City of Belmont City of Opportunity › CouncillorPortal... · unlikely specifically on Perth’s...

City of Belmont City of Opportunity

NOTICE OF MEETING Dear Councillor I respectfully advise that the ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING will be held in the Council

Chamber of the City of Belmont Civic Centre, 215 Wright Street, Cloverdale, on Tuesday,

24 September 2013 commencing at 7.00pm.

MEETING AGENDA ATTACHED Yours faithfully Ric Lutey A/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 13 September 2013

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER BEFORE PROCEEDING

Any plans or documents in agendas and minutes may be subject to copyright. The express permission of the copyright owner must be obtained before copying any copyright material. Any statement, comment or decision made at a Council meeting regarding any application for an approval, consent or licence, including a resolution of approval, is not effective as an approval of any application and must not be relied upon as such. Any person or entity who has an application before the City must obtain, and should only rely on, written notice of the City’s decision and any conditions attaching to the decision, and cannot treat as an approval anything said or done at a Council meeting. Any advice provided by an employee of the City on the operation of a written law, or the performance of a function by the City, is provided in the capacity of an employee, and to the best of that person’s knowledge and ability. It does not constitute, and should not be relied upon, as a legal advice or representation by the City. Any advice on a matter of law, or anything sought to be relied upon as a representation by the City should be sought in writing and should make clear the purpose of the request. Any plans or documents in agendas and minutes may be subject to copyright.

i

City of Belmont

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

AGENDA

TABLE OF CONTENTS 24 September 2013

ITEM SUBJECT HEADING PAGE

NOTICE OF MEETING

1. OFFICIAL OPENING ...................................................................................... 1

2. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE ..................................................... 1

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST THAT MIGHT CAUSE A CONFLICT ......... 1 3.1 FINANCIAL INTERESTS ....................................................................................... 1 3.2 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST THAT MAY AFFECT IMPARTIALITY ............................... 1

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER (WITHOUT DISCUSSION) AND DECLARATIONS BY MEMBERS .................................. 2

4.1 ANNOUNCEMENTS ............................................................................................. 2 4.2 DISCLAIMER...................................................................................................... 2 4.3 DECLARATIONS BY MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION

TO ALL MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE BUSINESS PAPERS PRESENTLY

BEFORE THE MEETING ...................................................................................... 2

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME .............................................................................. 2 5.1 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE .................................................. 2

5.1.1 Mr B Childs, 122 Sydenham Street, Kewdale ................................ 2 5.1.2 Mr L O’Hehir, 2/11-13 Stockdale Road, Kewdale .......................... 2 5.1.3 Mr M Cardozo, 56 Lyall Street, Redcliffe ....................................... 4

5.2 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ..................................................... 4

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES/RECEIPT OF INFORMATION MATRIX ....... 5 6.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD 27 AUGUST 2013 ........................................ 5 6.2 INFORMATION MATRIX FOR THE AGENDA BRIEFING FORUM HELD

17 SEPTEMBER 2013 ........................................................................................ 5

7. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS ON WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION) .................................................................. 5

8. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS WITHOUT NOTICE .......................................... 5 8.1 CR HITT ........................................................................................................... 5

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 24 September 2013

ITEM SUBJECT HEADING PAGE

ii

9. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION ...................................................... 6

10. BUSINESS ADJOURNED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING ........................... 6

11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ........................................................................ 6 11.1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE HELD 26 AUGUST 2013 ................................................. 6

12. REPORTS OF ADMINISTRATION ................................................................. 7 12.1 OFFICE – LOT 101 (1B) KATOOMBA PLACE, BELMONT ........................................ 7 12.2 GATEWAY WA PROJECT – DEDICATION OF LAND AS ROAD (VARIOUS) ............... 22 12.3 BELMONT SISTER CITY ASSOCIATION – REVISED MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING ............................................................................................ 28 12.4 CITY OF BELMONT HEALTH (STABLE PREMISES) LOCAL LAW 2013 .................... 36 12.5 THE SPRINGS PUBLIC ART STRATEGY .............................................................. 42 12.6 ACCOUNTS FOR PAYMENT – AUGUST 2013 ..................................................... 47 12.7 MONTHLY ACTIVITY STATEMENT AS AT 31 AUGUST 2013 .................................. 50 12.8 TENDER 14/2013 - ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO CENTENARY PARK

COMMUNITY CENTRE ...................................................................................... 56 12.9 TENDER 16/2013 - ASCOT FORESHORE STABILISATION LOCATION D ................. 61

13. REPORTS BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ...................................... 66 13.1 REQUESTS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ................................................................ 66

14. MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED ........................ 66 14.1 STAFF MATTER – CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANNUAL PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL 2012-2013 CONFIDENTIAL MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 SECTION 5.23 (2) (B) (E) ................................. 66

15. CLOSURE .................................................................................................... 66 ATTACHMENTS INDEX CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENTS INDEX Attachment 1 – Item 12.1 refers Confidential Attachment 1 – Item 12.8 refers Attachment 2 – Item 12.1 refers Confidential Attachment 2 – Item 12.8 refers Attachment 3 – Item 12.1 refers Confidential Attachment 3 – Item 12.9 refers Attachment 4 – Item 12.2 refers Confidential Attachment 4 – Item 12.9 refers Attachment 5 – Item 12.2 refers Confidential Attachment 5 – Item 14.1 refers Attachment 6 – Item 12.2 refers Confidential Attachment 6 – Item 14.1 refers Attachment 7 – Item 12.2 refers Attachment 8 – Item 12.3 refers Attachment 9 – Item 12.4 refers Attachment 10 – Item 12.4 refers Attachment 11 – Item 12.4 refers Attachment 12 – Item 12.5 refers Attachment 13 – Item 12.6 refers Attachment 14 – Item 12.7 refers

Councillors are reminded to retain the OCM Attachments for discussion with the Minutes


1

1. OFFICIAL OPENING The Presiding Member will cause the Affirmation of Civic Duty and Responsibility to be read aloud by a Councillor.

Affirmation of Civic Duty and Responsibility

I make this affirmation in good faith and declare that I will duly, faithfully,

honestly, and with integrity fulfil the duties of my office for all the people in

the City of Belmont according to the best of my judgement and ability. I will

observe the City’s Code of Conduct and Standing Orders to ensure the

efficient, effective and orderly decision making within this forum.

2. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST THAT MIGHT CAUSE A CONFLICT Councillors/Staff are reminded of the requirements of s5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, to disclose any interest during the meeting when the matter is discussed, and also of the requirement to disclose an interest affecting impartiality under the City’s Code of Conduct.

3.1 FINANCIAL INTERESTS A declaration under this section requires that the nature of the interest must be disclosed. Consequently a member who has made a declaration must not preside, participate in, or be present during any discussion or decision making procedure relating to the matter the subject of the declaration.

Other members may allow participation of the declarant if the member further discloses the extent of the interest and the other members decide that the interest is trivial or insignificant or is common to a significant number of electors or ratepayers.

Name Item No and Title Nature of Interest (and extent, where appropriate)

3.2 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST THAT MAY AFFECT IMPARTIALITY

Councillors and staff are required (Code of Conduct), in addition to declaring any financial interest, to declare any interest that might cause a conflict. The member/employee is also encouraged to disclose the nature of the interest. The member/employee must consider the nature and extent of the interest and whether it will affect their impartiality. If the member/employee declares that their impartiality will not be affected then they may participate in the decision making process.

Name Item No and Title


2

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER (WITHOUT DISCUSSION) AND DECLARATIONS BY MEMBERS

4.1 ANNOUNCEMENTS 4.2 DISCLAIMER 4.3 DECLARATIONS BY MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION TO

ALL MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE BUSINESS PAPERS PRESENTLY BEFORE THE

MEETING

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 5.1 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE The following questions were Taken on Notice at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 27 August 2013. 5.1.1 Mr B Childs, 122 Sydenham Street, Kewdale Mr Childs was provided with a response on 30 August 2013. The response from the City is recorded accordingly: 1. Can you confirm that up until the May Ordinary Council Meeting we were

providing services without qualified staff? Response No, the City cannot confirm this. The YMCA has employed qualified and experienced staff from the commencement of their interim contract with the City since October 2012, and continues to do so. 5.1.2 Mr L O’Hehir, 2/11-13 Stockdale Road, Kewdale Mr O’Hehir was provided with a response on 6 September 2013. The response from the City is recorded accordingly: 1. I would like to ask the Shire to remove two London Plane Trees from the verge

outside our properties and replace them with a smaller and more suitable tree? These trees are inappropriate and are unduly conflicting with our properties, everyday lives and health.

Response I refer to the concerns raised in regard to the two London Plane (Platanus x acerfolia) street trees adjacent to the above property. The City’s Arborist inspected the trees on previous occasions, including 13 June 2012, in response to concerns you raised.


3

Item 5.1.2 Continued

The assessment concluded there to be no evidence of any structural damage or significant disturbance to the property. The likelihood of structural damage to the foundation of the house occurring in the future is considered to be extremely unlikely specifically on Perth’s sandy soils. At the time of the assessment the City’s Arborist discussed his findings with Mrs O’Hehir on site. Further, the City installed a root barrier in February 2011 along the Council’s boundary to address concerns you raised at the time (even though no structural disturbance was seen). The City is able to provide the following responses to other issues you raised: 1. Kerb: The roadside kerb does contain a few cracks. These cracks are not

due to tree roots but are typical normal wear and tear consistent for the age of this infrastructure. You will note that areas absent of street trees show the same extent of cracks.

2. Drainage pipes: In order for roots to enter a plumbing or drainage pipe,

access is gained through a pre-existing crack or more commonly, a fault within the joint of the pipes through which water then leaks. The condition and maintenance requirements of residential plumbing pipes are the responsibility of the property owner.

3. Gutters: The City views leaf litter as a natural factor of living with trees in the urban environment. The City has a variety of trees, all of which create leaf litter which may cause some inconvenience in relation to maintenance for the property owner.

4. Sinus related health effects: The City notes the test results you have provided previously from the Perth Radiological Clinic which summarises the presence of rhinitis and a sinus infection. However, the report not being from an immunologist provides no evidence to prove any true allergy to London Plane tree species.

On occasion, the City receives requests to remove trees on the grounds of allergy related health concerns but to date the City is yet to receive a validated health report relating to your wife’s condition to support such claims.

5. The potential for the trees to impact on the health of people in the area:

London Plane trees have been planted successfully for very many years in urban environments. In Perth they are a common feature in shopping centres, commercial precincts (eg Subiaco’s Rokeby Road, St George’s Terrace, Hay Street Mall, Forrest Chase, etc), residential streets and scenic arterial roads (eg Mounts Bay Road). The species is chosen because of its proven track record as a successful urban tree. Considering the daily exposure of thousands of people in the Perth area alone, the potential for adverse impact, although present, is of a very low probability.

In regard to the request for the removal of street trees based on allergy concerns the City requests you provide a report from an immunologist that states any true allergy to the London Plane species before any such consideration can be made. In relation to your other areas of concern the City does not agree these are sufficiently justified to warrant the removal of these trees.


4

5.1.3 Mr M Cardozo, 56 Lyall Street, Redcliffe Mr Cardozo was provided with a response on 3 September 2013. The response from the City is recorded accordingly: 1. If the City has a long list performance criteria for small scale grouped dwelling

development eg proposed minimum 24 metre frontage for side by side development, 6 metre side setbacks, minimum 16 metre frontages, corner lot amalgamations limits etc, then why are there no apparent performance criteria for large scale multiple dwelling developments? For example, if performance criteria existed pertaining to minimum car parking provisions for multiple dwelling/unit development, then I’m sure our residents (eg Gild Street) would not be so aggrieved.

Response The same provisions apply to multiple dwellings as to grouped dwellings under Local Planning Scheme No. 15 (LPS15). No provisions custom designed for multiple dwellings were included in the LPS as at the time it was developed, the Clause under the R-Codes that related to Multiple Dwellings in lower coded areas of R30 and R40 did not exist. They were introduced to the R-Codes in November 2010. Whilst the City adopted LPS15 for final approval in February 2011 the implications of the R-Code changes were not then known. 2. Does proposed Amendment No 3 (to modify Clause 5.5.2) now provide the

City discretion to also approve variations to Clause 5.7.3, particularly pertaining to frontages marginally less than 16 metres and proposed Amendment 1 pertaining to side by side development on lots with a frontage less than 24 metres?

Response Yes, if gazetted. 5.2 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC


5

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES/RECEIPT OF INFORMATION MATRIX 6.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD 27 AUGUST 2013

(Circulated under separate cover)

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 August 2013 as printed and circulated to all Councillors, be confirmed as a true and accurate record. 6.2 INFORMATION MATRIX FOR THE AGENDA BRIEFING FORUM

HELD 17 SEPTEMBER 2013 (Circulated under separate cover)

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That the Information Matrix for the Agenda Briefing Forum held on 17 September 2013 as printed and circulated to all Councillors, be received and noted. 7. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS ON WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

(WITHOUT DISCUSSION) 8. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS WITHOUT NOTICE The following questions were Taken On Notice at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 27 August 2013. Cr Hitt was provided with the following responses on 13 September 2013. 8.1 CR HITT In reference to the placement of rubbish bins blocking footpaths for people with disabilities: 1. What are we really saying here? That people with disabilities and elderly

are classed as second class citizens on the days leading up to rubbish pick up days and after the pick up?

Response The disabled and the elderly have never been treated as second class citizens. All Development Applications are assessed and issues are resolved to ensure that bins will not cause disruption. There is no history of any complaints pertaining to bins blocking footpaths before or after pick up at any location within the City.


6

Item 8.1 Continued

2. Does this mean that people with disabilities and the elderly are not deemed

important enough to forward plan adequate facilities to accommodate their mobility needs in conjunction with the new planning criteria?

Response Clause 6.4.6 of the R-Codes address Utilities and Facilities for Multiple Dwellings in areas coded R30 or greater. The Clause does not address the provision of bins external to the site and makes no mention of mobility issues. 3. I will ask the City of Belmont as a matter of urgency move to resolve the

issues relating to the location of rubbish bins on the time prior to pick up and including pick up days and the present lack of safe passage on the footpath for the people with disabilities and the elderly?

Response Again there is no history of any complaints pertaining to bins blocking footpaths before or after pick up at any location within the City. In the event that a complaint is received it will be investigated and appropriate action or education will take place. 9. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE APPROVED BY THE PERSON

PRESIDING OR BY DECISION 10. BUSINESS ADJOURNED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

11.1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE HELD 26 AUGUST 2013 (Circulated under separate cover)

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes for the Executive Committee meeting held on 26 August 2013 as previously circulated to all Councillors, be received and noted.


7

12. REPORTS OF ADMINISTRATION 12.1 OFFICE – LOT 101 (1B) KATOOMBA PLACE, BELMONT

BUILT BELMONT ATTACHMENT DETAILS

Attachment No Details Attachment 1 – Item 12.1 refers Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Item 12.1 refers Submission Table

Attachment 3 – Item 12.1 refers Local Planning Policy No. 5 – Belgravia Residential Estate

Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 115/001 Location / Property Index : Lot 101 (1B) Katoomba Place, Belmont Application Index 239/2013/DA Disclosure of any Interest : Nil Previous Items : 27 April 2010 Ordinary Council Meeting Item 12.4

(Amendment to Former Local Planning Policy No. 14/Town Policy No. 14, now Local Planning Policy No. 5/Local Planning Scheme No. 15) 27 July 2010 Ordinary Council Meeting Item 12.4 (Amendment to Former Local Planning Policy No. 14/Town Planning Scheme No. 14, now Local Planning Policy No. 4 and Local Planning Scheme No. 15

Applicant : Danmar Homes Pty Ltd Owner : M D A Hossain and F Begum Responsible Division : Community and Statutory Services COUNCIL ROLE

Advocacy When Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.

Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council eg adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.

Legislative Includes adopting local laws, local planning schemes and policies.

Review When Council reviews decisions made by Officers. Quasi-Judicial When Council determines an application/matter that directly

affect a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of quasi-judicial authority include local planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (eg under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.

http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Attachment%201%20-%20Item%2012.1%20refers%20-%20Development%20Plans.pdf

http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Attachment%202%20-%20Item%2012.1%20refers%20-%20Submission%20Table.pdf

http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Attachment%203%20-%20Item%2012.1%20refers%20-%20LPP5.pdf



Item 12.1 Continued

8

PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider an application for an Office development on Lot 101 (1B) Katoomba Place, Belmont. SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES The proposal is for a two storey office development (refer Attachment 1). The subject lot is within the Belgravia Residential Estate Special Development Precinct. In addition to development standards under Local Planning Scheme No. 15 (LPS15) and the Residential Design Codes 2013 (R-Codes), development on the subject land is required to comply with the standards under Local Planning Policy No. 5 – Belgravia Residential Estate Policy (LPP5) (refer Attachment 3). The proposal incorporates variations to the Deemed-to-Comply provisions of the R-Codes and does not satisfy the intent under Clause 5(i) of LPP5. Although variations to the R-Codes satisfy the Design Principle and can be supported, the front setback and built form character variations are considered to be significantly inconsistent with the intent and objective of LPP5. Granting planning approval for the proposed development as submitted is considered to be contrary to proper planning principles, however, planning approval may be granted where the development plans are revised to satisfactorily address the Policy requirements. It is recommended that Council defer determining this application and encourage the applicant to consider revising the development plans in order to gain Council’s approval. LOCATION The subject lot is one of three lots located on the corner of Katoomba Pace and Belgravia Street which are zoned ‘Special Development Precinct – Belgravia Residential Estate’. The site is currently vacant land.

Figure 1 – Extract from LPS15 Scheme Map

http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Attachment%201%20-%20Item%2012.1%20refers%20-%20Development%20Plans.pdf



Item 12.1 Continued

9

Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph

CONSULTATION Category B applications are those that need advertising, additional information, documentation or revisions, approvals from other bodies such as Committees or Council, or are building licences that required a development application. Category B applications may need statutory advertising, referral to neighbours or consideration by Council. Due to variations in setbacks and privacy provisions, the application was advertised to surrounding owners and occupiers for comment from 6 August 2013 until 20 August 2013. A total of 73 letters were sent out. At the close of the advertising period six submissions were received. The following is a list of key concerns outlined in the submissions:

The proposed development will lead to increased traffic

There is insufficient on-site parking provided for the development

The Office land use on the subject site is not compatible with the residential land use in the locality and will negatively impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential precinct.

A resume of the submissions and the corresponding planning comments are contained in Attachment 2.

http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Attachment%202%20-%20Item%2012.1%20refers%20-%20Submission%20Table.pdf


Item 12.1 Continued

10

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the Strategic Community Plan Key Result Area: Built Belmont. Objective: Achieve a planned City that is safe and meets the needs of the

community. Strategy: Encourage a wide choice and consistent implementation of development

approaches. POLICY IMPLICATIONS State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes The R-Codes are a State Planning Policy of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) which applies to all residential developments within Western Australia. The R-Codes are adopted under the Local Planning Scheme and apply to residential development unless otherwise specifically varied. The R-Codes allow for an applicant to obtain approval in two ways: 1. Compliance with the ‘deemed to comply requirements’ under the relevant design

element 2. Where a deemed to comply provision is not met, by demonstrating compliance

with the ‘design principles’ of the relevant design element. Local Planning Policy No. 5 – Belgravia Residential Estate The Policy objectives are to promote and facilitate the development of a high quality residential development with a range of housing styles. LPP5 also designates a Mixed Use zoning for Lots 100, 101 and 102 (1A, 1B and 1C) Katoomba Place. Clause (i) of LPP5 specifies additional design criteria for development of the Mixed Use lots located on the corner of Belgravia Street and Katoomba Place. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Metropolitan Region Scheme The proposed office land use is consistent with the ‘Urban’ zoning under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). Local Planning Scheme No. 15 The property is zoned Special development Precinct (Belgravia Residential Estate) under the LPS15. An office land use is designated a ‘D’ use under the Special Development Precinct zone, this means that the use is not ordinarily permitted unless Council exercises discretion and approves the land use.


Item 12.1 Continued

11

Clause 5.8.3 states that all development within a Special Development Precinct shall be subject to compliance with the performance-based criteria contained in the relevant Local Planning Policy. Clause 10.2 contains provisions relating to matters to be considered by Council in determining an application. The matters relevant to this application include:

10.2(f): Any Local Planning Policy adopted by Council

10.2(i): Compatibility of the land use with its setting

10.2(n): The preservation of the amenity of the locality

10.2(o): The relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal

10.2(q): The impact of traffic generated by the development

10.2(v): The adequate provision of landscaping

10.2(y): Any relevant submissions received in relation to the application. Deemed Refusal Under Clause 10.9.1 of the City of Belmont LPS15 an application is ‘deemed to be refused’ if it is not determined within a 60 day period. However, Clause 10.9.2 of the City of Belmont LPS15 applies where a landuse is classified as a ‘D’ or ‘A’ use under the City of Belmont LPS15 Zoning Table and is subject to advertising requirements detailed in Clause 9.4 of the Scheme. As such, the application is ‘deemed to be refused’ if it is not determined within a 90 day period. The only exception to these cases is where there is a written agreement for further time between the applicant and the City of Belmont. In this case, there is no written agreement for the statutory time period to be extended. The deemed refusal date for this application is 2 October 2013. Should Council defer this item then the deemed refusal rights will arise before the matter is referred back to Council. Right of Review Is there a right of review? Yes No The applicant/owner may make application for review of a planning approval/planning refusal to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) subject to Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. Applications for review must be lodged with SAT within 28 days. Further information can be obtained from the SAT website–www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au.


Item 12.1 Continued

12

BACKGROUND Lodgement Date: 4 July 2013 Use Class: Office ‘D’ Use

Lot Area: 460m² LPS Zoning: Special Development Precinct (Mixed Use – LPP5)

Estimated Value: $363,636.37 MRS: Urban

History The subject lot is located within ‘Special Development Precinct – Belgravia Residential Estate’ which includes all land bounded by Belgravia Street, Barker, Daly, and Wheeler Streets Belmont. LPP5 originated in 2004 as a Local Planning Policy under the City’s previous Town Planning Scheme No. 14 (TPS14). The Policy was created to promote the development of a vibrant new community and facilitate and maintain a high quality residential development with a range of housing styles within the former Western Power depot site. At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 27 July 2010, Council resolved to adopt an amendment to Local Planning Policy No. 22 (LPP22) to add Clause 5(i). This Clause outlined additional requirements relating to the building design, height, roof pitch, setbacks, parking and landscaping for development of Lot 695 (65) Belgravia Street as a Mixed Use development. It is noted that the clear intent of the provisions for Mixed Use development on the lot was to incorporate a residential character such that development on the lot harmonised with residential development in the precinct. 65 Belgravia Street was subsequently subdivided to create the subject Lot, as well as Lots 100 and 102 (1A and 1C) Katoomba Place, Belmont. The applicant submitted preliminary plans seeking comment from the City’s Officers in March 2013. From the assessment of the preliminary plans, the City advised the applicant that the preliminary proposal did not reflect a residential character and was inconsistent with the intent of Clause 5(i) of LPP5 as expressed in the concept plans for development on the Mixed Use lots within the Special Development Precinct. Proposal This formal development application is for a two storey office development with a total of eight car bays provided on-site. It is acknowledged that the applicant has included aesthetic features to the façades of the building such as a central entry with two storey portico structure and large windows on both floors to reflect the character of a residential development. However, the building footprint of this subject proposal is identical to the preliminary plans submitted by the applicant in March 2013, with the building setback 16 metres from the Katoomba Street frontage. The application was assessed under the standards of LPS15, LPP5 and the R-Code provisions. The proposal incorporates the following variations:

A lesser than the required visual privacy setbacks as set out under the R-Codes

A lesser than the required 4 metre average rear setback as set out under Part 4 of LPP5


Item 12.1 Continued

13

Scale, street setback and built form character inconsistent with the standards as set out under Clause 5(i) of LPP5.

OFFICER COMMENT It is considered that the variations to the required average rear boundary and visual privacy setback distances can be conditionally supported. In addition, although submissions from the advertising of the proposal have raised concerns over the impact of traffic and parking on the locality, analysis of the relevant traffic data and parking standards has revealed that the proposed development has an insignificant impact on the traffic of the area, and the proposed provision of on-site car parking is compliant with the Scheme standards. Notwithstanding the above, Clause 5(i) of LPP5 requires the form of development to be consistent with other development on abutting lots, and for development to be setback to achieve a cohesive streetscape. The proposed building sited with a 16 metre setback from the Katoomba Place frontage, and the dominance of the car park forward of the building line is considered to be inconsistent with the Policy’s objective. This view is affirmed by the submissions from advertising that express the desire for residential development on the mixed use lots and the incorporation of landscaping to ameliorate the dominance of the car park on the residential streetscape. Details relating to the variations are discussed below. Variations to Visual Privacy and the Rear Setback With regard to visual privacy, it is noted that the windows on the front elevation of the development overlooks adjoining lots on either side of the subject lot. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the subject development overlooks the highlight window of the upper floor Bedroom 1 on the neighbouring 1A Katoomba Place. It is further noted that direct views to Bedrooms 2 and 3 on the ground floor of 1A Katoomba Place will be limited by the existing 1.8 metre high boundary fence. Given this, it is considered that the subject development satisfies the design principles of the R-Codes as it does not directly overlook active habitable spaces of the adjoining dwelling. With respect to overlooking of the vacant land on the adjoining 1C Katoomba Place, the design of the future development on 1C Katoomba Place would need to take into account the potential for overlooking of active habitable spaces from the proposed development on 1B Katoomba Place. As such these areas of potential overlooking could be addressed through the imposition of a condition such as fixed opaque or highlight windows. With regard to the rear setback, it is noted that the intent of the 4 metre average rear setback requirement is to safeguard the amenity of the rear outdoor living area for residential development. Although the development does not achieve the 4 metre average rear setback, the development does not overlook or overshadow the adjoining property. It is therefore considered that the amenity of the residential property to the rear is not adversely affected and this minor variation can be supported. As no submissions objecting to the reduced visual privacy and rear setback distances were received, support for these variations can be conditionally affirmed.


Item 12.1 Continued

14

Traffic From the submissions, concerns were raised in relation to the increase in vehicles and associated traffic congestion caused by the proposed development. Katoomba Place is classified as an ‘Access Road’ with a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour (km/h), and a maximum desirable traffic volume of 3000 vehicles per day (vpd). The City’s Project Traffic Officer confirmed that a traffic count undertaken in March 2012 along Katoomba Place between Belgravia Street and Larson Street revealed a total of 784vpd, with the 85th percentile speed being 34.2km/h. This number of vehicles and the associated speed indicates that traffic generated by the subject office development can be accommodated within the existing road network. Should the results of future traffic counts identify an issue, then measures to mitigate the issue such as traffic signs and speed humps could be taken at that time. In regard to potential traffic congestion due to the proximity to the intersection of Belgravia Street, the City’s Engineering Department confirmed that the potential increase in traffic and use of on-street parking bays is well within the recommended traffic volumes and therefore can be accommodated within the street system. Given the above, it is inappropriate for Council to refuse the application on the basis that additional traffic generated from the development adversely impacts on the locality. Parking Of the six objections received, four raised concerns that the eight parking bays provided on-site is insufficient. Table 2 (Car Parking Requirements) of LPS15 specifies the minimum number of bays required for an office is one space for every 30m2 nett lettable area (NLA) or one space for each employee whichever is the greater. The number of employees for the proposed office cannot be determined at this stage as the applicant has not engaged any tenants/occupiers for the development as yet. It is therefore reasonable to assess the parking requirement in accordance with the NLA of the development; this generates a requirement for eight parking bays. As eight bays have been provided on-site, the proposal is compliant with scheme requirement and Council cannot refuse to grant planning approval on the basis that the on-site car parking provision is inadequate. Notwithstanding the above, the City’s Project Traffic Officer assessed the parking layout and recommended a number of modifications. Should Council approve the application as submitted, the following modifications are required:

The proposed tandem bays (Bays 1 and 2) are to be moved closer to the building and marked ‘staff only’. This will provide easier access to these bays.

The disabled bay is required to be a minimum of 4.8 metres wide in order to comply with the Australian Standards (AS2890.6:2009).

The Project Traffic Officer also identified a conflict between the on-street parking bays and the location of the proposed crossover. This issue can be resolved by locating the crossover 1.5 metres from the southern corner of the lot as shown on Figure 3 below.


Item 12.1 Continued

15

Figure 3 – Site Plan of Proposed Office

Built Form and Streetscape Although one submission raised concerns over the compatibility of the proposed office use with the surrounding residential development, an office development on the subject lot is consistent with the intent and objectives under LPP5. It is noted that LPP5 takes into account the interface of the Belgravia Residential Estate with Belgravia Street (being a Regional Road) and the adjacent Mixed Business precinct along Belgravia Street. Further to this, LPP5 provides guidance on the compatibility of land uses as well as built form/design criteria to safeguard the amenity of the residential precinct. It is acknowledged that the applicant proposes to aesthetically treat the façades of the building to reflect a residential character. However, the scale, built form character and setback of the development from the Katoomba Place frontage are considered to be inconsistent with the requirements under Clause 5(i) of LPP5. Clause 5(i) of LPP5 requires consistency with the following objectives:

High quality innovative architecture and urban design

Regard for the scale and form of development on abutting lots


Item 12.1 Continued

16

A residential influence to the fabric of the development, to allow a sensitive integration into the site

Adherence to the requirement for any house design to be appropriate for the prevailing climate and setting of the land in a family orientated urban infill area

Setbacks to create a cohesive streetscape. An extract from LPP5 in Figures 4a, 4b and 4c below illustrates the clear intent for development on the subject lot to reflect a distinct residential character, have regard for the scale and form for development on abutting lots and be setback from the street in a manner that creates a cohesive streetscape.

Figure 4a – LPP5 Mixed Use Concept Elevations


Item 12.1 Continued

17

Figure 4b – LPP5 Mixed Use Lots Concept Site Plan

Figure 4c – LPP5 Mixed Use Concept Floor Plan

The primary concern is that the 16 metre front boundary setback of the development, together with the entire front setback area being used for parking with minimal landscaping, creates development that undermines the residential character of the area. This detracts from the objectives under Clause 5(i) of LPP5 as well as Clauses 10.2(n), 10.2(o) and 10.2(v) of LPS15 which place emphasis on the significance of:

The requirement for mixed use development to reflect a residential character

Development being setback to create a cohesive streetscape


Item 12.1 Continued

18

Preservation of the amenity of the locality

The likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality

The adequate provision of landscaping. It is noted that the City has been consistent in upholding the requirements for Clause 5(i) of LPP5 in approving a mixed use development on the neighbouring 1A Katoomba Place. Figure 5 below shows the proposed development in context with the approved development on 1A Katoomba Place as well as other residential development along the street. It is noted that the large front setback of the subject proposal detracts from the form of development on other lots on the street and creates a stark inconsistency to the streetscape.

Figure 5 – Streetscape Plan


Item 12.1 Continued

19

Options In dealing with this application, Council has the following options: A. Approve the Application

Although Council may exercise its discretion and approve the proposed development as submitted, this option is not recommended as the proposal is considered to significantly vary the intended built form character of mixed use development in the precinct and undermine the objectives of LPP5. Further to this, approving the variation will set an irrevocable precedent for development on the currently vacant 1C Katoomba Place. Approval of the proposed development as submitted is considered to be contrary to proper planning principles.

B. Refuse the Application

The development plans as submitted are considered to significantly vary the intended built form character of mixed use development in the precinct and undermine the objectives of LPP5 and can be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed setback of the development from the street boundary creates

an inconsistent streetscape, contrary to the intent under Clause 5(i) of LPP5.

2. The dominance of the car park to the front of the building line detracts from

the residential character of the locality, contrary to the intent under Clause 5(i) of LPP5 and the requirement to preserve the amenity of the locality under Clause 10.2(n) of LPS15.

3. The scale of the building relative to the size of the subject land, the siting of

the building on the subject land, and the dominance of the car park creates a built form that is inconsistent with development on the adjoining mixed use land and residential land in the locality, contrary to the requirement under Clause 10.2(o) of LPS15.

4. The proposed development does not provide for adequate landscaping in

the front setback area to reflect consistency with the residential character of the precinct, contrary to the intent under Clause 5(i) of LPP5 and Clause 10.2(v) of LPS15.

5. The proposal does not satisfactorily allay the concerns from submissions in

relation to the relationship of the development with the residential development in the locality and the incorporation of landscaping that is sympathetic to the residential character of the locality, contrary to Clause 10.2(y) of LPS15.

Although it is considered that there are substantive grounds to refuse the application, it is preferable for Council to adopt a facilitative approach to encourage development of a satisfactory standard on the subject lot. This option to refuse the application in the first instance is therefore not recommended.

C. Defer determining the application

It is reasonable for Council to defer determining the application to provide the applicant with the opportunity to revise the proposal such that the development complies with the relevant requirements under LPP5 and LPS15.


Item 12.1 Continued

20

It is considered that a modified proposal can be approved where the following is incorporated:

The setback of the building from the street is reduced

Some of the car parking is relocated to the rear of the site and appropriately screened

The portion of land forward of the building line is landscaped to more distinctly reflect a development form sympathetic to the residential character of the locality.

It is noted that the 90 day statutory timeframe expires on 2 October 2013, after which the application is deemed to be refused if Council has not issued a determination for the application. If the applicant wishes additional time to amend the application as outlined above, the deemed refusal timeframe can be extended as agreed between the applicant and the City. If the applicant does not wish to amend the development plans, they may then choose to exercise their right to apply for a review by SAT when the 90 day statutory period expires. Given the above, it is recommended that Council defer determining this application and encourage the applicant to satisfactorily revise the proposal such that an approval can be granted.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the application is refused or deemed to be refused, and the applicant chooses to exercise their right to apply for a review through SAT, Council will need to bear the cost of defending its position at SAT. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS No advice has been received from the applicant in regard to green star rating under any rating system. As of the 1 July 2003, Energy Efficiency requirements were implemented via the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and all residential and commercial buildings at the time of application of a Building Permit need to comply with the ‘deemed to satisfy’ requirements, or alternatively a compliant Energy Audit Report can be submitted by an accredited person. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no social implications at this time.


Item 12.1 Continued

21

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Defer determining planning application 239/2013/DA as detailed in plans

dated 4 July 2013 submitted by Danmar Homes Pty Ltd on behalf of the owner M D A Hossain and F Begum for Office at Lot 101 (No 1B) Katoomba Place, Belmont.

2. Invite the applicant to submit a revised proposal consistent with the

requirements under Local Planning Scheme No. 15 and the intent under Local Planning Policy No. 5 where:

The setback of the building from the street is reduced

Some of the car parking is relocated to the rear of the site

The portion of land forward of the building line is landscaped to more distinctly reflect a development form sympathetic to the residential character of the locality.

OR

Alternative measures addressing the above matters to the satisfaction of the City.


22

12.2 GATEWAY WA PROJECT – DEDICATION OF LAND AS ROAD (VARIOUS)

BUILT BELMONT ATTACHMENT DETAILS

Attachment No

Details

Attachment 4 – Item 12.2 refers Abernethy Road - Main Roads WA Drawing No 1260-065-1

Attachment 5 – Item 12.2 refers Ballantyne Road - Main Roads WA Drawing No 1360-014

Attachment 6 – Item 12.2 refers Miles Road - Main Roads WA Drawing No 1360-015

Attachment 7 – Item 12.2 refers Fisher Street - Main Roads WA Drawing No 1360-018

Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 102/052 Gateway WA Project Location/Property Index : Strata Lot 10553 (#1/524 to #23/524) Abernethy Road,

Kewdale; Strata Lot 264(#8A,#8B,#8C) Ballantyne Road, Kewdale; Lot 453 (#6) Miles Road, Kewdale; Lot 10 (#381) Fisher Street, Cloverdale

Application Index : N/A Disclosure of any Interest : N/A Previous Items : N/A Applicant : Main Roads WA (MRWA) Owner : Various Responsible Division : Technical Services COUNCIL ROLE






http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Attachment%204%20-%20Item%2012.2%20refers%20-%20Drawing.pdf









Item 12.2 Continued

23

PURPOSE OF REPORT Council’s resolution is sought to dedicate land, the subject of Main Roads WA (MRWA) Drawings 1260-065-1, 1360-014, 1360-015 and 1360-018 as road reserve under Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (refer Attachments 4, 5, 6 and 7). SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES As part of the Gateway WA Perth Airport and Freight Access project, MRWA is planning major upgrades to improve the safety and efficiency of the road network servicing Perth Airport and Kewdale freight precinct. To accommodate the works, MRWA requires additional land for the works which are located along Abernethy Road, Ballantyne Road, Bell Street, Miles Road and Leach Highway in Kewdale. The land acquired for road purposes will need to be dedicated as road under Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and the City’s endorsement is required for the dedication action to proceed. LOCATION

Lot 10553 (Strata Plan 45946) – 1/524 to 23/524 Abernethy Road, Kewdale

Lot 10553






Item 12.2 Continued

24

Lot 264 (Strata Plan 26169) – 8A, 8B and 8C Ballantyne Road, Kewdale

Lot 453 Diagram 40472 – 6 Miles Road, Kewdale

Lot 264

Lot 453


Item 12.2 Continued

25

Lot 10 Diagram 24432 – 381 Fisher St, Cloverdale

CONSULTATION As part of the Gateway WA project, officers of the City have consulted extensively with MRWA over land to be taken for road purposes and assisted MRWA wherever possible in their dealing with landowners. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the Strategic Community Plan Key Result Area: Built Belmont. Objective 3: Provide and maintain a safe and efficient transport infrastructure. Strategy: Encourage a broad range of transport alternatives and provide adequate

management of traffic density, parking, congestion and safety of the transport network, in and surrounding the City of Belmont.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no significant policy implications evident at this time. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (Road Dedication).

Lot 10


Item 12.2 Continued

26

BACKGROUND The Gateway WA Perth Airport and Freight Access Project focuses on the stretch of Tonkin Highway between Great Eastern Highway and Roe Highway, as well as Kewdale Road and Leach Highway from Orrong Road to Perth Airport. The major upgrading works are planned to improve the safety and efficiency of the road network servicing Perth Airport and Kewdale Freight Precinct. To accommodate the works, it is necessary for MRWA to acquire land, the details of which are shown on MRWA Drawing Nos. 1260-065-1, 1360-014, 1360-015 and 1360-018 (refer Attachments 4, 5, 6 and 7) for road widening purposes. To enable the land to be dedicated as road reserve, the City is required to consider the matter and provide concurrence to the dedication action in accordance with Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997. OFFICER COMMENT As part of the Gateway WA Project, the City is assisting MRWA with land matters especially the requirement of additional land for the project. The acquisition of additional land for road widening purposes is undertaken by MRWA. MRWA has negotiated with the private land owners of Lot 10553 (Strata Plan 45946 – 1/524 to 23/524 Abernethy Road, Kewdale, Lot 264 (Strata Plan 26169 – 8A, 8B and 8C Ballantyne Road, Kewdale, Lot 453 Diagram 40472 – 6 Miles Road, Kewdale and Lot 10 Diagram 24432 – 381 Fisher St, Cloverdale, to acquire additional portions of land for the purposes of road widening. The impact of the land requirements on Lot 10553 Abernethy Road and Lot 453 Miles Road is minimal with only a small reduction in their landscaped areas. As for Lot 264 Ballantyne Road, one car parking space will be lost by the land requirement and this can be relocated elsewhere on the lot. Lot 10 Fisher Street is a residential lot and the land requirement at the rear of the lot will not impact significantly on the property but may require the relocation of a stand-alone shed at the rear of the property. MRWA will be responsible for the reinstatements of car parking, landscaping or shed affected by the land acquisition. Based on the above information, the acquisition of the additional land is acceptable. Therefore, the dedication of the above portions of land as road reserve can be supported in accordance with the provisions of Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Any financial implications in regards to the payment of compensation relating to the land taking would be the responsibility of MRWA. MRWA will indemnify the City against all costs and charges associated with the land excision and dedication actions. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no environmental implications at this time.






Item 12.2 Continued

27

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no social implications at this time. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council resolve to support the dedication of land, the subject of Main Roads WA Drawing Nos. 1260-065-1, 1360-014, 1360-015 and 1360-018 as shown in Attachments 4, 5, 6 and 7, as road reserve under Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997.






28

12.3 BELMONT SISTER CITY ASSOCIATION – REVISED MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING

SOCIAL BELMONT ATTACHMENT DETAILS

Attachment No Details

Attachment 8 – Item 12.3 refers 2013 Memorandum of Understanding

Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 106/002 – Sister Cities Administration Arrangements Location/Property Index : N/A Application Index : N/A Disclosure of any Interest : N/A Previous Items : 6 May 2008 Information/Strategy Concept Forum

Item 6.2, 17 July 2007 Ordinary Council Meeting Item 12.2.2, 15 July 2008 Ordinary Council Meeting Item 12.8, 25 July 2011 Special Information Forum Item 5.1, 10 July 2012 Information Forum Item 6.2, 24 July 2012 Ordinary Council Meeting Item 12.3

Applicant : N/A Owner : N/A Responsible Division : Community and Statutory Services COUNCIL ROLE






PURPOSE OF REPORT To seek endorsement from Council for the adoption of the revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 2013-2015, between the City of Belmont and the Belmont Sister City Association (BSCA).

http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Attachment%208%20-%20Item%2012.3%20refers%20-%202013%20Memorandum%20of%20Understanding.pdf


Item 12.3 Continued

29

SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES BSCA and Council Officers have been administering the Sister City relationship under the MOU endorsed in July 2012, commencing in October 2012. The 2012 MOU was the first MOU based on the principle of a grant being provided to the BSCA to undertake their various functions. This MOU has been reviewed and some amendments have been made to further clarify the roles and responsibilities of both the BSCA and the City. Given that the 12 month MOU was not administered in line with the financial year, amendments have been suggested to ameliorate the difficulties associated with this. It is suggested that the new MOU be extended to a period of 20 months, bringing the end date to 30 June 2015. This date is also in line with the current suggested Local Government amalgamation date, and will require that the MOU is reviewed in early 2015, so that the new MOU can commence on 1 July 2015. The revised MOU has been drafted and requires Council endorsement. LOCATION N/A. CONSULTATION The BSCA has been consulted on the proposed MOU with full support. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the Strategic Community Plan Key Result Area: Social Belmont. Objective No 2: Ensure access to services and facilities for a changing

community. Strategy: Provide art and cultural opportunities as a means of

community engagement and inclusion. Corporate Key Action: Develop and implement a calendar of activities to engage

the wider community in Art and Culture. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no significant policy implications evident at this time. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT There are no specific statutory requirements in respect to this matter.


Item 12.3 Continued

30

BACKGROUND At the Ordinary Council Meeting (OCM) of the 15 July 2008, there was discussion on the Sister City relationship for the future with decisions made on funding arrangements and approval of the MOU. Council resolved as follows:

“1. Adopt the following option as tabled below:

Financial Year

2008/9 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

Budget $65,284 $65,284 $45,284 $45,284

Comments

One - off increase to original budget to mark anniversary year

Reduce funding by $20,000 – seek alternative funding source(s) with the Belmont Sister City Association (BSCA) to increase its contribution in fundraising from $4,500 to $9,000.

Reduce funding by $20,000 – seek alternative funding source. Review of the BSCA to take place and report presented to Council to consider future support.

2. Council communicate with Belmont Sister City Association to undertake

discussion to take one chaperone only. 3. Adopt the Communication Structure 2008 as detailed in SB Attachment 8 with

the addition that the Tour Leader (member of Council) be included on the Committee with a proxy.

4. That the Memorandum of Understanding (SB Attachment 9) be updated as

required reflecting changes in fundraising contributions by BSCA in 2010.

Note If Council is putting funds into Sister City, then one Councillor should be on that committee with a proxy. A Councillor should be the Tour Leader. In addition increasing the money to be reimbursed back to Council will help the organisation to become more independent.”

As part of reviewing the 2008 MOU, a number of other requests made from the BSCA where considered at the Special Information Forum (SIF) held on the 25 July 2011. Council Officers and the BSCA proposed:

1. That the two non-resident students as identified in the report, be allowed to participate in the 2011 Belmont Student Delegation.

2. That the increase in the honorarium of the Secretary to $6,000 be supported

to take into account the 2005-2006 MOU, which included an increase of $500 at that time.


Item 12.3 Continued

31

3. That the proposal for a suitable grant to the BSCA be supported provided satisfactory acquittal requirements are met and incorporated in a revised MOU.

4. That Council separately fund the cost of the welcome lunch, the airfare,

accommodation and related expenses for the tour leader, gifts from the Council to the City of Adachi and special events that may arise and this commitment form part of the new MOU.

Councillors in attendance supported the proposed notions, subject to the proposed MOU addressing the following:

That a suitable grant to the BSCA be developed providing satisfactory acquittal requirements are met.

That Council separately fund the cost of the welcome and farewell functions, gifts, airfare, accommodation and related expenses of the Council Representative and any special events that may arise.

That the roles and responsibilities of the Council Representative and Chaperone are clarified.

At the OCM on 24 July 2012 Council endorsed the following:

“1. Endorse the revised 2012 Memorandum of Understanding between the Belmont Sister City Association and the City of Belmont.

2. Grant the Belmont Sister City Association $35,000 for the 2012-2013 financial

year and $30,000 per annum thereafter in accordance with the terms of the revised Memorandum of Understanding.”

OFFICER COMMENT BSCA has successfully managed the $30,000 grant over the 2012-2013 financial year. An audited financial statement has been provided to the City. By providing a grant to the BSCA, it has minimised the amount of administration required from the City Officer and provided the BSCA with independence and flexibility. The current MOU has empowered the BSCA as an organisation and enhanced their decision making, whilst ensuring that both parties are aware of their requirements to achieve the desired outcomes. The new MOU encompasses the feedback received at previous meetings with Council and have been addressed as follows:


Item 12.3 Continued

32

Decision Making The BSCA will continue to have the authority to make decisions on their operations. These specifically include:

Ten Student Positions Students who reside in the City of Belmont will be offered positions to participate in the Annual Student Exchange. Should the 10 positions not be filled, students who applied that do not reside in Belmont will be considered and approved by the BSCA Committee.

Honorarium The BSCA Management Committee will determine the honorarium paid for the position. Monies for the position will be derived from grant funds provided by the Council.

Fundraising Any fundraising carried out by the BSCA will be for their own purposes.

Small Function Presentations Ticket and diary presentations will be organised by the BSCA. The date, invitations, venue, catering and all other associated matters are to be organised and funded by the BSCA.

Major Functions The welcome and farewell function will be coordinated, hosted and paid for by the City of Belmont in consultation with the BSCA. These funds will be allocated as part of the Council’s annual budget process and managed by the appointed City Officer (currently the Coordinator Youth and Community Projects).

Funding Arrangement An annual contribution of $30,000 will be granted to the BSCA each financial year and the Association will be required to acquit the funds at the end of June each financial year. This contribution will be less during significant Anniversary years (ie every five years), as it will not include funds for student airfare subsidies and citizens delegation activities for these years. This is due to students not attending the delegation on significant Anniversary years, and the citizens delegation being organised by the appointed City Officer on these significant Anniversaries. Should Council not be satisfied with the Associations reasons for non expenditure of the annual contribution, there may be a requirement for non expended funds to be returned to Council. It is recommended that consideration be given to the following City of Belmont representatives attending significant Anniversary (ie, every five years) delegations:

Mayor

Chief Executive Officer

Councillors

Appointed City Officer (Tour Manager).


Item 12.3 Continued

33

It is recommended that consideration be given to the following BSCA representatives attending significant Anniversary (ie, every five years) delegations:

Chairperson

Secretary. It is the responsibility of the City of Belmont Council to determine the level of funding attributed to supporting the above attendee’s participation in these significant Anniversaries. Travel Costs A group booking for the student and citizen’s delegation to Adachi is to be organised by the Secretary. All payments by the delegation are to be made in full prior to the due date given by the Travel Agency. The City of Belmont will not make payment on behalf of any delegation members, prior to receiving full payment. In the event of extenuating circumstances individuals may request an extension on payment to the appointed City Officer. Funding will cover ALL operational costs (but not limited to), rent/lease (3.07% of the Youth and Family Services Building), photocopying, stationary, advertising, insurance, training, equipment, travel, telephone, internet and all other Information Technology expenses. The amount allocated to each activity is to be organised by the BSCA.

The City of Belmont will incur the cost for the following, in relation to the BSCA office:

Garden Maintenance

Security

Cleaning

Building maintenance

Garbage Collection. Specified funds from the grant must be budgeted for by the BSCA as stated below:

Secretary Honorarium The BSCA Management Committee will determine the honorarium paid for the position. Monies for the position will be derived from grant funds provided by the Council.

Student Airfare Subsidies 50% of student airfares are to be funded through the grant.

Chaperone Subsidy As Chaperones perform a duty whilst on the Tour, the BSCA are required to allocate funds from the grant to fully subsidise the Chaperones airfare.


Item 12.3 Continued

34

It should be noted that the grant does not cover any travel costs for BSCA Committee members to attend the delegations. The exception of this rule would be if a Committee member was selected as the Chaperone. A summary of the relationship between the delegates is shown below:

For a copy of the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding, refer to Attachment 8. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS It is proposed that the annual contribution of $30,000 (less on anniversary years) granted to the BSCA each financial year remain the same and the requirement of the association to acquit the funds at the end of June each financial year also remain. Any funds not expended can be kept by the Association, subject to submitting a formal request in writing to the Chief Executive Officer including an explanation on why the funds were not expended and what the Association intends to use the non exhausted funds on. Should the City not be satisfied with the Associations reasons for non expenditure, there may be a requirement for non expended funds to be returned to Council. It is proposed that the MOU finish date be 30 June 2015, in line with the end of financial year. There have been no changes made in regards to finances within the MOU. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no environmental implications at this time.



Item 12.3 Continued

35

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are numerous positive social implications for the Sister City Delegation including:

Cultural awareness development

Assist in developing community capacity

Support community groups

Enhance a sense of community and the image of Belmont

Supporting the development of new friendships and mutual understanding among young people.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt the 2013-2015 Memorandum of Understanding between the Belmont Sister City Association and the City of Belmont as detailed in Attachment 8.



36

12.4 CITY OF BELMONT HEALTH (STABLE PREMISES) LOCAL LAW 2013



Attachment 9 – Item 12.4 refers Draft City of Belmont Health (Stable Premises) Local Law 2013

Attachment 10 – Item 12.4 refers City of Belmont Health (Stables Premises) Local Law 1999

Attachment 11 – Item 12.4 refers Creating Communities Community Engagement Report August 2012

Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 76/008 Local Laws – City of Belmont Health (Stable

Premises) Local Law 2013 Location/Property Index : N/A Application Index : N/A Disclosure of any Interest : N/A Previous Items : N/A Applicant : N/A Owner : N/A Responsible Division : N/A COUNCIL ROLE






PURPOSE OF REPORT To give notice of the purpose and effect of the City of Belmont Health (Stable Premises) Local Law 2013 (Local Law 2013).

http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Attachment%209%20-%20Item%201.24%20refers%20-%20Draft%20Local%20Law%202013.pdf


http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Attachment%2010%20-%20Item%2012.4%20refers%20-%20Local%20Law%201999.pdf


http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Attachment%2011%20-%20Item%2012.4%20refers%20-%20Engagement%20Report%20August%202012.pdf



Item 12.4 Continued

37

SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES The City undertook community consultation (refer Attachment 11) with the relevant stakeholders, residents in the Ascot Stables area and internally and has drafted a proposed Local Law 2013 (refer to Attachment 9) to replace the existing City of Belmont Health (Stables Premises) Local Law 1999 (Local Law 1999) (refer to Attachment 10). The proposed changes were referred to McLeods Barristers and Solicitors and the majority of their feedback was incorporated in the Local Law 2013. The review resulted in the proposed Local Law 2013 being more succinct and user friendly while also addressing some practical issues that have arisen over the life of the existing Local Law. If Council wishes to adopt new local laws then a six week public submission period is required. After the last day for submissions, a further report to Council will be provided to consider any submissions and for Council resolution. LOCATION N/A. CONSULTATION Over 300 information packs were sent out to the community and stakeholders on two occasions requesting either written submissions be made on the proposed changes and to invite those who wished to attend a community engagement session, which was held at the City of Belmont Civic Centre on the evening of 27 June 2012. Twenty-six people attended the engagement session and written submissions were received from 13 others. All feedback received from the evening and in writing was assessed and proposed changes and amendments were considered by a small internal team chaired by the Manager Health and Ranger Services. The draft Local Law 2013 was sent to McLeods Barristers and Solicitors for their comment and feedback. Much of the feedback suggested changes relating to the sections pertaining to the application and registration process, some of which was included, however it was felt the production of a Fact Sheet was a more practical and user friendly solution to other requirements. The City was informed that infringements could not be included as there was no such mechanism under the Health Act 1911 as amended. Other advice related to minor grammatically and text changes. Public consultation is a legislative requirement as part of the process. A further period of six weeks is required to allow the public to make submissions on the proposed updated Local Law 2013. Any submissions from the public that are received will be assessed and a report will be presented to the Council.





Item 12.4 Continued

38

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the Strategic Community Plan Key Result Area: Social Belmont Objective: Encourage a high standard of community health and well being. Strategy: Provide environmental health services that raise public health standards

within the City. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no significant policy implications evident at this time. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Legislation for making local laws is set out in Part 3-Division 2 of the Local Government Act 1995. The statutory procedure for adopting a local law is prescribed in section 3.12 as follows: 1. In making a local law a local government is to follow the procedure described in

this section, in the sequence in which it is described. 2. At a Council meeting the person presiding is to give notice to the meeting of the

purpose and effect of the proposed local law in the prescribed manner. 3. The local government is to:

(a) Give state wide public notice stating that:

(i) the local government proposes to make a local law the purpose and

effect of which is summarized in the notice (ii) a copy of the proposed local law may be inspected or obtained at any

place specified in the notice (iii) submissions about the proposed local law may be made to the local

government before a day to be specified in the notice, being a day that is not less than six weeks after the notice is given.

(b) As soon as the notice is given, give a copy of the proposed local law and a

copy of the notice to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister.

(c) Provide a copy of the proposed local law, in accordance with the notice, to

any person requesting it.


Item 12.4 Continued

39

(3a) A notice under subsection (3) is also to be published and exhibited as if it were a local public notice.

(4) After the last day for submissions, the local government is to consider any

submissions made and may make the local law* as proposed or make a local law* that is not significantly different from what was proposed.

* Absolute majority required.

(5) After making the local law, the local government is to publish it in the Gazette and

give a copy of it to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister.

(6) After the local law has been published in the Gazette the local government is to

give local public notice:

(a) stating the title of the local law (b) summarising the purpose and effect of the local law (specifying the day on

which it comes into operation) (c) advising that copies of the local law may be inspected or obtained from the

local government’s office.

(7) The Minister may give directions to local governments requiring them to provide to the Parliament copies of local laws they have made and any explanatory or other material relating to them.

BACKGROUND The current Local Law 1999 was published in the Government Gazette on 14 April 1999. It replaced the previous City of Belmont Stables Local Laws which had been published in the Government Gazette on 20 December 1985. It was considered that after 13 years a review was overdue. In addition through the day to day use of the Local Law, Environmental Health Officers had found some aspects that could be improved. Over this time there had also been a change in the design of the new stables/stalls being built which were not reflected in the existing Local Law so the redrafted Local Law now reflects and addresses these issues. OFFICER COMMENT Nature of the Review The redraft of the Local Law 1999 was undertaken in a comprehensive manner that weighed up community and stakeholder feedback and the practicalities of operating a stable premises, with the public health standards expected by the City and the wider community. The review resulted in the proposed Local Law 2013 which is considered a contemporary and best practice approach to this subject matter. As a result of the redraft the proposal is to repeal the Local Law 1999 and replace these with the Local Law 2013.


Item 12.4 Continued

40

Purpose and Effect The purpose and effect of the Local Law 2013 is to provide an updated Local Law that addresses the public health expectations of the community while at the same time providing the owners and operators of stables clear and easily understood legislation that they can work with. Major Changes When conducting the review of the existing Local Law 1999 a number of changes were made and are described as follows: 1. New Name and Format

The City of Belmont (Stables Premises) Local Law 1999 has been renamed with the removal of the “s” from “Stables” which was simply a grammatical change done throughout the redrafted Local Law. Some of the sections have been placed in a different order and renumbered so that the Local Law reads more from the requirements of a new application, the registration process, the requirements for the building of a stable/stall through to the ongoing upkeep and maintenance of the stable once occupied. The redrafted Local Law defines the most popular type of stable being constructed in the area (“walk in/walk out”) as well as including “training and walking rings”.

2. Section Changes

Sections 4 to 7 Changes are minor and give more detail on the application and registration process and the determination of applications.

Section 8 Change allows the City to refuse to renew, suspend or cancel a registration without having to first secure a conviction for a breach of the Local Law, orders or regulations. The instigation of legal action is seen as a last resort and the City would only take such action after serious consideration. There are however a very small number of stable premises that are of such a poor condition that need to be upgraded or demolished. Rather than prosecute an owner (who in some cases is ‘The Estate of’) this change allows the City to remove the approval to keep horses on substandard properties. Again this action would only be taken after extensive consultation and warnings over extended periods of time.

Section 10 Change includes the ‘walk-in/walk-out’ structural requirements but also allows the City to consider other ‘proposed alternative’ treatments to replace the 300mm limestone bed requirement. The current Local Law does not allow the City to consider any other proposed treatment and it was felt that if a suitable alternative was developed and shown to be as good if not better than the limestone bed then it was an alternative that should be encouraged.

Section 11 (previously 14) Includes walking and training rings and sets structural requirements.


Item 12.4 Continued

41

Section 13 Retains the same minimum setbacks and includes walk-in/walk-out and walking/training rings but does so in a tabulated manner to make the requirements easier to read and understand. Removal of the Clause that allowed the relaxation of specified setbacks where ‘exceptional circumstances justify a variation and no likely adverse effect will arise as a result of the variation’. This was done as the City several years earlier had successfully defended an appeal at the State Administrative Tribunal where a stable premises had been built with no regard to the minimum setbacks and the applicant had used this section to justify their non-compliance. The current Local Law has the most lenient setbacks in Western Australia, if not the country, and it was felt that further relaxation of the setbacks were not appropriate or justifiable.

Sections 17 and 18 (previously 16) Cleanliness and structural requirements split into two new sections. The structural requirements have been expanded to address substandard premises and have included the maintenance of fences, railings and gates.

Officer Comments on the Proposed Change The proposed Local Law 2013, as shown in the Attachment, does not represent a significant change to the existing Local Law 1999. The proposed Local Law 2013 are designed to address the public health expectations of the community while at the same time providing the owners and operators of stables clear and easily understood legislation that they can work with. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS State wide and local public notice of the proposed local law will incur advertising costs. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no environmental implications at this time. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no social implications at this time. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 Council gives notice of the purpose and effect of the proposed City of Belmont Health (Stable Premises) Local Law 2013.


42

12.5 THE SPRINGS PUBLIC ART STRATEGY



Attachment 12 – Item 12.5 refers The Springs – City of Belmont Public Art Strategy

Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 17/004 Public Art Masterplan Location/Property Index : Various Application Index : N/A Disclosure of any Interest : Nil Previous Items : 25 November 2008 Special Council Meeting Item 6.2

28 April 2011 Ordinary Council Meeting Item 12.9 19 August 2013 Standing Committee (Community Vision) Item 11.1

Applicant : N/A Owner : N/A Responsible Division : Community and Statutory Services COUNCIL ROLE






PURPOSE OF REPORT Council to endorse the ‘The Springs - City of Belmont Public Art Strategy’ (refer to Attachment 12).

http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Attachment%2012%20-%20Item%2012.5%20refers%20-%20The%20Springs%20Public%20Art%20Strategy.pdf




Item 12.5 Continued

43

SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES The Public Art Advisory Panel (PAAP) believe it is important that there is a consistent and transparent approach when approving public art for The Springs, resulting in an array of different types of quality artworks. ‘The Springs - City of Belmont Public Art Strategy’ aims to provide a framework for the development of public art within The Springs precinct contributing towards the quality and amenity of the public realm. It is proposed that Council adopt the strategy. LOCATION The Springs Special Development Precinct as identified in Local Planning Policy No. 11 (LPP11). CONSULTATION Consultation was undertaken with the City’s Planning Department, Local History Curator, Community Lifestyle and Learning and the Public Art Advisory Panel. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the Strategic Community Plan Key Result Area: Social Belmont. Objective No. 2: Ensure access to service and facilities for a changing

community. Strategy: Provide art and cultural opportunities as a means of

community engagement and inclusion. Corporate Key Action: Deploy the City’s Public Art Directions and Masterplan

2011-2015. POLICY IMPLICATIONS In accordance with LPP11 (Public Art Contribution Policy), any private development exceeding $4.5 million within the Policy Area is required to make a contribution of 1% of the total development value towards public art. Artwork may either be provided on site by the developer, or alternatively the developer may choose to provide a cash-in-lieu contribution. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Should ‘The Springs - City of Belmont Public Art Strategy’ be endorsed, a public art requirement would be imposed on all development proposals of a value greater than $4.5 million to provide public art in accordance with the described method for determining Public Art contributions.


Item 12.5 Continued

44

BACKGROUND In 2008, the City’s ‘Public Art Directions and Masterplan 2011-2015’ (Masterplan) was developed in conjunction with the Town Planning Scheme (TPS) review and adopted by Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting (OCM) held on 28 April 2011. The objectives of the Masterplan are to:

Develop a collection of distinct and diverse public artworks

Position the City of Belmont as a leader in innovative public art practice

Achieve an integrated approach to public art

Increase awareness of public art as a significant cultural asset. The City Masterplan has nine public art precincts consisting of:

Civic and Cultural Precinct

Town Centre Precinct

Mixed Business Precinct

Great Eastern Highway Precinct

Swan River Foreshore Precinct

The Springs Special Development Precinct

Garvey Park Precinct

Ascot Racecourse and Ascot Waters Precinct

Kewdale Industrial Precinct. Since the deployment of the Masterplan, the majority of developer public art provisions have been required for developments within The Springs. Due to the unique density of the development area and the number of public art provision requirements, the PAAP believe a more coordinated approach should adopted for the precinct. The PAAP believe it is important that there is a consistent and transparent approach when approving public art for The Springs that will result in a diverse range of quality artworks. It is foreseen that a strategy will be developed for all nine precincts identified in the Masterplan.


Item 12.5 Continued

45

OFFICER COMMENT ‘The Springs - City of Belmont Public Art Strategy’ aims to provide a framework for the development of public art within The Springs precinct contributing towards the quality and amenity of the public realm. The Springs is a unique development and the design and approval process undertaken to date demonstrates that both developers and the PAAP would benefit in strategic guidance to assist in the design and decision making process when approving public art. The development of the Strategy supports and builds on the Masterplan’s objectives in the following ways: Objective: Develop a collection of distinct and diverse public artworks Developers will be required to provide evidence that they have sought Expressions of Interest from a minimum of three artists for their required public art project. This will ensure developers do no limit project opportunities to their preferred artists, as this may potentially result in majority of artworks in the precinct produced by a handful of the same artists. The Strategy provides guidance and advice for potential themes, types of artwork and locations of public art, yet still allows artists’ creativity. Objective: Position the City of Belmont as a leader in innovative public art

practice The strategy provides a framework for the City and developers in ensuring best practice public art that is innovate, transparent and multi faceted. The consistent approach will add value to civic reputation and community image. Objective: Achieve an integrated approach to public art As required under LPP11, the Strategy reinforces the required provisions for public art contributions under the TPS. The Strategy identifies potential locations of artwork on public land, enabling developers to identify how cash-in-lieu contributions will be applied and benefit the precinct and ultimately their development. Objective: Increase awareness of public art as a significant cultural asset Due to the large value of developments, The Springs precinct as well as the adjacent Swan River will have a high concentration of public artworks. This provides an opportunity for the artworks to form part of a public art walking trail. Walking trails provide an excellent opportunity to promote public art and help to contribute to the public’s understanding of Western Australian contemporary art practice. Artworks may also be used in marketing material to help further define the image and identity of the City.


Item 12.5 Continued

46

The Strategy was presented to the Standing Committee (Community Vision) meeting on the 19 August 2013 with the following excerpt from the recorded minutes outlining responses to questions raised:

The developer would be required to contribute 1% of the total cost of the development towards Public Art.

The developer has the option of either developing their own public art or making a cash-in-lieu contribution.

Public art will be administered through the Public Art Advisory Panel.

The purpose of the document is to encourage art and to encourage a variety of artists.

The intent of the artwork and the location need to be considered when looking at public art.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS A private development that exceeds $4.5 million within any of the nine precinct areas will require the developer to make contribution of 1% of total construction cost to provide public art. Artwork can either be provided on site by the developer or alternatively, the developer of the site may choose to provide a cash-in-lieu contribution to the City of 1% of the total construction cost. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no environmental implications at this time. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Ensure that the community has access to the services and facilities it needs

Assist in developing community capacity through public art projects

Enhances a sense of community and the image of Belmont. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt ‘The Springs – City of Belmont Public Art Strategy’ as detailed in Attachment 12.



47

12.6 ACCOUNTS FOR PAYMENT – AUGUST 2013

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE BELMONT ATTACHMENT DETAILS


Attachment 13 – Item 12.6 refers Accounts for Payment August 2013

Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 54/007–Creditors–Payment Authorisations Location/Property Index : N/A Application Index : N/A Disclosure of any Interest : N/A Previous Items : N/A Applicant : N/A Owner : N/A Responsible Division : Corporate and Governance COUNCIL ROLE






PURPOSE OF REPORT Confirmation of accounts paid and authority to pay unpaid accounts.

http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Attachment%2013%20-%20Item%2012.6%20refers%20-%20Accounts%20for%20Payment%20August%202013.pdf


Item 12.6 Continued

48

SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES A list of payments is presented to the Council each month for confirmation and endorsement in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. LOCATION N/A. CONSULTATION There has been no specific consultation undertaken in respect to this matter. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN IMPLICATIONS There are no Strategic Community Plan implications evident at this time. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no significant policy implications evident at this time. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 states:

“If the local government has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from the municipal fund or the trust fund, a list of accounts paid by the CEO is to be prepared each month showing for each account paid since the last such list was prepared: (a) the payee's name (b) the amount of the payment (c) the date of the payment (d) sufficient information to identify the transaction.”

BACKGROUND Checking and certification of Accounts for Payment required in accordance with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Clause 12.


Item 12.6 Continued

49

OFFICER COMMENT The following payments as detailed in the Authorised Payment Listing are recommended for confirmation and endorsement. Municipal Fund Cheques 785069 to 785164 $218,153.10 Municipal Fund EFTs EF029058 to EF029510 $3,390,238.88 Municipal Fund Payroll August 2013 $1,740,121.90 Trust Fund Cheques 905390 to 905392 $44,150.33 Trust Fund EFTs EF029145 and EF029195 $31,189.76 Total Payments for August 2013 $5,423,853.97 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Provides for the effective and timely payment of Council’s contractors and other creditors. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no environmental implications at this time. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no social implications at this time. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That the Authorised Payment Listing for August 2013 (refer to Attachment 13) be received.

http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Attachment%2013%20-%20Item%2012.6%20refers%20-%20Accounts%20for%20Payment%20August%202013.pdf


50

12.7 MONTHLY ACTIVITY STATEMENT AS AT 31 AUGUST 2013



Attachment 14 – Item 12.7 refers Monthly Activity Statement as at 31 August 2013

Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 32/009-Financial Operating Statements Location/Property Index : N/A Application Index : N/A Disclosure of any Interest : N/A Previous Items : N/A Applicant : N/A Owner : N/A Responsible Division : Corporate and Governance COUNCIL ROLE






PURPOSE OF REPORT To provide Council with relevant monthly financial information. SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES The following report includes a concise list of material variances and a Reconciliation of Net Current Assets at the end of the reporting month.

http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Attachment%2014%20-%20Item%2012.7%20refers%20-%20Monthly%20Activity%20Statements%20August%202013.pdf



Item 12.7 Continued

51

LOCATION N/A. CONSULTATION There has been no specific consultation undertaken in respect to this matter. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN IMPLICATIONS There are no Strategic Community Plan implications evident at this time. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no significant policy implications evident at this time. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 in conjunction with Regulations 34 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires monthly financial reports to be presented to Council. Regulation 34(1) requires a monthly Statement of Financial Activity reporting on revenue and expenditure. Regulation 34(5) determines the mechanism required to ascertain the definition of material variances which are required to be reported to Council as a part of the monthly report. It also requires Council to adopt a “percentage or value” for what it will consider to be material variances on an annual basis. Further clarification is provided in the Officer Comments section. BACKGROUND The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 require that financial statements are presented on a monthly basis to Council. In previous years, Council has adopted ten percent of the budgeted closing balance as the materiality threshold. OFFICER COMMENT The Statutory Monthly Financial Report is to consist of a Statement of Financial Activity reporting on revenue and expenditure as set out in the Annual Budget. It is required to include:

Annual budget estimates

Budget estimates to the end of the reporting month

Actual amounts to the end of the reporting month

Material variances between comparable amounts

Net current assets as at the end of the reporting month.


Item 12.7 Continued

52

Previous amendments to the Regulations fundamentally changed the reporting structure which requires reporting of information consistent with the “cash” component of Council’s budget rather than being “accrual” based. The monthly financial report is to be accompanied by:

An explanation of the composition of the net current assets, less committed* and restricted** assets

An explanation of material variances***

Such other information as is considered relevant by the local government. *Revenue unspent but set aside under the annual budget for a specific purpose. **Assets which are restricted by way of externally imposed conditions of use eg tied grants. ***Based on a materiality threshold of 10 percent of the budgeted closing balance as previously adopted by Council. In order to provide more details regarding significant variations, as included in Attachment 14, the following summary is provided. In accordance with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Regulation 34 (2)(a) the following table explains the composition of the net current assets amount which appears at the end of the attached report.

Report Section YTD Budget YTD Actual Comment

Expenditure – Capital

Computing 83,500 17,239 Purchase of equipment behind budget.

Technical Services 93,216 10,662 Budget spread issue in regards to an environmental capital project.

Road Works 954,243 637,911 Invoices for capital works are generally received one month in arrears.

Footpath Works 123,073 48,672 Invoices for capital works are generally received one month in arrears.

Operations Centre 370,091 71,197 Mainly relates to fleet purchases currently on hold.

Building Operations 242,500 137,931 Invoices for capital works are generally received one month in arrears.

Expenditure – Operating

Computing 346,579 419,757 Timing difference in regards to software maintenance renewals.

Rates 367,453 733,795 Timing issue in regards to the rates discount.

Belmont Community Watch

118,827 63,771 Invoices for security services are received one month in arrears.

Community Services 130,209 76,053 Consulting expenditure behind budget.

Belmont HACC 377,083 432,669 Budget spread issue with regards



Item 12.7 Continued

53

Report Section YTD Budget YTD Actual Comment

Services to internal cost allocations.

Sanitation Charges 492,451 549,871 Invoices paid earlier than expected.

Grounds Operations 778,662 561,675 Outstanding contractor invoices and wages allocations.

Grounds Overheads 398,847 342,928 Employee related costs are below budget.

Other Public Works 156,559 70,501 Outstanding street lighting costs.

Revenue – Capital

Property & Economic Development

(275,000) 0 Timing difference in regards to land sales.

Operations Centre (172,140) (1,136) Relates to pending fleet sales.

Revenue – Operating

Finance Department (308,133) (367,472) ABC cost recoveries above budget.

Computing (314,772) (419,757) ABC cost recoveries above budget.

Rates (37,651,932) (37,578,790) Timing issue regarding Airport rates.

General Purpose Income

(99,500) 0 Timing issue in regards to receipt of the Financial assistance Grant.

Financing Activities (314,791) (171,895) Actual excludes accrued interest.

Health (52,703) (115,167) Timing issue in regards to Licence income.

Belmont HACC Services

(185,822) (539,958) Quarterly operating grant received in advance.

Faulkner Park Retirement Village (FPRV)

(89,847) 0 Variance relates to income received from the sale of FPRV units.

Town Planning (180,858) (270,837) Planning application fees are above budget.

Grounds Overheads (270,765) (211,041) Outstanding allocation of overhead recoveries.

Road Works (62,467) 0 Timing issue in regards to receipt of the Financial assistance Grant.

Building Control (91,001) (156,842) Application fees are above budget.

Public Works Overheads

(291,434) (224,809) Outstanding allocation of overhead recoveries.


Item 12.7 Continued

54

In accordance with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Regulation 34 (2)(a) the following table explains the composition of the net current assets amount which appears at the end of the attached report (Refer Attachment 14).

Reconciliation of Nett Current Assets to Statement of Financial Activity

Current Assets as at 31 August 2013

$ Comment

Cash and investments 36,695,348 Includes municipal, reserves & deposits

- less non rate setting cash (30,502,314) Reserves and deposits held

Receivables

42,804,338

Rates levied yet to be received and Sundry Debtors

- less non rate setting receivables

(5,611,547) ESL levied and GST payable

Stock on hand 266,731

Total Current Assets 43,652,556

Current Liabilities

Creditors and provisions (11,858,857) Includes deposits

- less non rate setting creditors & provisions

8,644,618 ESL, GST and deposits held

Total Current Liabilities (3,214,238)

Nett Current Assets 31 August 2013

40,438,318

Nett Current Assets as Per Financial Activity Report

40,438,318

Less Restricted Assets (320,211) Unspent grants held for specific purposes

Less Committed Assets (39,618,107) All other budgeted expenditure

Estimated Closing Balance 500,000

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The presentation of these reports to Council ensures compliance with the Local Government Act 1995 and associated Regulations, and also ensures that Council is regularly informed as to the status of its financial position. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no environmental implications at this time.



Item 12.7 Continued

55

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no social implications at this time. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That the Monthly Financial Report as at 31 August 2013 (refer to Attachment 14) be received.



56

12.8 TENDER 14/2013 - ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO CENTENARY PARK

COMMUNITY CENTRE



Confidential Attachment 1 – Item 12.8 refers

Price Schedule


Evaluation Matrix

Voting Requirement : Absolute Majority Subject Index : 114/2013-14 Location/Property Index : N/A Application Index : N/A Disclosure of any Interest : Nil Previous Items : N/A Applicant : N/A Owner : N/A Responsible Division : Community and Statutory Services COUNCIL ROLE






PURPOSE OF REPORT To seek Council approval to award Tender 14/2013 - Alterations and Extensions to Centenary Park Community Centre.

http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Confidential%20Attachment%201%20-%20Item%2012.8%20refers%20-%20Price%20Schedule.pdf

http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Confidential%20Attachment%202%20-%20Item%2012.8%20refers%20-%20Evaluation%20Matrix.pdf


Item 12.8 Continued

57

SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES To seek Council approval to award Tender 14/2013 in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995. The tender is for alterations and extensions to the Centenary Park Community Centre. Thirty-two sets of tender documents were issued to prospective tenderers and eight tenders were received as follows:

Badenport Constructions

CPD Group Pty Ltd

Laneway Construction

Devlyn Constructions Pty Ltd

Devco Builders

Cercon Building

HS Hyde & Son

BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd. All the tenders met the compliance criteria and were assessed against the weighted criteria. LOCATION The existing Centenary Park Clubroom facility is located on the corner of Daly and Barker Streets in Belmont (107 Daly Street, Belmont).

CONSULTATION Hoffman Architecture were contracted to provide architectural services for the design development, documentation and contract administration for this project.


Item 12.8 Continued

58

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the Strategic Community Plan Key Result Areas: Built Belmont. Objective: Maintain public infrastructure in accordance with sound asset

management practices. Strategy: Manage the City’s infrastructure and other assets to ensure that an

appropriate level of service is provided to the community. Corporate Key Action: Maintain Assets in accordance with Asset Management

Strategy and associated Plans. POLICY IMPLICATIONS BEXB28–Purchasing POLICY OBJECTIVE This policy aims to deliver a high level of accountability whilst providing a flexible, efficient and effective procurement framework. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT This issue is governed in the main by the Local Government Act 1995, in particular Section 3.57 which states that “a local government is required to invite tenders before it enters into a contract of a prescribed kind under which another person is to supply goods or services”. BACKGROUND An invitation to tender for Alterations and Extensions to Centenary Park Community Centre was advertised in The West Australian on Saturday, 13 July 2013, closing on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 12:00pm. OFFICER COMMENT The Price Schedule (refer to Confidential Attachment 1) shows the tenderers’ price submissions. Evaluation Criteria The Evaluation Committee consisted of the Coordinator Purchasing, Manager Building Services and Coordinator Building Operations.



Item 12.8 Continued

59

The tenders were evaluated against the same selection criteria that was included within the tender, being:

Criteria Weighting

1. Experience 20%

2. Personnel 20%

3. Company Capacity 20%

4. Methodology 20%

5. Safety 20%

Total 100%

The Evaluation Matrix (refer to Confidential Attachment 2) shows the scores of the Evaluation Committee. Devco Builders received the highest score on the evaluation matrix as both the organisation and the personnel have the relevant experience, they demonstrated that they have the capacity to fulfil the tender requirements and their methodology showed that they have a clear understanding of the project. Devco Builders undertook the refurbishment of Forster Park with a very satisfactory outcome and were very professional in their approach. Two other tenderers submitted a lower price, the lowest being less than 10% below the price submitted by Devco Builders; however both of these scored less than 60% on the evaluation matrix and pose a higher risk to the City. A credit risk report was undertaken for Devco Builders and the two cheaper tenderers and these confirmed that Devco Builders has a very low risk of experiencing financial distress during the next 12 months. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The architect’s quantity surveyor has provided four different cost estimates during the design and documentation phases of the project. The original estimate in February 2012 was undertaken during the initial design phase. The second cost report was produced in April 2013 when approximately 80% of the documentation had been completed and was considerably higher. Adjustments were made to the design to reduce the cost and an amount of $1,850,000 was allowed for in the 2013-2014 budget based on an estimate of $1,795,500 provided to the City in May 2013. This amount included a 10% contingency allowance and professional fees. Following the addition to the design of a disability access ramp and a bin store, a further cost report was issued in July 2013 in the order of $1,863,648 as a total project cost. The outcome of this cost report, at the time of the tender, indicated that the project budget was correct. However, the actual tender result was somewhat different. There was a 30% range in the tendered prices received, with the recommended tender coming in at $1,841,597. This is just within the budgeted amount of $1,850,000 which is offset by a combined contribution of $636,014 from LotteryWest and the Department of Sport and Recreation. The tendered amount does not allow for professional fees or a contingency allowance.



Item 12.8 Continued

60

A minimum of 5% of the construction cost is usually allowed for the contingency sum. It is not envisaged that there would be many variations to this project as it is not complex, for example most of the plumbing will be installed new rather than trying to tie in with existing systems. An amount of $11,270 was remaining from the 2012-2013 financial year and it is proposed that this will be carried forward into the 2013-2014 financial year for this project. The tender result and allowances for remaining professional fees and a 5% contingency sum will require a revised project budget in the order of $1,960,000 which requires an additional contribution to the project of $98,730. This shortfall could be funded from the Building Maintenance Reserve and adjusted at the October Budget Review. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS The alterations to the building include the installation of energy efficient LED lighting. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS This project contributes to the City’s objective to take a key leadership role in the development of services for the benefit the community as follows:

The City will create a facility that the community has access to and that will be able to provide a range of services

Supports community groups by providing additional space for the use of the Community

Enhances a sense of community and the image of Belmont by developing a new facility that will service the community for many years to come.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Accepts the tender submitted by Devco Builders for the Alterations and

Extension to Centenary Park Community Centre as specified, for a lump sum price of $1,841,597 excluding GST as the most advantageous.

2. Authorises the transfer of $98,730 from the Building Maintenance Reserve

at the October 2013 Budget Review.

***ABSOLUTE MAJORITY REQUIRED***


61

12.9 TENDER 16/2013 - ASCOT FORESHORE STABILISATION LOCATION D




Price Schedule


Evaluation Matrix

Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 114/2013-16 Location/Property Index : N/A Application Index : N/A Disclosure of any Interest : Nil Previous Items : N/A Applicant : N/A Owner : N/A Responsible Division : Technical Services COUNCIL ROLE






PURPOSE OF REPORT To seek Council approval to award Tender 16/2013 - Ascot Foreshore Stabilisation Location D.




Item 12.9 Continued

62

SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES To seek Council approval to award Tender 16/2013, in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995. The tender is to undertake foreshore stabilisation works adjacent to the Ascot Racecourse. 46 sets of tender documents were issued to prospective tenderers and six tenders were received as follows:

Civil Works Pty Ltd

MMM (WA) Pty Ltd

Yarnell Civil and Mining Pty Ltd Advanteering Civil Engineers

Neo Infrastructure (WA) Pty Ltd

In-Situ Construction and Maintenance.

All the tenders met the compliance criteria and were assessed against the weighted criteria. LOCATION Foreshore path network adjacent to Ascot Racecourse, Gould Reserve, Epsom Avenue, Ascot.

Location D


Item 12.9 Continued

63

CONSULTATION Damara WA Pty Ltd has provided the technical specifications and will be supervising the works. Consultation has also been undertaken with the Swan River Trust, the Department of Lands (as land owner), Perth Racing/WA Turf Club and Belmont Bicycle User Group. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the Strategic Community Plan Key Result Area: Natural Belmont. Objective: Protect and enhance our natural Environment. Strategy: Ensure the City has policies and practices that safeguard and enhance

the natural environment. Corporate Key Action: Undertake staged implementation of Environment Plan

2010 - 2015. POLICY IMPLICATIONS BEXB28–Purchasing POLICY OBJECTIVE This policy aims to deliver a high level of accountability whilst providing a flexible, efficient and effective procurement framework. NB3-Environmental Enhancement Policy POLICY OBJECTIVE To develop a strategy to protect and enhance the natural environment. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT This issue is governed in the main by the Local Government Act 1995, in particular Section 3.57 which states that “a local government is required to invite tenders before it enters into a contract of a prescribed kind under which another person is to supply goods or services”. BACKGROUND An invitation to tender for the stabilisation of Ascot Foreshore Location D was advertised in The West Australian on Saturday, 20 July 2013, closing on Thursday, 15 August 2013 at 2:00pm.


Item 12.9 Continued

64

OFFICER COMMENT The Price Schedule (refer to Confidential Attachment 3) shows the tenderers’ price submissions. Evaluation Criteria The Evaluation Committee consisted of the Coordinator Purchasing, Manager Works, Coordinator Environment and a representative from the Swan River Trust. The tenders were evaluated against the same selection criteria that was included within the tender, being:

Criteria Weighting

1. Experience and Personnel 25%

2. Environment 10%

3. Methodology 25%

4. Company Capacity 10%

5. Safety 10%

6. Price 20%

Total 100%

The Evaluation Matrix (refer to Confidential Attachment 4) shows the scores of the Evaluation Committee. Both Yarnell Civil and Mining Pty Ltd and Advanteering Civil Engineers scored highly. The tender submission received from Advanteering Civil Engineers showed that they have experience with similar works along the environmentally sensitive area of the river foreshore and working with the Swan River Trust, including the works undertaken at Locations A-C which were completed to the City’s satisfaction. Their detailed methodology demonstrated a good understanding of the tasks required and that they had the resources to complete the works within the set time frame. As the highest scorer on the Evaluation Matrix, Advanteering Civil Engineers is the recommended contractor. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There was a very wide range in the tendered prices with all but two within the allocated budget for this project. However, the two tenderers with the lowest prices scored less than 55%. The budgeted amount of $520,000 includes consultancy fees, plants and labour costs and expected State Government Riverbank funding of $250,000. Confirmation that this funding has been approved is not yet available and award of this tender will be subject to such approval.




Item 12.9 Continued

65

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS The focus of the 2010-2015 Environment Plan is to proactively develop objectives and actions that will result in enhancement of the natural environment. The implementation of foreshore stabilisation works at Ascot Racecourse Foreshore is one such action that has been identified to help meet the Strategic Community Plan Objective Number one: “Protect and enhance our natural environment”. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no social implications at this time. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council accepts the tender submitted by Advanteering Civil Engineers for Ascot Foreshore Stabilisation Location D as specified, for a lump sum price of $300,431 excluding GST, as the most advantageous subject to confirmation of State Government Riverbank funding.


66

13. REPORTS BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 13.1 REQUESTS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 14. MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED 14.1 STAFF MATTER – CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

2012-2013 CONFIDENTIAL MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT

ACT 1995 SECTION 5.23 (2) (B) (E) ATTACHMENT DETAILS



Report Item - Staff Matter – Chief Executive Officer Annual Performance Appraisal 2012-2013 Confidential Matter in accordance with Local Government Act 1995 Section 5.23 (2) (B) (E)


CEO Performance Management Plan 2012-2013 – Circulated under separate cover

15. CLOSURE

http://www.belmont.wa.gov.au/CouncillorPortal/CouncillorMinuteAndMeeting/Minutes%20and%20Agendas%20Documents/Confidential%20Attachment%205%20-%20Item%2014.1%20refers%20-%20Report.pdf





This page

has purposely been left

blank

City of Belmont City of Opportunity › CouncillorPortal... · unlikely specifically on Perth’s...

Documents

Transcript of City of Belmont City of Opportunity › CouncillorPortal... · unlikely specifically on Perth’s...