cr Trent for the Motion
           • Should move forward
           • Realise trees arouse passion in some of us
           • Acknowledge trees being replaced at the expense of the property owner

           MOTION
           The Mayor put the officer recommendation
                                                                                          LOST (2/8)




            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.3.10
           Moved Cr Maddaford, Sec Cr Smith

           That...
           (a)     the two mature Western Australian Peppermints (Agonis flexuosa) on the Anstey
                   Street verge of the supermarket development on the corner of Angelo and Anstey
                   Streets be retained; and
           (b)     an investigation be carried out in relation to who ‘hacked’ the trees in question.

                                                                                     CARRIED (11/0)


           Reason for Change
           Residents would not be happy with the removal of the trees since this issue has generated a
           lot of passion following the trees recently having been hacked back.




                                               86
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


     9.4   GOAL 4:        INFRASTRUCTURE
           Nil


     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:                          2 September 2005
           Author:                        Rod Bercov, Manager, Development Services
           Reporting Officer:             Steve Cope, 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 August 2005.




                                              87
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           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
           processed by the 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:

           (a)   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.
           (b)   Subdivision applications;
           (c)   Land use contraventions;
           (d)   Building licence applications; and
           (e)   Consultation.

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

           Applications for Planning Approval
           During the month of August 2005, performance with respect to applications requiring
           neighbour consultation improved significantly compared with the preceding month, resulting
           in the performance target being met. With regard to applications not requiring consultation,
           the number of applications processed on time has decreased slightly, resulting in the 80%
           performance target not being met.

           Seven applications requiring neighbour consultation were dealt with during August, with
           85.71% processed within the target time frame. This is a significant improvement given that
           the number of applications dealt with increased by almost double and the percentage
           processed on time increased by almost 20% compared with last month. This significant
           improvement enabled the prescribed performance target to be met.

           During August, 65.52% of the 29 applications not requiring neighbour consultation were
           processed within the target time frame. The number of applications processed decreased
           slightly compared to last month, and the percentage processed within the prescribed time
           frame decreased by approximately 10%. Overall, a good result was achieved with respect to
           processing times, given that the Planning Services Department has one vacant Planning
           Officer position. Five applications for planning approval were referred to the August 2005
           Council meeting for determination.

           Subdivision
           During August, one subdivision application was dealt with, together with two requests for
           clearance of conditions. The subdivision responses were forwarded to the Western
           Australian Planning Commission within the target time and both clearance requests were
           also completed within target. Response times for both subdivisions and clearance requests
           have been maintained, with the continuation of 100% of all tasks being completed within
           target.

           Land Use Contraventions



                                                88
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           A total of 21 actions relating to land use contraventions were undertaken during the month
           of August 2005 (initial investigation and subsequent response). With regard to initial
           investigations, 28.57% were undertaken within the two day target. With respect to follow-
           up responses, 85.71% were provided on time, which is a slight increase compared with last
           month, however still below target. During the reporting period there was an increase in the
           number of both investigations and response tasks undertaken. Performance is still well
           below target due to the Compliance Officer continuing to undertake some of the duties yet to
           be handed over to the Planning Services Secretary. When training has been completed full
           hand-over of these tasks will occur and investigation and response times will improve
           significantly.

           Building Licence Applications
           With respect to applications exceeding $500,000 in value, there is a 30-day performance
           target. During the month of August, three applications were dealt with. All of these were
           processed within the prescribed time frame. There is a 12-day performance target for
           building licence applications up to $500,000 in value. During August, 69 applications were
           dealt with, of which 88.41% were processed within the prescribed time frame.

           Overall, this is a good improvement compared to last month with the number of applications
           processed on time increasing by approximately 25%. Although there has been a significant
           improvement in processing times with respect to applications under $500,000 and
           applications over $500,000, performance relating to processing of applications under
           $500,000 is slightly below target.
                                        APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING APPROVAL
                Type of Determination          No. of      Average No. of  Approved            % Approved
                                            Applications   Days Taken to  Within Target        Within Target
                                           Determined in      Process
                                            August 2005
            Delegated with Neighbour              7            15.43           62                 85.71%
            Notification
            (Target - 80% within
            24 working days)
            Delegated without Neighbour          29            15.38           19                 65.52%
            Notification (Target - 80%
            within 14 working days)
            TOTAL                                36
                                             Approved        Refused        Deferred               Total
            Council Determinations for           4               1                                   5
            August 2005


                                       SUBDIVISION & AMALGAMATION APPLICATIONS
               Type of Determination            No. of       Average No. of  Approved          % Approved
                                          Applications Dealt     Days       Within Target      Within Target
                                            With in August     Taken to
                                                 2005           Process
            Subdivision / Amalgamations            1               4              1               100%
            (Target - 10 working days)
            Clearances                             2               3              2               100%

                                                   LAND USE CONTRAVENTIONS
                       No. of Investigations Received           Average Days        No.         Percentage
                                                                  Taken to     Investigated     Completed
                                                                  Complete     Within Target   Within Target
            Investigation (Target - 2 working days)                  14              4            28.57%
            Response (Target - 10 working days)                       7              6            85.71%

                                           BUILDING LICENCE APPLICATIONS

                                                  89
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

               Type of Determination            No. of        Average No. of     Approved        % Approved
                                            Applications      Days Taken To     Within Target    Within Target
                                            Determined in        Process
                                            August 2005
            Building Licences                    69                7.29              61             88.41%
             up to $500,000
            (Target - 90% within
             12 working days)
            Building Licences                     3                3.67                3            100%
            over $500,000
            (Target - 90% within
            30 working days)

                                                      CONSULTATION
                                           Number of Applications    Number of                 Number of
                                           Requiring Consultation Notifications Sent       Responses Received
            Planning        Applications             7                     9                       1
            Determined Under Delegated
            Authority
            Planning        Applications              1                    10                      19
            Determined by Council

           Consultation
           During the month of August, of the 36 development applications determined under
           delegated authority, 7 involved neighbour consultation. In total, nine notification letters
           were sent to affected parties and one response was received. Of the five development
           applications considered by Council, one involved neighbour consultation. In total, 10
           notification letters were sent to affected parties and nineteen 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 AND
            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.5.1

           That the report relating to activities of the Development Services Department during the
           month of August 2005, be received.
                                                                CARRIED EN BLOC RESOLUTION


                                                  90
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005



            9.5.2      WALGA Structure

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       GR/205
           Date:                           31 August 2005
           Author and Reporting Officer:   Cliff Frewing, Chief Executive Officer

           Summary
           The purpose of this report is to consider a report from the Western Australian Local
           Government Association [WALGA] which has recently conducted a review of its
           representation and structure.

           Background
           At the 2004 Annual General Meeting of WALGA a resolution was passed which required a
           comprehensive review of the structural effectiveness of WALGA Zones to be conducted.
           Consultation occurred with all Local Governments during the past year and the responses
           received from Local Government were conveyed to a consultant who prepared a report on
           the topic which was considered by the Association’s State Council in June 2005 prior to
           being referred to a sub committee for a further review. The report was then considered at this
           year’s Zone Roundtable in August, a forum which included representatives from all
           WALGA Zones and senior staff. The Roundtable has endorsed the release of the report to all
           Member Councils, Zones, Regional Councils and Regional Organisations of Councils for
           comment. A copy of the report is enclosed. Attachment 9.5.2 refers.

           The structure of the WALGA Zones was also considered by Council at its meeting in
           February 2004 when the City’s continued membership of the Central Metropolitan Zone of
           WALGA was questioned. It was noted that for the City of South Perth to move to another
           Zone a change in the WALGA Constitution would be necessary and approval by the
           WALGA Annual General Meeting.

           The current structure of WALGA is as follows:

           There are 12 country zones each of which has one member elected to the WALGA State
           Council and there are five metropolitan zones, which combined have 12 representatives
           elected to the State Council. The North Metropolitan Zone and the South Metropolitan Zone
           each have three representatives elected because of their greater population and the remaining
           three metropolitan Zones each have two members elected to the State Council.

           Comment
           The comprehensive review of the representation and structural effectiveness of the WALGA
           Zones resulted in a number of recommendations being considered and adopted by the Zone
           Roundtable held on 9 August 2005. The recommendations are as follows:

           1.0      All Zones to elect their representative(s) to the WALGA State Council
           2.0      Zones make take on additional functions at their own initiative
           3.0      Proposals for changes in membership to Zones should only be considered where
                    they are put forward by the relevant Member
           4.0      Principle of equality in representation of all Member Councils at Zones (ie number
                    of voting delegates per Council)
           5.0      WALGA consider initiatives to enhance connection with its membership. These
                    may include:
                    5.1     Annual Zone Forum
                    5.2     Biennial Tour


                                                91
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

                   5.3     State Council Regional Meetings
                   5.4     Policy Forums
                   5.5     State Council Agenda
                   5.6     Obtaining Member Input

           6.0     Regional Cooperation
                   6.1    Smaller focused groups such as Voluntary Regional Organisations of
                          Councils (VROCs) or Regional Local Governments (RLGS) are to be
                          encouraged.
                   6.2    WALGA consider the suggestion that the Association develop a resource to
                          assist Member Councils that are contemplating forming a regional
                          organisation.
                   6.3    WALGA consider developing a strategy for cooperation with regional
                          groups.

           7.0     Reform of the WALGA Representational Structure
                   7.1    The Modified Existing Model (Model 1)

           All recommendations from 1 to 6 are considered reasonable and appropriate and should be
           supported. Recommendation 7 involves the reform of the WALGA structure and alternate
           models are proposed. This recommendation also considers the situation of the City of South
           Perth moving from the Central Metropolitan Zone to a more appropriate Zone and therefore
           warrants further consideration.

           Recommendation 7 identifies three possible models that could be considered in a structural
           review of WALGA representation and are identified as follows:

           1.      Modify Existing Model
           This model essentially retains the status quo in terms of membership and representation, but
           allows for movements within the zones, ie to accommodate the City of South Perth moving
           from the Central Metropolitan Zone to a different zone.




                                               92
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           2.      Regional Development Model
           This option reduces the number of country zones from 12 to nine. The new boundaries
           would reflect the areas contained in Regional Development Commissions with each zone
           having one representative on the WALGA Council. The existing metropolitan zones would
           be retained [but allowing membership changes] and that each zone has two representatives.

           3.       Geographic/Special Interest Model
           The country and metropolitan zones would be adjusted to reflect geographic or special
           interest areas such as inner metropolitan, outer metropolitan, sea change coastal, rural small
           and regional centre zones. This option would involve a considerable change to the structure
           of WALGA.

           After consideration of the various options, WALGA supports option 1, ie to modify the
           existing model.

           The Review identifies at Table 3, Page 13 of WALGA attachments a number of possible
           changes to the current zone structure. It mentions that the suggestion for the City of South
           Perth to move from the Central Metropolitan Zone to a “South East Metropolitan Zone” or
           alternatively be involved in a new zone. The City of Canning, which is currently in the
           South Eastern Metropolitan Zone preferred a new alignment of similar councils and named
           South Perth, Victoria Park and Belmont as the potential for a new Metropolitan Zone. The
           City of Cambridge questioned whether the City of South Perth was properly aligned with
           other Councils within the Central Metropolitan Zone.

           There appears to be general agreement therefore for support for the City of South Perth’s
           view that it does not properly relate to the Central Metropolitan Zone. If this is still the
           current view of Council, then the alternatives available are to join an existing zone or to be
           involved in the creation of another zone which would obviously involve the support of
           others. The two other southern zones consist of the following councils:

           South Metropolitan - Cities of Cockburn, Fremantle, Melville and Rockingham and Towns
           of East Fremantle and Kwinana

           South East Metropolitan - Cities of Armadale, Gosnells, Canning, Town of Victoria Park
           and Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale.

           It is generally anticipated that it is almost impossible for Councils to be matched in a perfect
           grouping of councils where in each case each of the members of the group have identical or
           similar features and issues and that only a ‘best fit’ is possible to achieve. This position
           becomes obvious when the City of South Perth is compared to the members of the South
           Metropolitan and South East Metropolitan Zones as there is a case for membership by the
           City in each of those zones.

           For example, as far as membership of the Southern Metropolitan Zone is concerned, the City
           borders the City of Melville, is of a size similar to the City of Fremantle and the City uses
           the waste disposal facilities located within the City of Melville.

           As far as membership of the South Eastern Metropolitan Zone is concerned, the City of
           South Perth borders the Town of Victoria Park and the City of Canning. In addition, its
           residents are potential users of the Bentley Hospital, which is located within the City of
           Canning.

           The City is involved with the City of Armadale and the City of Gosnells and the three
           Councils form the membership of the South Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council and has



                                                 93
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           a number of resource sharing initiatives with the Town of Victoria Park, making
           membership with the South Eastern Metropolitan Zone a realistic option.

           In terms of WA Police districts, South Perth is located in the South Eastern Metropolitan
           District, an area which covers the Cities of Armadale, Belmont, Canning, Gosnells, City of
           South Perth and the Town of Victoria Park. The City of Belmont is a member of the Eastern
           Metropolitan Zone and Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council and as a result would be
           unlikely to move from one zone to another. Apart from Belmont, there is similarity between
           Council membership of the South East areas.

           In terms of the Perth Metropolitan Planning regions, South Perth is located in the South
           Eastern Planning Region, an area which covers the Cities of Canning, Gosnells, Armadale,
           South Perth, Town of Victoria Park and Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale. This also represents
           a very good match.

           Having regard for the above relationships and structures, it is suggested that the most
           appropriate zone for the City of South Perth to become involved in is the South Eastern
           Metropolitan Zone of WALGA, unless a complete restructure of zones is contemplated.

           Consultation
           WALGA has consulted with Local Governments in the course of seeking information and
           views on the representation and structure of WALGA and its zones. WALGA has also
           circulated the report which detailed the results of this Review and is seeking further
           comment on the recommendations contained in the Review.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           A Council decision will be necessary to alter the WALGA zone in which the City is
           currently a member and it will be necessary to identify the new zone that the City wishes to
           become a member of.

           Financial Implications
           Nil

           Strategic Implications
           As detailed in the report.

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.5.2

           That the Western Australian Local Government Association be advised that the City
           supports recommendations 1 to 6 contained in the Review and with respect to
           recommendation 7, advises that the City supports the modified existing model [option 1] and
           that the City of South Perth be permitted to join the South Eastern Metropolitan Zone at the
           earliest opportunity.

           MOTION
           Cr Maddaford moved the officer recommendation, Sec Cr Ozsdolay

           MEMBER COMMENTS FOR / AGAINST MOTION - POINTS OF CLARIFICATION

           Cr Maddaford opening for the officer recommendation
              • Council is represented on the Central Metropolitan Zone (CMZ)
              • Appropriate to move to South East Metropolitan Zone (SEMZ)

           Cr Jamieson against the Officer Recommendation
               • WALGA’s recommendation 4. Is that consistent with one vote, one value?
               • Supports recommendation with deletion of Recommendation 4.

                                               94
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           ALTERNATIVE MOTION
           Moved Cr Jamieson

           That the Western Australian Local Government Association be advised that the City
           supports recommendations 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 contained in the Review and with respect to
           recommendation 7, advises that the City supports the modified existing model [option 1] and
           that the City of South Perth be permitted to join the South Eastern Metropolitan Zone at the
           earliest opportunity.

                                                          LAPSED FOR WANT OF A SECONDER


            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND
            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.5.2

           That the Western Australian Local Government Association be advised that the City
           supports recommendations 1 to 6 contained in the Review and with respect to
           recommendation 7, advises that the City supports the modified existing model [option 1] and
           that the City of South Perth be permitted to join the South Eastern Metropolitan Zone at the
           earliest opportunity.
                                                                                     CARRIED (10/1)



           NOTE: CR JAMIESON REQUESTED THAT HE BE RECORDED AS HAVING
                 VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION


            9.5.3   Cost Shifting

           Location:                      City of South Perth
           Applicant:                     Council
           File Ref:                      GR/304
           Date:                          2 September 2005
           Author/Reporting Officer:      Cliff Frewing, Chief Executive Officer

           Summary
           The purpose of this report is to consider the Commonwealth Government response to the
           Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and
           Public Administration entitled Rates and Taxes A Fair Share for Responsible Local
           Government. The response is dated July 2005 and is addressed to the current
           Commonwealth Minister for Local Government, Jim Lloyd.

           Background
           The Report Rates and Taxes A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government is also known
           as the Hawker Report and originated in May 2002 when the then Minister for Local
           Government, Tuckey announced an enquiry into Local Government financing. The
           committee appointed to enquire into this matter was chaired by Hon David Hawker, MP,
           Speaker of the House of Representatives and he delivered his report to the then Federal
           Minister for Local Government, then Senator Campbell in November 2003. This report
           contained 18 recommendations.

           The Commonwealth Government has now responded to the 18 recommendations contained
           in the Hawker Report and the details of these recommendations and the responses are
           contained in the attachment to this report (Attachment 9.5.3).

                                               95
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Comment
           Of the 18 recommendations contained in the Hawker Report, it seems that the
           Commonwealth Government only supports six in full and the outcome is in general terms a
           disappointment for Local Government in Australia. It was originally envisaged that a
           Commonwealth review of Local Government finances would redress some of the significant
           funding issues associated with delivery of services to residents by Local Government. The
           Hawker Report acknowledged the significant value of cost shifting by State Government to
           Local Government in recent years and estimated the value of cost shifting up to $1bn. The
           only recommendations that the Government response appears to support are as follows:

           Recommendation No 1: Progress and Intergovernmental Agreement [IGA]
           This agreement would involve the three levels of government with a view to defining the
           roles and responsibilities of each tier of government. It is doubtful that it would redress the
           cost shifting activities in the past.

           Recommendation No 2: Local Government to be Represented on the IGA Committee
           It is acknowledged that Local Government should be represented on the IGA Committee,
           but the Commonwealth Government only supports one representative from ALGA
           representing Local Government Australia wide. Obviously with only one single
           representative from Local Government this is seen to be the barest minimum of involvement
           that could occur.

           Recommendation No 3: Local Government to be recognised by the Australian
           Government
           At present Local Government is not recognised in the Commonwealth Constitution and this
           response supports a Parliamentary resolution that recognises Local Government as an
           integral level of government in Australia. Given the significance of Local Government in
           Australia in terms of its governance functions, delivery of services, employment base,
           revenues and expenditures etc. It is unclear why Local Government has not previously been
           recognised in the Australian Constitution.

           Recommendation No 4: The Australian Government to explore opportunities to develop
           partnerships with Local Government
           The Commonwealth Government supports Local Government representation from Local
           Government during negotiations and requiring a commitment from State Governments to
           identify and provide a share of payments to Local Government where appropriate. Again it
           is considered that Local Government representation and an equitable sharing of
           responsibilities with appropriate funding is the minimum level of expectation by Local
           Government.

           Recommendation No 10: Distribution of Road Grants
           The Commonwealth Government agrees that special purpose payments directed to Local
           Government by the Commonwealth Government should be conditional upon the states not
           decreasing their grants to Local Government as a consequence of Local Government
           receiving additional revenue. This position is accepted.

           Recommendation No 14: Federal Government to develop partnership arrangements with
           Local Government
           The Commonwealth Government agrees that where Local Government delivers a Federal
           program, a partnership agreement shall be entered into with the appropriate Local
           Government and this is obviously beneficial to both parties.

           Recommendation 17:
           The Committee recommended that COAG [Council of Australian Governments] host a
           summit in 2005 on Intergovernmental Relations and proposed a range of activities to be


                                                96
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           considered. The Commonwealth Government did not support this recommendation, but
           agrees that the Productivity Commission should review the capacity of Local Government to
           raise revenue from its own resources.

           Summary
           In general terms it would appear that given the significant amount of interest that the Inquiry
           into Local Government finance has generated over the past three years, the end results are
           somewhat disappointing. It may have been that initial expectations were too high, that a
           genuine reform of delivery of services and revenue distribution within Australian
           Government would occur, but this does not appear to be the case.

           The recommendations supported by the Commonwealth Government also appear to be the
           minimum level of support that could have been offered and to a large extent recognises
           either the status quo or what should have already been implemented to reflect modern good
           governance practices.

           Consultation
           The Commonwealth Government has provided the opportunity for Local Government to
           make submissions during the course of the Hawker Inquiry and its recommendations.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           There is no direct impact at this time on the City of South Perth policies or State legislation.

           Financial Implications
           There are no direct financial implications as a result of the Hawker Inquiry at this time.

           Strategic Implications
           There are no direct strategic implications as a result of the Hawker Inquiry at this time.


            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND
            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.5.3

           That the City write to the 12 Western Australian Commonwealth Senators and local member
           of the House of Representatives, Mr K Wilkie expressing disappointment at the outcome of
           the Commonwealth response to the Hawker Report.
                                                               CARRIED EN BLOC RESOLUTION



            9.5.4    Submission of Annual Returns - Policy P523

           Location:                        City of South Perth
           Applicant:                       Council
           File Ref:                        GO/201
           Date:                            9 September 2005
           Author:                          Sean McLaughlin, Legal & Governance Officer
           Reporting Officer:               Cliff Frewing, Chief Executive Officer

           Summary
           Policy P523 “Submission of Annual Returns” which was adopted as a new Council policy
           by Council at its June ordinary meeting requires the CEO to report to Council on the status
           of annual returns as soon as practicable after 31 August each year.




                                                 97
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Background
           Part 5 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires Council Members and designated
           employees to lodge a statement of their financial interests upon commencement of their
           tenure (Primary Return) and annually thereafter (Annual Return).

           Comment
           All Primary Returns relating to Council Members and designated employees were lodged by
           31 August 2005.

           All Annual Returns were lodged by 31 August 2005 with the exception of three which
           although dated either 30 or 31 August were received via the City’s internal mail on 1
           September 2005. A fourth employee is currently overseas on long service leave and will be
           requested to lodge a return upon recommencing work.

           The Department of Local Government has also required a Performance and Status Report
           on the compliance of Members and Employees in submitting Annual Returns by 31 August.
           The above mentioned Status Report has been provided to the Department of Local
           Government for information.

           Consultation
           Nil.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           The Policy is consistent with the statutory requirements governing the lodgement of
           financial interest returns provided for in the Local Government Act 1995.

           Financial Implications
           Nil.

           Strategic Implications
           The Policy is consistent with Strategic Goal 5:

           “To be a professional, effective and efficient organisation.”

            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND
            COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.5.4

           That the report on the submission of Annual Returns as at 31 August 2005 be received.

                                                                 CARRIED EN BLOC RESOLUTION



     9.6   GOAL 6:         FINANCIAL VIABILITY

           9.6.1   Monthly Financial Management Accounts – August 2005.

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       FM/301
           Date:                           6 September 2005
           Author/Reporting Officer:       Michael J Kent, Director Financial & Information Services




                                                98
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Summary
           Monthly management account summaries are compiled according to the major functional
           (departmental) classifications. These are then 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 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 consistent with the structure of the budget information
           provided to Council and published in the 2005/2006 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 responsible 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.

           For comparative purposes, a summary of budgeted revenues and expenditures (grouped by
           department and directorate) is provided throughout the year. This schedule reflects a
           reconciliation of movements between the 2005/2006 Adopted Budget and 2005/2006
           Amended Budget - including the introduction of the Carry Forward items from 2004/2005 –
           after they are approved by Council. This schedule is produced from September onwards
           each year.

           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



                                                99
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           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)

           Operating Revenue to 31 August 2005 is $22.07M which represents 101% of the Year to
           Date Budget. The majority of operating revenue items noted in the Management Accounts
           are close to budget expectations. Rates revenue is currently well above expectations due to
           the Valuer General’s Office supplying GRV increases for several significant commercial
           sites after the rates budget was modelled - and indeed after the budget was adopted by
           Council. Owners of several large commercial properties in the City have indicated an
           intention to object to the new valuations and the appeals may result in downwards
           adjustments to the valuations - and to the rates revenue. The results of these appeals may not
           be known for a couple of months.

           Interest revenue exceeds budget expectations due to the higher cash holdings resulting from
           the carry forward works and the outstanding result from rates collections to date. Further
           comment on this item can be found at Agenda Item 9.6.2. Revenue at the golf course has
           also improved markedly during the month after the weather improved. Government
           subsidies and fees for respite care at the Collier Park Hostel are currently above budget
           expectations. Revenue from Planning and Building Services is close to budget expectations
           for the month. Operating Revenues within Infrastructure Services are currently slightly
           ahead of budget due to the recovery of costs charged to the City for use of the recycling
           facility by a contractor. Comment on the specific items contributing to the variance situation
           on revenues may be found in the Schedule of Significant Variances. Attachment 9.6.1(5).

           Operating Expenditure to 31 August 2005 is $4.43M which represents around 92% of the
           Year to Date Budget of $4.79M. Operating expenditures are within 2% of budget in the
           administration area but are 15% under budget in Infrastructure. There are a number of
           smaller items contributing to this situation – but the major difference is a reduced allocation
           for depreciation of roads and paths in 2005/2006 following the revaluation of these classes
           of infrastructure assets at 30 June 2005. The revaluation, performed by City engineers has
           been independently audited to validate the asset values and related depreciation.

           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 $0.46M compares favourably to the year to date budget of $0.41M. The
           small difference relates to the lease premium and refurbishment levy resulting from the
           turnover of one more unit at the Collier Park Village than what was budgeted for this time of
           year. The 3 units at the Collier Park Village that were vacant at 30 June have all since been
           leased.

           Capital Expenditure at 31 August is $0.72M against a year to date budget of $0.57M.
           Primarily this relates to costs attributed to projects recommended as carry forward works –
           this variance will correct once the carry forward works are approved and the related budgets
           are brought to account. Further comment on the variances relating to Capital Revenue &
           Capital Expenditure items may be found in Attachment 9.6.1(5).

                                                100
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           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.

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


           OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND
           COUNCIL DECISION 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.

                                                                  CARRIED EN BLOC RESOLUTION



           9.6.2   Monthly Statement of Funds, Investments & Debtors at 31 August 2005

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       FM/301
           Date:                           5 September 2005
           Authors:                        Michael J Kent and Deborah M Gray
           Reporting Officer:              Michael J Kent, 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

                                                101
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           delegated to the City’s Director Financial and Information Services and the 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 $32.85M compare very favourably to $28.33M at the
                equivalent stage of last year. Whilst about 60% of the difference relates to funds
                quarantined for carry forward works, the very significant remainder relates to the
                excellent results to date from rates collections. This builds on the platform that
                effective treasury management during 2004/2005 created - with the City well placed
                to fund its operations and projects throughout the 2005/2006 financial year.

                   Monies taken into the year and monies collected subsequently are invested in secure
                   financial instruments to generate interest income - until those monies are required to
                   fund operations or projects later during the year as major construction initiatives
                   progress. 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 $17.31M (compared to $14.43M in 2004/2005 ). Attachment
                   9.6.2(1).

           (b)     Investments
                   Total investment in short term money market instruments as at month end is
                   $32.59M compared to $28.14M 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 month total $0.23M, compared to $0.19M at
                   the same time last year. Higher balances in Reserve Funds and Municipal cash
                   holdings and effective treasury management have enabled the City to better the
                   investment return at the equivalent stage of the previous year. The average rate of
                   return for the year to date is 5.69%. Anticipated yield on investments yet to mature
                   is 5.69%. The City actively manages its treasury funds to pursue responsible, low
                   risk investment opportunities that generate interest revenue to supplement its rates
                   income.

           (c)     Major Debtor Classifications
                   The level of outstanding rates relative to the equivalent time last year is shown in
                   Attachment 9.6.2(3). Rates collections to the end of August represent 59.2% of
                   total rates levied compared to 52.8% at the equivalent stage of the previous year.
                   This result reflects the impact of a number of important initiatives – from issuing the
                   rates notices one week earlier this year than in 2004/2005, to carefully modelling the
                   impacts of the GRV revaluation through to a highly effective communication
                   strategy for the budget and the revaluation. The variety of convenient user friendly
                   payment methods and the outstanding selection of prizes for early payment (all
                   generously donated by our sponsors) have also had an extremely positive impact on
                   rates collections.

                                                102
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


                   Considering that the current year was a revaluation year - which generally adds
                   considerable complexity and workload to the rates process, it is a very pleasing
                   result to have been able to issue the rates notices in such a timely manner and to
                   have had such collection success to date. This result provides convincing evidence
                   of the high quality of the City’s financial systems and processes.

                   General debtors stand at $1.44M at 31 August compared to $1.48M at the same time
                   last year. This is a significant reduction from last month as several year end debtors
                   have been collected – including GST receivable from the ATO for June & July as
                   well as grant monies relating to road works completed in June 2005.

           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.

           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 AND
           COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.6.2

           That the 31 August 2005 Statement of Funds, Investment and Debtors comprising:
           • Summary of All Council Funds as per                Attachment 9.6.2(1)
           • Summary of Cash Investments as per                 Attachment 9.6.2(2)
           • Statement of Major Debtor Categories as per        Attachment 9.6.2(3)
           be received.
                                                              CARRIED EN BLOC RESOLUTION



           9.6.3 Warrant of Payments Listing
           Location:                 City of South Perth
           Applicant:                Council
           File Ref:                 FM/301
           Date:                     6 September 2005
           Authors:                  Michael J Kent and Deborah M Gray
           Reporting Officer:        Michael J Kent, Director Financial & Information Services

           Summary
           A list of accounts paid by the CEO under delegated authority between 1 August 2005 and
           31 August 2005 is presented to the 27 September 2005 Council meeting.




                                               103
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           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 this 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
           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 P605 - Purchasing and Invoice Approval &
           supported by Delegation DM605.

           Financial Implications
           Payment of authorised amounts within existing budget provisions.

           OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND
           COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.6.3

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

                                                                  CARRIED EN BLOC RESOLUTION



           9.6.4   End of Year Financial Management Accounts - June 2005.

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       FM/301
           Date:                           2 September 2005
           Author / Reporting Officer:     Michael J Kent, Director Financial & Information Services

                                               104
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Summary
           Management account summaries comparing actual performance against budget expectations
           for the 2004/2005 year are presented for Council review. Comment is provided on the
           significant financial variances disclosed therein.

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

           A management account format, which mirrors the organisational structure and reflects the
           responsibility structure and accountability mechanisms inherent within that structure is the
           most appropriate format for monitoring progress against the Budget. The information
           provided to council is a functionally compiled summary of the 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.

           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.

           The local government budget is a dynamic document and is progressively amended
           throughout the year to take advantage of changed circumstances and new opportunities -
           consistent with principles of responsible financial cash management. Whilst the original
           adopted budget is relevant at 1 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.

           For comparative purposes, a separate summary of budgeted revenues and expenditures
           grouped by department and directorate, is provided. This provides a reconciliation of the
           movements between the 2004/2005 Adopted Budget and 2004/2005 Amended Budget -
           Attachment 9.6.4(6).

           A 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. This provides greater financial
           accountability to the community.

           Comment
           The major components of the monthly management account summaries presented to council
           are:
           • Statement of Financial Position – Attachment 9.6.4 (1)(A) and 9.6.4(1)(B)
           • Summary of Operating Revenue and Expenditure (all departments except Infrastructure
              Services) – Attachment 9.6.4(2)
           • Summary of Operating Revenue and Expenditure for Infrastructure Services -
              Attachment 9.6.4(3)
           • Summary of Capital Items – Attachment 9.6.4(4)
           • Schedule of Significant Variances – Attachment 9.6.4(5)
           • Summary comparing Adopted Budget to Amended Budget identifying budget
              movements during the year - Attachment 9.6.4(6)(A) and 9.6.4(6)(B)


                                               105
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           Operating Items
           Operating Revenue to 30 June 2005 is $28.94M which represents 101% of the Annual
           Budget. Revenue for the Directorate of Corporate & Community Services is 3% ($98,491)
           above the budget target – mainly as a result of higher than budgeted commonwealth subsidy
           and retained monies from accommodation bonds at the Collier Park Hostel. An increase in
           the ratio of bond paying residents at the hostel has resulted in the increased bond retentions
           – but the amount per resident remains fixed by legislation. The Directorate of Financial &
           Information Services exceeded their revenue budget by 1% ($138,215) due to a better than
           expected performance on interim rates revenue and by achieving better investment returns
           due to the higher cash holdings. The Strategic & Regulatory Directorate finished the year
           1% ($23,100) behind budget with less than budgeted revenue from rubbish levies being
           offset by a strong performance on revenue from parking management. Infrastructure
           Services concluded the year 2% ($21,029) ahead of budget expectations with contributions
           from private works largely offsetting an unfavourable variance on trade-in proceeds from
           plant items.

           Comment on specific variances contributing to these differences may be found in the
           Schedule of Significant Variances. Attachment 9.6.4(5).

           Operating Expenditure to 30 June 2005 is $26.59M which represents 98% of the Total
           Budget. Operating costs within the Chief Executive’s Office were 1% ($7,559) under budget
           overall due to less than budgeted expenditure on consultants and training. The Directorate of
           Corporate & Community Services is 2% (or $159,465) below budget for Operating
           Expenses as a consequence of significant savings on budgeted electoral costs (due to several
           seats being uncontested), a full year staff vacancy in the administration area (position
           deleted in 2005/2006) and savings against budget on promotions and the Fiesta event.

           Operating Expenditure of the Financial and Information Services area is reported as 9%
           ($121,291) below budget but this is distorted by a significantly lower level of interest
           expense due to the planned $1.5M of corporate borrowings not occurring until late June. The
           other major factor was an extended staff vacancy in the area during the year – which will be
           filled in October. A much less than budgeted doubtful debts expense was required due to
           prudent provisions in earlier years. Information Services also benefited from deferred
           expenditure on security consultants and a staff vacancy filled much later in the year than
           was originally anticipated.

           The Operating Expenses of the Strategic & Regulatory Directorate were 5% (or $307,840)
           favourable at year end. The resulted from a number of favourable variances in each of the
           directorate’s departmental areas as discussed below.

           Building Services finished 3% ahead of budget with savings on salaries and consultants –
           due to the difficulties in obtaining suitably qualified staff in this area. Planning was 3%
           under the revised budget with proposed spending on consultants for precinct studies now
           not proceeding until 2005/2006. Health Services concluded the year well under its overall
           budget primarily due to the operators of the regional waste disposal facility billing the City
           significantly less than it had previously advised the City. We understand this to relate to
           some technical problems at their end – resulting in a windfall gain to the City.

           Infrastructure Services finished the year 2% ($183,678) over budget overall for Operating
           Expenses – a similar result to previous year. Within this overall result were a number of
           offsetting variances. Infrastructure Support Services concluded the year slightly favourable
           to budget expectations. The Engineering Infrastructure arm of the Infrastructure Services
           Directorate ended the year on budget – with only a small number of minor variances that
           offset each other.




                                               106
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           The Parks and Environment area finished the year 4% or $210,279 unfavourable with major
           unfavourable areas being the cost of maintaining parks and reserves which was 9% over
           budget and streetscape maintenance which was 3% over. The streetscape maintenance
           variance is a timing issue only and was corrected in July 2005 – as reflected in the July
           Management Accounts. The park maintenance budget has been increased in 2004/2005 to
           accommodate the additional maintenance responsibilities arising from the creation /
           refurbishment of major parks and the responsible manager is also currently reviewing the
           maintenance service delivery model.

           Comment on specific variances contributing to these differences may be found in the
           Schedule of Significant Variances. Attachment 9.6.4(5).

           Employee Costs
           Salary and associated costs for the year include superannuation and amounts transferred to
           provisions for statutory employee entitlements such as Annual and Long Service Leave.
           These totalled $10.59M against a budget of $10.84M – a favourable variance of 2.3%.
           Employee entitlements mentioned above are fully cash-backed as part of responsible
           financial management practice.

           Staff costs within the Chief Executive’s area (including the Human Resources area) were
           4.2% ($28,029) over budget but this related to the transitional arrangements for the Chief
           Executive’s position and additional costs in training the incoming Payroll Officer whilst the
           departing one was still employed at the City.

           Staff costs for Corporate & Community Services were within 2.6 % of budget overall.
           Directorate Support was favourable because of the long term vacant position – now deleted.
           Golf Course, Libraries and Public Relations were on or very close to budget. Community
           Development was 1.5% over budget representing the cumulative effect of a number of small
           increases in staffing costs for the various programs included in this grouping. Staff costs at
           the Collier Park Retirement Complex were 1% under budget.

           The Financial & Information Services area was 6.5% under-budget with most areas close to
           budget other than savings from the vacant Accountant position and the filling of the Records
           Officer position much later in the year than was expected. Customer Service and
           Information Technology salaries were on budget at year end. Service delivery in the area
           was not compromised with all targets still being met.

           Staff costs in the Strategic and Regulatory Services Directorate were 5% under-budget at
           year end. Directorate administration was favourably impacted by the extended vacancy in
           filling the executive position in the area whilst Building Services was very close to budget.

           Planning Services was 4% under budget due to vacancies occurring during the year as was
           the Health Services area which had extended periods of vacancies following the departure of
           staff members. The Rangers area reflected a lower cost than budgeted due to some costs
           being charged directly against events rather than to salaries. Waste Management was
           adversely impacted by the costs of transferring the remaining waste management services
           from in-house to outsourced functions.

           Infrastructure Services staff costs were 0.7% under budget. Directorate Support was within
           1% of budget at year end. Parks and Environment salaries finished exactly on budget -
           despite having to use temporary contract staff during the year to maintain service levels.
           Engineering Infrastructure finished with its salaries expenditure 1.3% under budget.

           Capital Items
           Capital Revenue of $1.56M represents 85% of the Total Budget. The most significant
           favourable factors contributing to this variance were an unbudgeted grant of some $39,000


                                               107
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           to the Collier Park Hostel on the 28 June and slightly higher than budgeted revenues from
           leasing units at the Collier Park Village. Offsetting this was the budgeted revenue from sale
           of land at the Broome St sump not proceeding and slightly less than expected revenue from
           grants for capital works on roads.

           Capital Expenditure of $9.75M represents some 78% of the Total Budget of $12.50M. This
           figure is at the top end of the range predicted by the Director Financial & Information
           Services in April (refer Agenda Item 9.0.1.) The 2005/2006 Annual Budget flagged
           potential gross carried forward expenditure of some $2.65M - which combined with the
           completed works, represents 100% of the Total Budget. A detailed report on the Capital
           Projects and the recommended list of Carried Forward Works is included in Item 9.6.5 of
           this Agenda. The major components of the revised list of Carried Forward Works are as
           identified at that time. Further comment on variances relating to Capital Items may be found
           in Attachment 9.6.4 (5).

           Borrowings
           The 2004/2005 Budget flagged the City’s intention to borrow $1.5M as part of the City’s
           overall funding package. With the lag on a number of capital projects, this funding was not
           required until late in June 2005 when it was possible to lock in the fixed interest rate loan at
           a rate very similar to the City’s current investment return rate. The later timing of the
           borrowing resulted in a significant saving in interest expense for the year as noted above.

           Opening Position
           The Closing Position for 2004/2005 excluding carry forwards but after accrual movements
           (which becomes the Opening Position for the 2005/2006 budget), was estimated as being
           $609,973. The unaudited year end accounts show an Opening Position of $481,257 -
           approximately $120,000 less than anticipated. Accrual funding opportunities in 2005/2006
           will return this position to a very small surplus as shown in the Annual Budget.

           Balance Sheet
           Current Assets at year end are $23.9M compared to $21.4M in 2003/2004 with the major
           change being the holding of additional cash (as investments) relating to unspent capital
           funds. Current Liabilities are slightly higher than the position at year end last year - being
           $4.8M against $4.2M in 2003/2004. Accounts Payable are the largest change increasing by
           approximately $0.5M. This is largely due to the late submission of a number of supplier’s
           invoices – including large sums for the completion of the George Burnett Park landscaping
           works and the refurbishment of the City Administration Building. Provisions for Employee
           Entitlements (under legislation) have remained constant. Current borrowings for City
           purposes and loans to support community and sporting groups have increased by $0.1M.

           Non Current Assets as at 30 June 2005 are $173.6M after capitalising infrastructure assets
           created during the year. This compares to $152.1M at this time last year. This was due to a
           revaluation of several asset classes during the year. Buildings, revalued by a licensed Valuer
           as part of a five yearly revaluation cycle, increased in value by some $15.9M. Roads and
           Paths infrastructure increased in value by some $2.0M and $0.9M respectively following
           officer valuations using recognised valuation techniques on each asset class. These asset
           valuation increases are reflected in the asset Revaluation Reserve in accordance with
           relevant accounting regulations.

           Non Current Liabilities finished the year at $23.4M compared to $21.2M at 30 June 2004. A
           major changes in this category at year end is another $0.14M reduction in monies held in
           trust after a concerted effort to clear down some of the bond monies held for extended
           periods. CPV Leaseholder Liability increased from $18.3M to 19.4M in 2004/2005 as a
           consequence of higher market values being paid for the residential units - with the attendant
           obligation to refund the larger values to departing residents. The resulting increase in
           leaseholder liability is offset by an increase in Investments associated with the Reserve Fund


                                                108
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           in which the refundable amounts are quarantined. Non current loans increased by
           approximately $1.5M in line with corporate borrowings referred to above.

           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
           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.

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

           OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND
           COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.6.4

           That ....
           (a)       the monthly Statement of Financial Position and Financial Summaries provided as
                     Attachments 9.6.4 (1-4) be received;
           (b)       the Schedule of Significant Variances provided as Attachment 9.6.4(5) be accepted
                     as discharging Councils’ statutory obligations under Local Government (Financial
                     Management) Regulation 35; and
           (c)       the Summary of Budget Movements and Budget Reconciliation Schedule for
                     2004/2005 provided as Attachments 9.6.4(6)(A) and 9.6.4(6)(B) be received.

                                                                  CARRIED EN BLOC RESOLUTION



           9.6.5   Capital Projects Review to 30 June 2005

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       FS/FI/1
           Date:                           2 September 2005
           Author / Reporting Officer:     Michael J Kent, Director Financial & Information Services

           Summary
           A schedule of financial performance (supplemented by relevant comments) is provided for
           all approved Capital Projects to 30 June 2005. The Schedule compares actual financial
           performance on each project against the budgeted values for those items. Projects for which
           funding is recommended for carrying forward into the 2005/2006 year are identified and
           listed on the attached schedule.

           Background
           The 2004/2005 Budget included Capital Projects totaling $12.51M of which $9.75M was
           expended by 30 June 2005. A further $2.73M worth of Capital Expenditure is proposed for

                                               109
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           carry forward into the 2005/2006 year. Allowing for some minor overspending on a small
           number of projects, this represents 100% of the total proposed expenditure for the
           2004/2005 year.

           The attached comments on significant project line-item variances provide a comparative
           review of the Budget versus Actual for all Expenditure and Revenue items. Although all
           projects are listed on the schedule, brief comment is only provided on the significant
           variances identified. This is to keep the report to a reasonable size and to emphasize the
           reporting by exception principle.

           Comment
           For a variety of reasons including contractors or materials not being available when
           required, inclement weather, protracted negotiations, extended public consultation, delays in
           getting approvals or sign off for designs etc; capital projects are not always able to be
           completed within the same financial year as they are initially listed in the budget. A process
           of identifying and validating the projects to be carried forward into the subsequent financial
           year is required.

           Where a project requires only minimal ‘residual’ expenditure to finalise it – and the invoice
           is likely to be received early in the new financial year, the additional project expenditure will
           simply be treated (and disclosed) as a ‘Prior Year Residual Cost’. Where a significant
           portion of the initial project cost is to be carried into the new year and those funds expended
           after June 30, the project may be identified as a Carry Forward item.

           During the budget process, a series of indicative Carry Forward Works are identified by City
           officers and included in the Annual Budget adopted by Council. Following the close off of
           the year end accounts, these indicative Carry Forward projects are validated to ensure that
           the funds proposed for carry forward are legitimately unspent at year end. The underlying
           principle is that the final Carry Forward amount can not be greater than the difference
           between the original budget and the actual amount spent (as recorded in the year end
           accounts).

           Because the Carry Forward figures included in the Annual Budget are based only on
           projected figures and therefore are indicative in nature, the final validated amount of
           individual Carry Forwards for those previously identified projects may differ slightly from
           the amounts published in the adopted budget.

           For 2005/2006, this equates to $2,730,000 worth of Carry Forward Capital Expenditure.

           Consultation
           For identified significant variances, comment has been sought from the responsible
           managers prior to the item being included in the Capital Projects Review.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           Consistent with relevant professional pronouncements but not directly impacted by any in-
           force policy of the City.

           Financial Implications
           The tabling of this report involves the reporting of historical financial events only.
           Preparation of the report and schedule require the involvement of managerial staff across the
           organisation, hence there will necessarily be some commitment of resources towards the
           investigation of identified variances and preparation of the Schedule of Comments. This is
           consistent with responsible financial management practice.




                                                 110
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           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 Goal 6 –
           ‘To provide responsible and sustainable management of the City’ financial resources’.

           OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND
           COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.6.5

           That…
           (a)   the Schedule of Capital Projects supported by officer comments on identified
                 significant variances to 30 June 2004, be received Attachments 9.6.5(1) and
                 9.6.5(2); and
           (b)   the Schedule of Final Carry Forward Capital items from 2004/2005 into the
                 2005/2006 Budget as disclosed on Attachment 9.6.5(3) is adopted .
           (c)
                                                           CARRIED EN BLOC RESOLUTION



           9.6.6   Reporting of Significant Financial Variances

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       FM/301
           Date:                           6 September 2005
           Author/Reporting Officer:       Michael J Kent, Director Financial & Information Services

           Summary
           To comply with recently enacted legislative changes, every local government is required to
           adopt a ‘threshold’ (calculated in accordance with Australian Accounting Standard 5 –
           Materiality) which guides the reporting of material financial variances in statements of
           financial activity. The identification and reporting of relevant variances between actual
           performance and budget expectations is an integral part of effective financial management.
           This report presents an appropriate materiality threshold and places it in the context of the
           City’s current financial reporting practices.

           Background
           Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 34 requires the City to present
           monthly financial reports to Council in a format consistent with relevant accounting
           pronouncements and principles. 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. Clause 5 of this
           regulation (enacted in March 2005) provides that .... ‘Each financial year, a local
           government is to adopt a percentage or value calculated in accordance with AAS5, to be
           used in statements of financial activity for reporting material variances’.

           Regretfully, because a small of number of local governments have not acted in a prudent and
           financially responsible manner in the past, legislation has become necessary to compel those
           few local governments to exercise responsible management. This then imposes an
           administrative burden each year on the great many responsible Councils and administration
           teams who already take a responsible approach by requiring them to formally adopt a
           threshold for reporting variances - when that action should simply occur as a matter of
           course.



                                               111
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005

           AAS5 notes that ‘materiality’ decisions necessarily reflect the exercise of professional
           judgement – but the general principle is that an item may be considered material if its
           omission, mis-statement or non disclosure has the potential to adversely affect the discharge
           of accountability by the management or governing body of the entity.

           Comment
           AAS5 recognises that determining thresholds for materiality is an arbitrary matter –
           influenced by the characteristics of the entity and the users of the financial reports. It
           suggests that an amount which is greater than 10% of the ‘appropriate base amount’ can be
           considered material – and that any amount below 5% of the ‘appropriate base amount’ is
           considered immaterial. Professional judgement is required for amounts in between.

           Based on a strict minimal compliance approach, this concept of materiality would only apply
           in the City’s case to a few large variances – in some cases from $20,000 to $160,000
           depending on the particular line item. This is clearly not conducive to an effective or
           responsible discharge of accountability.

           AAS 5 provides guidance on whether or not a reporting entity is ‘required’ to disclose an
           item as being material – but this does not preclude the entity from voluntarily disclosing
           variances which, by themselves, may not be determined as being material.

           As an organisation which aspires to best practice in financial management, the City should
           look at applying a ‘relative’ materiality concept. That is, relating the variance to the
           particular line item on the report. Clearly there is no worthwhile purpose in reporting a 15%
           variance on a $500 line item but conversely a 10% variance on a $100,000 item is worth
           identifying and providing comment on.

           The suggested approach would be therefore, to suggest that for line items under $100,000
           any variance on the financial summary schedules of greater than $5,000 is significant - and
           should be commented upon. For line items greater than $100,000 a variance of greater than
           5% of the line item value should be identified and reported.

           To illustrate the benefits of this dual approach - it would, for example, pick up a $108,000
           expenditure on a $100,000 line total as well as a $13,000 expenditure on an $8,000 line total
           - but not a $5,000 variance on a $400,000 line. Importantly, it would not require reporting of
           larger percentage, but immaterial dollar amounts, such as a $2,500 expenditure on a $2,000
           line total - which avoids cluttering the report with many minor items.

           It is also very important to recognise that adopting such a threshold sets only a ‘minimum
           compliance standard’. The City can, of its only volition, report on smaller variances where
           the item is considered, in the professional judgement of the City’s accounting staff, to be of
           interest to the community and Council Members. That is, the City can build on the basic
           variance reporting requirements to provide information in excess of the statutory
           requirements.

           Indeed, this is consistent with the City’s current approach to its monthly reporting of
           variances. The existing approach is well in excess of the new statutory requirements – and
           has been recognised as being a very effective and informative approach.

           The City also does, and should continue to, produce additional schedules on capital works
           etc – noting the relevant variances and providing comment on those variances. This adds
           value to the information required to meet our statutory reporting obligations and provides a
           higher level of accountability to the community.




                                               112
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Consultation
           This report is prepared in response to a statutory obligation. It represents the view of the
           City’s qualified accounting professionals who are required to exercise their professional
           judgement in preparing the City’s financial reports and variance schedules. These reports
           provide evidence of the soundness of financial management being employed by the
           administration. They also provide information and discharge 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, Goal 6 –

           ‘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. Adopting this
           recommendation would not result in any lessening of the current level of financial
           accountability currently provided by the City’s financial reporting regime.

           Financial Implications
           The report establishes the minimum standards for identifying and reporting variances
           between actual and budgeted financial performance.



           OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND
           COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.6.6

           That ....
           (a)       the City adopts the following materiality thresholds for the purposes of identifying
                     and reporting significant financial variances :
                     (i)      $5,000 on line items having a total value of up to $100,000; and
                     (ii)     5% of the line item total value for items having a total value in excess of
                              $100,000;
           (b)       it is recognised that this threshold sets only the minimum disclosure requirements
                     and City officers are encouraged to provide information on lesser variances where
                     the information is considered to add value – but still yields a positive cost to benefit
                     ratio for providing the disclosure.


                                                                    CARRIED EN BLOC RESOLUTION




                                                 113
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005



            9.6.7    Collier Park Village and Hostel Review

           Location:                       City of South Perth
           Applicant:                      Council
           File Ref:                       CS/501/4
           Date:                           12 September 2005
           Authors:                        Cliff Frewing and Roger Burrows
           Reporting Officer:              Cliff Frewing, Chief Executive Officer

           Summary
           The purpose of this report is to consider the Terms of Reference for investigation by an
           appropriate Consultant to assist Council with the determination of possible options for the
           future of the Collier Park Hostel.

           Background
           In September 2003 a Confidential Discussion Paper on the Collier Park Retirement Complex
           was prepared and presented to Council for consideration. This was a comprehensive
           document that in summary looked at the City’s commitment to ensuring that the aged
           housing needs provided by the City are appropriately maintained to a satisfactory standard.
           Compliance with recent Commonwealth Legislation was also considered to be essential. It
           was also acknowledged that the complex was operating in deficit in, in particular the hostel
           component.

           The Paper looked at short and long term strategies to assist in reducing the deficit and also
           considered various alternatives for the operation and management of the complex.

           It was recognised that the City has developed, built and has managed the complex for the
           past 20 years but that it now needed to examine how it can be placed on a sustainable
           financial footing whilst giving a high level of security to all parties into the future.

           In October 2003 a report was presented to Council for the purpose of considering the Terms
           of Reference for a review of the Village and Hostel. Expressions of Interest were
           subsequently called for and late in December 2003 a contract was awarded to ATA Health
           and Aged Care Management.

           From February to May of 2004, Ms Astrid Timmers (the principal officer) of ATA held
           numerous meetings with all levels of staff involved in the Village and a number of the
           residents individually and also through the Residents’ Committee. In June 2004 the
           Consultant presented a report in the form of an Executive Summary to Council at a Concept
           Forum.

           Following this presentation a question / answer session was held in the Council Chamber
           with the Consultant. A number of questions that could not be answered on the night were
           taken on notice and responded to at a later date. A number of individual Councillors also
           met with the Consultant and posed other questions / queries.

           In October 2004 a further Workshop was arranged with an independent facilitator, Mrs
           Helen Hardcastle. The purpose of which was to move towards a consensus direction as to
           which Business Model Option Council wished to pursue and ‘where to from here’.

           The general view of the Workshop was that the ownership and control of the Residential
           Units component of the village should continue with the City but with some improved
           strategies and processes, with a view to maintaining or reducing maintenance costs, whilst
           also reviewing alternative financial models in relation to the maintenance fee.


                                               114
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005



           The Financial Director has presented to Council a number of alternative financial models in
           relation to the maintenance fee. This has also been discussed and approved of by the
           residents at their most recent Residents’ Committee meeting.

           In addition to the above, the Manager of Collier Park Village has made a number of
           improvements and put a number of processes in place with a view to addressing many of the
           issues raised in the ATA Review.

           In relation to the hostel component of the village, the Workshop participants agreed in
           principle that an alternative model of ownership and operation was to be explored. This was
           considered to be the preferred option to ensure optimal and sustainable financial and care
           outcomes for the residents of the hostel.

           The Councillors in attendance at the Workshop were of the view that any move away from
           the current position of the hostel would need to be progressed carefully due to all of the
           social, political, financial, staffing and emotional issues involved.

           The CEO reviewed the file and background material and supported the current position and
           agrees that, because of the complex and specialised nature of aged care commonwealth
           legislation and direction, in-house staff (from the CEO downwards) do not have the
           expertise to explore all of the various options for future management of the hostel and that a
           specialised consultant in that field would need to be employed to progress the matter of
           future ownership, along with all of its ramifications.

           As a result and because the matter had not been considered by Council for some time a
           Concept Briefing was held for Members on 19 July 2005 to gauge direction on ‘where to
           from here’ in relation to the Hostel.

           At the Concept Briefing it was generally agreed that there was to two distinct options that
           Council wished to pursue, they being:

           1.      Investigate the expansion and / or modification of the Hostel.
           2.      Explore the possibility of another care organisation taking over the running of the
                   hostel.

           Comment
           To be able to achieve either of the above, it will be necessary for a person, expert in the field
           of aged care, to be able to undertake a comprehensive investigation into the two options with
           advice on all of the various ramifications.

           In relation to Option 1, such a review is necessary in any event as it is known that the
           existing Hostel facility will not meet Commonwealth standards set to be introduced in 2008.
           Alternative courses of action within this option include:

           1.      Demolition of existing facility and construction of a new facility, and if so how
                   many units should be constructed;
           2.      Modification of existing facility with or without new units being added;
           3.      The most appropriate location for the facility within the Village Complex if re-
                   located; and
           4.      Identification of external funds available to support either of the options identified
                   above and the financial impact of construction and operation of the Hostel on the
                   City.




                                                 115
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           In relation to Option 2 Council has previously indicated, at its meeting held on 7 October
           2003, that “any proposition that the City of South Perth not remain the owner/administrator
           and co-ordinator of the Collier Park Village” be removed from the recommended Terms of
           Reference for the appointment of the initial consultant.

           Under the circumstances, it is considered appropriate that Council agree to setting the Terms
           of Reference that allows for this option to be fully investigated as what is now proposed is
           inconsistent with the previous direction set by Council.

           To undertake developing a partnership / outsourcing arrangement with possible providers of
           this type of service delivery, the following would need to be explored:

           1.      Assess available realistic options for the future service provision of care, services
                   and use of facilities in light of the provision of the Aged Care Act 1997
                   Commonwealth Certification requirements and the applicable Building Codes of
                   Australia (class 3, BCA 9 a, b, or c);

           2.      On the basis that one of the realistic options for future service delivery is to contract
                   with an external service provider to deliver services via an agreement ie
                   management only (Council remains owner), contracted provider owns and
                   manages, etc would need to be explored and advice provided;

           3.      Provide advice as to the structure of the aged care service provision with a particular
                   emphasis on the for profit and not for profit sector and what implications the
                   selection of a provider from either sector will have on the provision of services, ie
                   taxation, PBI (Public Benevolent Institution) status, ability to provide tax deductible
                   donations etc.

           4.      Identifying what criteria would be important ie reputation, length of time as a
                   service provider, current service provision experience and operations, achievement
                   of accreditation under the Commonwealth Standards; and

           5.      Underpinning the above, a detailed outline of the current trends and service delivery
                   options. Included in this material would also be a requirement to provide an
                   understanding of future trends both in relation to service delivery, morbidity, public
                   expectations, demographic changes etc.



           Consultation
           Consultation would occur with relevant Government profit and not for profit Agencies, as
           well as the Collier Park Village Residents’ Committee.

           Policy and Legislative Implications
           Policy P610 - Collier Park Village - Financial Arrangements
           Policy P611 - Collier Park Hostel - Financial Arrangements

           Financial Implications
           Not determined at this stage and would depend upon the ultimate course of action taken.
           Possible significant financial implications if construction of additional facilities required.

           Funds are available for the appointment of a suitable consultant to conduct this study.




                                                116
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           Strategic Implications
           This report deals with matters of financial management as identified in Goal 6 of the City’s
           Strategic Plan -

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


            OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ITEM 9.6.7

           That Council….
           (a)    agree to the Terms of reference as detailed in the report and that the Administration
                  be authorised to appoint a suitable consultant to provide advice;
           (b)    provide suitable Councils Briefing sessions to monitor the progress of the
                  Consultancy; and
           (c)    provide a ‘briefing’ to the Collier Park Village Committee regarding the
                  Review of the Collier Park Village.

           The Officer recommendation was not supported.

           ALTERNATIVE MOTION
           Moved Cr Cala, Sec Cr Ozsdolay

           That the officer recommendation be revised by the amendment of recommendation (a) so
           that the whole recommendation reads as follows:

           That Council ….
           (a)    agree to the terms of reference as detailed in the report and that Council appoint the
                  Consultant following presentations by those shortlisted;
           (b)    provide suitable Councils Briefing sessions to monitor the progress of the
                  Consultancy; and
           (c)    provide a ‘briefing’ to the Collier Park Village Committee regarding the Review of
                  the Collier Park Village.


           MEMBER COMMENTS FOR / AGAINST MOTION - POINTS OF CLARIFICATION

           Cr Cala opening for the Motion
               • As Council we have a responsibility to be involved in the appointment process
               • Choosing a course of action could involve millions of dollars.
               • We want the best available consultant for the job
               • Hostel needs to be upgraded to meet accreditation requirements in 2008 whether we
                   outsource the management or not
               • Look at funding options
               • Many things to consider
               • Professional advice required
               • Workshop should be organised

           Cr Ozsdolay for the motion
           Agrees this is a commitment Council is willing to undertake

           Cr Smith against the Motion
           Seek funding from Federal government for a new 50 bed extension to add to existing 40 to
           make 90 beds. Cr Smith indicated that he had spoken to the Hon Julie Bishop.



                                               117
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


           FORESHADOWED MOTION
           Cr Smith foreshadowed that he would move a motion to that effect if the amended
           recommendation was lost.

           Cr Wells question
           Can Cr Smith tell us the outcome of his meeting with the Hon. Julie Bishop.

           Cr Smith responded that her department would consider it once the Hogan report came out.

           Cr Doherty for the Motion
               • Extreme frustration about this matter
               • Length of time and process taken (September 2003)
               • Quoted ATA report of 2004
               • Need to include consultation with other local government organisations and start
                  talking to Commonwealth government
               • Final report should be presented to Council by February 2006

           The Chief Executive Officer stated that he agreed with comments by Councillors that it had
           been a long affair. It did not appear to have a definitive Council resolution on record. Spent
           a lot of time in assessing the Terms of Reference to enable us to consult consultants and get
           their advice. If Council wishes to expand the facility it is a major capital investment.
           Council should be fully aware of all the factors and circumstances to make an informed
           decision.

           Cr MacDougall Point of clarification
           Cr Smith’s plea did not explain to me why he wanted me to reject this motion and
           foreshadow a motion to go direct to the Commonwealth.

           Cr Wells Comment
           Referred to a report by the then Executive Manager Customer Services, 1997 by K. Venning
           regarding the Village. This suggested that this is an ongoing problem and something had to
           be done about it.

           Cr Jamieson question
           Does the recommendation mean we will have a joint committee meeting with the Collier
           Park Village in relation to Part (c) of the Officer recommendation.

           Point of Clarification
           The Chief Executive Officer said that the intention was for the Administration to update the
           Residents’ Committee so that they are fully informed.

           Cr Jamieson question
           Would it include all the Council Members and Collier Park Committee for an open
           discussion?

           The Chief Executive Officer responded that it was the intention that the Administration
           would update the Residents’ Committee to ensure that it was fully informed.

           Cr Wells Point of Clarification
           Cr Wells enquired about Council’s role in this process as described in part (c) of the
           recommendation.

           The Chief Executive Officer responded that Part (c) is not changed. Council should be
           involved in the appointment of the consultant.



                                               118
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


              Cr Cala
              Option 1 does comply with the request. We need to examine all associated costs.

              Cr Smith Point of Order
              This does not constitute what was being expoused.

              Cr Cala responded that Council needs to explore and understand the cost implications of
              what Cr Smith is saying. The option allows Council to look at the other options in regard to
              outside providers, expressions of interest and can this make a considered judgement.

              The Mayor put the alternative motion


               COUNCIL DECISION ITEM 9.6.7

              That Council ….
              (a)    agree to the terms of reference as detailed in the report and that Council appoint the
                     Consultant following presentations by those shortlisted;
              (b)    provide suitable Councils Briefing sessions to monitor the progress of the
                     Consultancy; and
              (c)    provide a ‘briefing’ to the Collier Park Village Committee regarding the Review of
                     the Collier Park Village.


                                                                                          CARRIED (7/4)


              Note: CRS SMITH AND JAMIESON ASKED THAT THEY BE RECORDED AS
                     HAVING VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION

              Reason for change
              To enable Council to make the final decision to appoint the consultant to conduct the review
              of the Collier Park Hostel.




10.   APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE


              10.1 Request for Leave of Absence - Cr Hearne 4.10.05 - 10.10.05

              Moved Cr McDougall, Sec Cr Macpherson

              That Cr Hearne be granted leave of absence from all meetings from 4 October 2005 until 10
              October 2005 inclusive.
                                                                                      CARRIED 11/0)

          .
              10.2 Request for Leave of Absence - Cr McDougall 7.10.05 - 27.10.05

              Moved Mayor, Sec Cr Wells

              That Cr MacDougall be granted leave of absence from all meetings from 7 October 2005
              until 27 October 2005 inclusive.

                                                  119
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


                                                            CARRIED 11/0)

11.   COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN
      Nil
12.   NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE INTRODUCED BY DECISION OF
      MEETING
      Nil




                                     120
MINUTES : ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005


13.   MEETING CLOSED TO PUBLIC

      13.1     Matters for which the Meeting May be Closed.
      13.2     Public Reading of Resolutions that may be made Public.
               Nil

14.   CLOSURE

      The Mayor closed the meeting at 11.05pm and thanked everyone for their attendance.




      The minutes of meetings of the Council of the City of South Perth include a dot point summary of comments made by and
      attributed to individuals during discussion or debate on some items considered by the Council.

      The City advises that comments recorded represent the views of the person making them and should not in any way be
      interpreted as representing the views of Council. The minutes are a confirmation as to the nature of comments made and
      provide no endorsement of such comments. Most importantly, the comments included as dot points are not purported to
      be a complete record of all comments made during the course of debate.


      Persons relying on the minutes are expressly advised that the summary of comments provided in those minutes do not
      reflect and should not be taken to reflect the view of the Council. The City makes no warranty as to the veracity or
      accuracy of the individual opinions expressed and recorded therein.



      These Minutes were confirmed at a meeting on 25 October 2005




      Signed________________________________________________

      Chairperson at the meeting at which the Minutes were confirmed




                                                          121

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:13
posted:8/28/2011
language:English
pages:121