Cockburn Community Proposal Rationale Validation Community... · optimal position to be of use to...

Cockburn Community Proposal

Rationale Validation


Steering Group

Final Version 2.11

5 February, 2014

Cockburn Community Proposal Rationale Validation Final Version 2.11

i

Document Control

Job ID: 17247

Job Name: Cockburn Community Proposal Rationale Validation

Client: Cockburn Community Proposal Steering Group

Client Contact: Chris Fitzhardinge

Project Manager:

David Sinclair

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: 07 3831 0577

Document Name:

Cockburn Community Proposal Rationale Validation - Final Report v2.11.docx

Last Saved: 5/2/2014 6:46 PM

Version Date Reviewed Approved

Working Draft Report 13th December 2013

Draft v1.0 17th December 2013 SS SS

Community Committee 17th December 2013

Draft v2.0 25th January 2014 SS

Final Draft v2.1 30th January 2014 SS SS

Final v2.11 5th February 2014 SS SS

Disclaimer:

Whilst all care and diligence have been exercised in the preparation of this report, AEC Group Limited does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained within and accepts no liability for any loss or damage that may be suffered as a result of reliance on this information, whether or not there has been any error, omission or negligence on the part of AEC Group Limited or their employees. Any forecasts or projections used in the analysis can be affected by a number of unforeseen variables, and as such no warranty is given that a particular set of results will in fact be achieved.

mailto:[email protected]


ii

Executive Summary

Background

The majority of Australian states and territories have undertaken some form of local

government reform over the last twenty years. Western Australia is currently assessing reform options for the Perth Metropolitan region to halve the number of local governments from 30 to 15. This reform affects the Cities of Cockburn, Kwinana, Fremantle and Melville.

This report considers the latest West Australian Government reform proposals announced on 12th November 2013 (State Government Proposal), which would see Cockburn

disaggregated three ways, and an alternative approach set out by the Cockburn Community Steering Group (Cockburn Community Proposal) which would merge Cockburn with Kwinana, Fremantle with East Fremantle and Melville with western suburbs of Canning.

Table E.1. Summary of Local Government Reform Options

Local Governments

State Government Proposal Cockburn Community Proposal

Cockburn Kwinana

Northern boundary now along Roe Highway and the railway line.

Excludes Coogee, North Coogee, Hamilton Hill, Spearwood and part of Munster (north of Mayor Road and Beeliar Drive road reservation).

Excludes Coolbellup, Bibra Lake, North Lake and part of Leeming.

The Cities of Cockburn and Kwinana create a new city by boundary adjustment with the loss of part of Leeming to City of Melville and part of North Coogee to Fremantle

East Fremantle Fremantle

Includes Coogee, North Coogee, Hamilton Hill, Spearwood and part of Munster (north of Mayor Road and Beeliar Drive road reservation).

Includes Bicton and Palmyra. Excludes Samson and part of O’Connor.

The City of Fremantle and the Town of East Fremantle create a new city by boundary adjustment with the addition of Willagee, part of Palmyra and part of Kardinya from the City of Melville as well as part of North Coogee from the City of Cockburn.

Melville Significantly expanded to include Coolbellup, Bibra Lake, North Lake, Samson and part of O’Connor.

Expanded east to Willeri Drive and Roe Highway to include Rossmoyne, Shelley, Willetton, Leeming and part of Riverton.

The City of Melville is augmented by part of Willetton (to Vahland Avenue), part of Leeming, Rossmoyne, Shelley and Riverton from the City of Canning as well as part of Leeming from the City of Cockburn but loses Willagee, part of Palmyra and part of Kardinya to City of Fremantle by boundary adjustment.

Source: Cockburn Community Steering Group (2013), Department of Local Government and Communities

The focus of this report is validation of selected Cockburn Community Proposal rationales to the Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) as well as reviewing financial aspects of the proposal.

Reform Cost Impacts

The Cockburn Community Proposal rationales concerning the reform cost impacts are:

3. Our proposal is the lowest cost option and optimises the use of existing assets, uses the boundary adjustment process, minimises staff redundancy, simplifies harmonisation of planning schemes and preserves existing capability.

p83 However, what is clear is that under this [State Government Proposal] scenario

Cockburn residents in the new City of Cockburn-Kwinana would lose around $100 Million in civic infrastructure assets and reform costs.

The key points in validating these rationales are:

Disaggregation of local governments, which has not been a feature of local government reform, is disruptive, high risk and costly for staff, communities and business.


iii

Over the last 20 years there has been a wave of local government reform across

Australia. Almost all local government reform of recent times involved amalgamations with some minor boundary changes. Disaggregation of a local government is rare and presents significant challenges and greater risks.

Local government reform is a complex and time consuming process which inevitably has significant impacts on staff and communities. Amalgamating existing local governments is almost certain to be less complex and this is the reason why this approach has been used in other jurisdictions, augmented by small boundary adjustments where appropriate.

The challenges presented by the State Government Proposal include: accommodating staff, staff reallocation, maintaining services, mono-centric v polycentric development

focus, allocation of fixed assets, allocation of mobile assets and allocation of liabilities. To date no detailed methodology has been proposed to deal with this complexity. This creates uncertainty and risk.

Amalgamation is by far the lowest cost option and results in minimal staff

accommodation costs, no disposal and re-construction of Councils assets, no stranded assets, no disruption to the Developer Contribution Scheme and no

social costs.

The administrative costs of the Cockburn Community Proposal have been costed at $7.8 million which will be recovered by savings of $1.2 million per year, resulting in payback period of eight years. Furthermore, this option does not impact accommodation of staff in other council buildings, disposal and reconstruction of assets, disruption around the Developer Contribution Scheme, stranded assets and social costs.

Extending the estimated administrative cost for the Cockburn-Kwinana amalgamation to

Fremantle-East Fremantle and Melville-Canning in the Cockburn Community Proposal, could result in a potential overall cost of up to $23.4 million.

Table E.2. Comparison of Estimated Cost of Proposals ($m)

Element State Government Proposal


Administrative Cost

Cockburn-Kwinana $11.6 $7.8

Fremantle-East Fremantle $13.9 $7.8

Melville $5.8 $7.8

Total Administrative Cost $31.2 ($34.8) $24.3

Accommodation Cost

120 FTE at Fremantle $12.0 ($12.2) Na

220 FTE at Melville (100 from Cockburn, 120 from Canning)

$22.0 ($22.4) Na

235 FTE displaced from Spearwood $25.5 ($23.0) Na

Total Accommodation Cost $59.5 ($57.6) Na

New depot to service Cockburn $29.4 Na

Total Cost $120.1 ($122.8) $24.3

less Revenue from Sale of Administration Centre and Depot

$25.0 Na

Net Cost $95.1 ($97.8) $24.3

Note: Figures in () are AECgroup estimates where they differ. Source: Cockburn Community Proposal (2013), Rawlinsons (2013), Queensland Treasury Corporation (2009), AECgroup

The net costs of the State Government Proposal, however, are four times higher than a straight amalgamation. The net cost of housing Cockburn’s staff in three other

council buildings, disposal and reconstruction of assets along with administration costs escalate towards $100 million.


iv

Financial Sustainability Impacts

The Cockburn Community Proposal rationales concerning the reform cost impacts are:

2. Our proposal is consistent with the objectives of Local Government reform and the objectives of scale, efficiency and effectiveness are met by the proposal.

11. Our proposal avoids destruction of asset value and the need to build new assets or relocate services. The Cockburn Administration Centre was recently refurbished at a cost of $10 million and will not have a similar function under the State Government Proposal. The Cockburn Council Depot at Bibra Lake would be in a sub

optimal position to be of use to the new City of Melville. Other community facilities would also become stranded assets.

16. Our proposal minimises need for rate increases. The effective use of assets, lower redundancy costs, higher productivity, lower staff turnover and retention of a balance of industrial and commercial ratepayers minimises the need for rate increases.


Access to Cockburn’s strong and growing revenue stream will improve the financial sustainability of all reform options moreso under the Cockburn Community Proposal than the State Government Proposal.

Under the State Government Proposal, the allocation of Cockburn across the three proposed LGAs increases the financial sustainability of all the proposed LGAs due to the reallocation of the strong revenue stream of Cockburn. However, the weaker new

Fremantle will incur additional negative impacts from the transfer of suburbs and assets, and the demand for community infrastructure with limited funding streams.

The Cockburn Community Proposal amalgamation would provide the greatest improvement with the larger and stronger Cockburn operating position providing a buffer for the relatively weaker Kwinana operating position. The new Fremantle will improve with the addition of a population base and revenue to support the transferred assets.

The original Metropolitan Local Government Review (2012a) proposal which combined

Melville with Fremantle and East Fremantle would have improved the financial sustainability of the new local government by joining the stronger operating position of Melville with the asset base of Fremantle.

Consolidation of the asset base is preferable to disaggregation (for which there is no methodology) and in particular the road network servicing industrial areas.

Over 70% (roads, footpaths, drainage and open space) of the asset base of Cockburn

would not be available for review therefore little benefit is achieved from reform in regard to asset rationalisation.

Over 34% of Cockburn’s road, footpath and drainage assets will be transferred to other LGA areas mainly in mature suburbs, shifting the burden for maintenance and renewal from Cockburn to the other LGA’s.

The Cockburn Community Proposal results in the consolidation of the road network that is

vital to the productivity of the important industrial areas of the Western Trade Coast

The State Government Proposal would incur the expense of the reallocation of the asset base on an asset by asset basis based on methodology that is not yet known.

Disagregating Cockburn will result in the net writedown and loss of community assets.

The Cockburn Community Proposal would promote the continued use of existing council service centres. The administration building and depot would be retained and utilised.

The future relocation of the council chambers to a neutral central location at Cockburn Central would facilitate better regional community needs.

In contrast, the State Government Proposal would result in possible stranding of the Cockburn administration building, with little potential for commercial re-development of the site. This in conjunction with the possible disposal of the Cockburn Bibra Lake depot


v

site would result in loss of community owned assets with a written down value of $25.7

million.

Any gains from the transfer or disposal of assets would be dispersed to the wider LGA areas rather than benefit those communities that contributed to the development of the

assets. For example the potential sale proceeds ($15 million) from the disposal of the Bibra Lake depot site may not be returned to the Cockburn community but could be dispersed for the benefit of the wider Melville community.

Aggregating Cockburn and Kwinana will significantly benefit Kwinana ratepayers. Disaggregating Cockburn will significantly dis-benefit ratepayers and introduce uncertainty to industry and business.

The Cockburn Community Proposal provides for the alignment of LGA’s with similar land

use profiles of a 60% residential and rural / 40% commercial ratio. The proposal would result in a reduction the average rate for Kwinana ratepayers of $262 per year for general rates and $226 for minimum rates. The lost revenue of $3.7 million could be collected across all Cockburn and Kwinana residential ratepayers by an increase of $83

per property. Kwinana commercial/industrial ratepayers would have a reduction in total rates collected of $0.5 million.

The State Government Proposal could increase the rates taken from Cockburn residential ratepayers by $13.1 million, an average increase of $378 per property. Industrial ratepayers from Cockburn transferred to Melville and Fremantle, which do not currently have industrial rate categories, would be subject to the uncertainty of future rate levels.

Planning & Development Impacts

The Cockburn Community Proposal rationales concerning the planning & development impacts are:

10. Our proposal simplifies ‘Developer Contribution Scheme’ issues that equitably fund future community facilities. The Cities of Cockburn and Kwinana have well developed community infrastructure contribution schemes providing for multi-million contributions from land developers. Splitting the areas involved in these

schemes will provide significant risk in the loss of private sector support for community infrastructure in any area that would otherwise be transferred to another Local Government under the Government’s model.

12. Our proposal preserves community planning. The Cities of Cockburn and Kwinana have well advanced synergistic asset investment plans developed with extensive community engagement that can be readily integrated. It is expected that an extensive review of asset investment and new community engagement would have

to occur under the State Government’s proposal.

14. Our proposal preserves planning and service delivery capability. Cockburn is a high performing Local Government delivering a wide range of valued services to its communities. Kwinana has many similarities with its service model, but does not provide the same range. The experience of Cockburn can be utilised to expand services not offered in Kwinana. Fremantle and Melville deliver a different bundle of

services.


The disaggregation of Cockburn would destroy the Developer Contribution Scheme with these funds being diverted from their assigned purpose and a short term funding gap will prevail for at least three years whilst new schemes are established.

No process has been suggested as to how the DCS funds currently held by Cockburn and

Kwinana could be treated under the State Government Proposal. It is almost certain, however, that some of these funds will be distributed and this will create conflict and uncertainty with the development sector. The contributed funds for development of essential supporting infrastructure within Cockburn and Kwinana respectively, could potentially be used to fund infrastructure or other non-infrastructure related expenditure in locations outside Cockburn’s current boundaries. For a full list of community infrastructure see Appendix A.


vi

As well as the direct impact on expenditure in the relevant catchment, such a move

would also make developers much less likely to agree to future schemes with significant implications for the provision and funding of community infrastructure.

The Cockburn Community Proposal would address this issue, allowing the seamless

investment of the DCS funds as planned and the continued operation of the schemes. If the transferring areas of Cockburn are to have a DCS in future this would require the receiving local government to either implement a DCS of their own over the entire local government or to develop a scheme entirely for the former Cockburn communities, a process that would take at least three years.

Any new local governments will be required to prepare new strategic community plans at a substantial cost.

As a result of their differing community profiles, the community plans for Melville and Fremantle have a different focus to those of Cockburn and Kwinana. The more urbanised councils have a greater focus on public transport solutions and revitalising key CBD infrastructure while the Cockburn Community Proposal has a greater emphasis on the

provision of community services and amenity.

Local Governments are required to have a Strategic Community Plan in place as a

component of their integrated planning. The cost to undertake three new community planning exercises could be as high as $600,000. If the exercise is not properly undertaken for the joining communities then they could be ignored in council decision making and become disenfranchised.

The planning strategies of Cockburn and Kwinana are greenfield and growth orientated, Fremantle and Melville are brownfield orientated.

Cockburn is located within the South West Planning Sub-Region – an identified key

growth corridor for the Perth and Peel Region over the next 30 years. The planning strategy for Cockburn has been designed to plan for and respond to this growth and accommodate the major changes expected for the region over the coming years. Kwinana is also located in the South West Growth Corridor and has a similar planning scheme approach designed to respond to the changes in the region and accommodate growth.

The current and future development of the cities of Melville and Fremantle is expected to

be largely brownfield. That is redevelopment, densification (multi-unit, multi-storey) and reconfiguration of lots. This form of development is quite different to greenfields development and requires different assessment skills.

Both Cockburn and Kwinana have included the appropriate treatment of rural areas within the land planning strategies. This reflects the characteristics of land use on these local government areas and is in contrast with the urban focus of the Fremantle and

Melville Plans.

Combining planning schemes that deal with similar circumstances is less disruptive than combining urban and greenfields focussed ones.

Under the Cockburn Community Proposal, it is almost certain the two existing planning schemes could be combined much more easily than under the disaggregation scenarios. Maintaining existing suburbs and the associated growth plans is almost certain to offer a lower cost and lower risk solution.

Fremantle and Melville, whilst also expected to experience growth, are already urbanised areas and would be expected to adopt a different growth response strategy and planning controls.

Cockburn and Kwinana are undergoing similar levels of growth and therefore could develop and adopt a shared planning scheme more quickly than under a circumstance where there are significant differences in the plans for different parts of the same local government as would be the case under the disaggregation scenarios.

The development of new planning schemes rather than combining them is much more costly.

It is inevitable that new planning schemes will be required by the resulting new local governments. New planning schemes are expensive and take considerable time to prepare and implement. Based on the Queensland local government reform experience it


vii

is estimated that three new planning schemes would cost between $1.05 million and $1.2

million to prepare and implement. This compares to the Cockburn Community Proposal where an amalgamation of existing planning schemes could be achieved for an approximate cost of $150,000.

In addition to the cost to prepare new planning schemes the new planning departments will experience disruption with the addition of planning staff from the disaggregated Cockburn.

Whilst planning uncertainty is being experienced, delays to building approvals and construction activity may be experienced. As an example a negative economic shock of $100 million to the construction sector could result in a loss to the local economy of $269.1 million and 814 full time jobs. This may occur at a time when local development

is needed to offset the fall in mining construction activity.

Cockburn deals with more building approvals than its neighbours and does so more efficiently. Loosing this ability will slow development.

Cockburn has historically dealt with a greater number and value of building approvals

than surrounding local governments.

Building approval efficiency is important for the development industry and the local

economy. In 2012-13 Cockburn had the most efficient statutory building approval team in terms of dwelling approvals per FTE and total value of building per FTE out of Kwinana and Melville. Cockburn staff consistently achieve good turnaround times for building approvals.

The disaggregation of the Cockburn statutory building approval team combined with the differing development focus of Fremantle and Melville may impact on building approval efficiency and therefore slow development thereby impacting the performance of the local

economy.

Economic Growth Impacts

The Cockburn Community Proposal rationale concerning the economic growth impacts

are:

19. Our proposal reflects economic linkages between the Australian Marine Complex, Bibra Lake Industrial area, Kwinana and Jandakot. The oil and gas, defence, resources, shipbuilding, marine services and construction sectors have strong linkages within the Cockburn and Kwinana LGAs including industrial locations at the Australian Marine Complex, Bibra Lake, Kwinana and Jandakot. The Cities of Cockburn and Kwinana have shown strong support for the development of these sectors and the support infrastructure required for these sectors.

The key points in validating this rationale are:

The similar economic structures of Cockburn and Kwinana means a convergence of focus to deliver economic outcomes is a more beneficial outcome.

There are clear parallels between the structure of the economies of Cockburn and Kwinana (mining, manufacturing, construction). Both local government areas have strong industrial sectors while the economies of Melville and Fremantle are more diverse and

have a greater contribution from the services sector.

The distribution of existing and planned key industrial areas within Cockburn and Kwinana highlights the key role this region will have in future local and state economic development. Establishing a single local authority which is skilled and experience in working to support these sectors and which has the appropriate development of these sites are its priority is almost certain to offer significant benefits.

Economic planning aligned to a few core strengths delivers stronger results as

opposed to trying to service all parts of the economy.

Economic planning requires a clear focus which underpins activity over the plan period. The key economic development issues identified in the Kwinana economic development framework are closely aligned to actions needed to continue to develop the strengths of the Cockburn economy, reflecting the similarities between the economic bases of each


viii

local government area and the shared future opportunities and challenges. At the same

time Cockburn has seen the delivery of significant industrial development.

The Cockburn Community Proposal, which maintains existing boundaries, would support a clear economic development direction aligned with Cockburn’s and Kwinana’s similar

strengths. Fremantle and Melville have a different economic focus and would require the development of knowledge in a set of different industries.

Avoidance of additional planning costs and disruption to economic development allows getting on with the job.

The estimated costs of developing new economic development plans for Fremantle and Melville could be as much as $300,000 when staff time is also taken into account. These costs and the time taken to develop them are likely to be much higher where there is less

alignment between the economies of the amalgamating entities. Delays and uncertainty in the business sector are potentially of greater significance than the direct costs of replacing the economic development strategies.

The Cockburn Community Proposal provides an opportunity to create a new local

government with lower risks to ongoing economic development and job creation as a result of the existing alignment between the two economies and the shared areas of

strategic focus.

An amalgamated Cockburn-Kwinana will have a focus on reducing congestion to improve industry and business productivity.

Traffic congestion represents a major threat to productivity, new investment and regional growth. The South West Group (2013) has estimated that traffic congestion could be as much as $300 million rising to $450 million by 2020.

Transport access to key industrial areas in Cockburn and Kwinana is and will be of

greater importance as industrial assets in these areas develop further. This applies to both freight and workers.

Whilst the majority of transport congestion solutions are considered a State Government responsibility (9/13 of the key existing and future developments are in Cockburn/Kwinana), an amalgamated Cockburn-Kwinana will have a focus on industry,

business and employment and therefore a higher motivation in reducing transport congestion through appropriate planning, advocacy and investment.

Cockburn through its major capital projects has planned to spend $253.5M over the next 17 years to improve of road transport primarily aimed at the business community but also targeting traffic congestion for commuters.

Summary of Proposals

Even if a strong case could be made for the proposed disaggregation of the City of Cockburn, the State Government Proposal still represents a high risk approach which introduces significant additional complexity, challenges and uncertainty over alternative reform options. The Cockburn Community Proposal is simpler, less complex and less disruptive.

Table E.3. Selected Area Summary Comparison of Proposals

Area State Government Proposal Cockburn Community Proposal

Reform Cost

Allocation Methodology Unknown Not required

Net Costs $95.1 million ($97.8) $24.3 million

Developer Contribution Scheme No method for allocation of existing contributions

Transferring suburbs no longer liable for contributions

Cockburn-Kwinana receives less developer contributions therefore shortfall in funding

Minimal impact


ix


Stranded Assets Cockburn Administration Centre and Cockburn stranded

Need to be sold to provide funds for new civic assets

Upgrades or replacement of Community assets no longer funded

No change

Social Services Potential disruption to funding No change

Financial Sustainability

Financial Sustainability Immediately improves Kwinana (but does not allow for rate reductions)

Fremantle remains vulnerable and declining

Melville remains sustainable

Capacity to fund Kwinana residential rate reduction

Fremantle moves towards sustainable


Road Assets Reallocation of asset bases asset by asset

May result in mixed focus on reducing congestion and productivity increases

Consolidation of road network vital to productivity increases and industrial development

Civic Assets Cockburn Administration Centre surplus to requirements

Bibra Lake Depot surplus to requirements

Unknown asset allocation methodology

Either Cockburn Administration Centre as primary centre and Kwinana Administration Centre as southern service centre

Council Chambers moved to Cockburn Central

No change to depot

Residential Rate Impacts Dependent on new council but transferring Cockburn rates likely to increase substantially

Potential reduction to Kwinana residents

Commercial Rate Impacts Potential increase for Cockburn businesses transferring to Kwinana

Fremantle and Melville do not have existing rate categories. Therefore revenue at risk or new regime introduced

Potential reduction in rates for Kwinana businesses

Planning & Development

Development Planning Fremantle with a city focus acquires suburbs requiring different planning approach

Both Cockburn and Kwinana are greenfield orientated

Costs of New Planning Schemes Need new planning schemes at a higher cost and increased uncertainty for developers

Easier and cheaper to combine planning schemes providing more certainty for developers

Building Approvals Disaggregation of the Cockburn statutory building approval team and differing development focus of Fremantle and Melville may impact on building approvals development

Cockburn has the most efficient statutory building approval team providing certainty for developers

Developer Contribution Scheme Distribution of existing funds to new councils will create conflict and uncertainty with developers

May result in less community infrastructure or increase in rates to cover funding shortfalls

Time and effort required to establish new DCS schemes may delay provision of new community infrastructure

Minimal impact with only one project, North Foreshore Management Plan impacted

Community Planning All Community Plans will need to be redone by each new council (3)

Potential conflicts between urban and sub-urban approaches

Community Plans need to be redone by each new council (1)

Cockburn and Kwinana communities more aligned in regard to community planning


x


Costs of New Community Planning Strategies

Three new Strategic Community Plans required

Risk that transferring communities may not have a voice in council decision making

One new Community Plan required

Economic Growth

Economic Structure Fremantle and Melville have different economic structures than Cockburn

Cockburn and Kwinana have similar economic structures with strong industrial sectors

Economic Development Planning Fremantle and Melville have a different economic development focus and may struggle to balance the needs of industry with urban development

Similar economic structures enables a more focussed approach to economic development

Cost of New Economic Development Strategies

Three new Economic Development Strategies required

One new Economic Development Strategy required

Congestion The activity centre and public transport focus of Fremantle and Melville will reduce the priority for local road investment on the boundaries of the new local governments

Focus on industry, business and employment provides a high motivation to reduce transport congestion particularly for freight transport

Source: AECgroup

Analysis of the challenges facing the four local governments very clearly indicates the Cockburn Community Proposal offers a lower cost and lower risk solution which would bring together two existing local governments with similar characteristics and facing very similar challenges over the next twenty years.


xi

Table of Contents

DOCUMENT CONTROL .......................................................................................... I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... I

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................... XI

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1

1.1 REFORM OPTIONS ............................................................................................. 1

1.2 VALIDATION OF COCKBURN COMMUNITY PROPOSAL RATIONALES ........................................ 2

2. REFORM COST IMPACTS .............................................................................. 3

2.1 COCKBURN COMMUNITY PROPOSAL RATIONALE ............................................................ 3

2.2 REFORM CHALLENGES ......................................................................................... 3

2.2.1 ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 4

2.3 COSTS OF AMALGAMATION V DISAGREGATION ............................................................. 5

2.3.1 AMALGAMATION (COCKBURN COMMUNITY PROPOSAL) .......................................... 5

2.3.2 DISAGGREGATION (STATE GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL) ........................................... 8

2.3.2.1 ACCOMMODATION, ASSETS & ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ............................................... 8

2.3.2.2 IMPACT ON DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION SCHEME ......................................................10

2.3.2.3 STRANDED ASSETS .........................................................................................10

2.3.2.4 SOCIAL SERVICES COSTS .................................................................................11

2.4 COST SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 12

2.5 KEY VALIDATION POINTS ................................................................................... 13

3. FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY IMPACTS .................................................... 14

3.1 COCKBURN COMMUNITY PROPOSAL RATIONALE .......................................................... 14

3.2 FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................ 14

3.2.1 CURRENT FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY .......................................................... 14

3.2.2 FUTURE FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY ............................................................ 15

3.3 ASSET UTILISATION ......................................................................................... 18

3.3.1 ROADS, FOOTPATHS & DRIANAGE ASSETS ..................................................... 20

3.3.2 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING/SENIOR CENTRE/LIBRARY AT COLEVILLE CRESCENT,

SPEARWOOD ....................................................................................... 20

3.3.3 COCKBURN COUNCIL DEPOT AT BIBRA LAKE ................................................... 20

3.3.4 OTHER ASSETS .................................................................................... 21

3.4 RATE IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 21

3.4.1 PROFILE OF RATE BASE ........................................................................... 21

3.4.2 RESIDENTIAL RATES .............................................................................. 23

3.4.2.1 COCKBURN COMMUNITY PROPOSAL ......................................................................24

3.4.2.2 STATE GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL ..........................................................................24

3.4.3 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL RATES ............................................................... 24

3.4.3.1 COCKBURN COMMUNITY PROPOSAL (AEC SUGGESTION) .............................................25

3.4.3.2 STATE GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL ..........................................................................25


4. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ...................................................... 28


xii


4.2 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ................................................................................... 28

4.2.1 SOUTH-WEST SUB-REGION ..................................................................... 28

4.2.2 CENTRAL METROPOLITAN PERTH SUB-REGION................................................. 30

4.2.3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING STRATEGIES .................................................. 31

4.2.4 BUILDING APPROVALS ............................................................................ 33

4.2.5 BUILDING APPROVALS EFFICIENCY .............................................................. 34

4.2.6 COSTS OF PLANNING CHANGE ................................................................... 35

4.2.6.1 COSTS OF NEW PLANNING SCHEMES ....................................................................35

4.2.6.2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF DELAYS TO PLANNING APPROVALS ..........................................36

4.3 THE DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION SCHEME ................................................................ 36

4.4 COMMUNITY PLANNING ..................................................................................... 38

4.4.1 COMMUNITY PLANS ................................................................................ 38

4.4.2 COSTS OF PLANNING CHANGE ................................................................... 40

4.4.2.1 COST OF NEW COMMUNITY PLANNING STRATEGIES ...................................................40


5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ......................................................... 43


5.2 CURRENT ECONOMIC PROFILE .............................................................................. 43

5.3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ...................................................................... 45

5.3.1 COSTS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHANGE ................................................. 46

5.3.1.1 ESTIMATED COST TO PREPARE NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES ......................46

5.3.1.2 DISRUPTION TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .............................................................46

5.4 CONGESTION ................................................................................................. 47


6. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS......................................................................... 51

7. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVISORY BOARD GUIDING PRINCIPLES ............... 53

7.1 MATTERS AFFECTING THE VIABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ........................................ 53

7.2 EFFECTIVE DELIVERY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES ............................................... 53

7.3 ECONOMIC FACTORS ........................................................................................ 53

7.4 TRANSPORT & COMMUNICATION ........................................................................... 54

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 55

APPENDIX A: QUEENSLAND TRANSFERRING AREAS ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 58

APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTION SCHEDULE ....... 60

APPENDIX C: LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY SUMMARY ...................................... 63

APPENDIX D: COMMUNITY PLANS .................................................................... 69

APPENDIX E: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES ...................................... 76

APPENDIX F: CITY OF COCKBURN MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS .......................... 81


1

1. Introduction

Local government reform has been pursued throughout Australia as improved technology, changing community expectations and development have challenged the boundaries which were appropriate in the past but no longer provide the optimum configuration. Throughout any reform process, the ultimate objective must be to identify

the option which maximises long-term community benefit.

1.1 Reform Options

The Western Australian Government announcement in July 2013 (Department of Local Government and Communities 2013a) included two new local governments: City of

Cockburn-Kwinana, City of Fremantle, East Fremantle and Melville. Following a subsequent call for submissions, the State Government announced its preferred local government model on 12th November 2013 which split the Fremantle and Melville proposal (State Government Proposal) (Department of Local Government and

Communities 2013b) and introduced the disaggregation of the City of Cockburn. In response to this disaggregation the Cockburn Community Steering Group (2013) have developed a Cockburn Community Proposal to the Local Government Advisory Board to

establish the City of Cockburn-Kwinana.

The following table sets out the key descriptors of the potential revised local governments which describes the outcomes for the current local governments of the South West Metropolitan Region. Cockburn, Kwinana, Melville and Fremantle under each proposal are mapped in Figure 1.1.

Table 1.1. Summary of Local Government Proposals

Local Governments

Proposed Change


Cockburn Kwinana

Cities of Cockburn and Kwinana create a new city by boundary adjustment with the loss of part of Leeming to City of Melville and part of North Coogee to Fremantle


City of Fremantle and Town of East Fremantle create a new city by boundary adjustment with the addition of Willagee, part of Palmyra and part of Kardinya from the City of Melville as well as part of North Coogee from Cockburn.

Melville City of Melville is augmented by part of Willetton (to Vahland Avenue), part of Leeming, Rossmoyne, Shelley and Riverton from the City of Canning as well as part of Leeming from Cockburn but loses Willagee, part of Palmyra and part of Kardinya to Fremantle.

Rockingham Unchanged.

Canning Gosnells

City of Canning loses part of Willetton, part of Leeming, Rossmoyne, Shelley and Riverton to Melville and the area north of Leach Highway to South Perth/Victoria Park but retains Welshpool and Canning Vale combining with Gosnells.

South Perth Victoria Park

City of South Perth and Town of Victoria Park combine on their current boundaries, retaining Crown Casino at Burswood with addition of St James, part Bentley and part Wilson north of Leach Highway.

State Government Proposal (12th November 2013)

Cockburn Kwinana

Northern boundary now along Roe Highway and the railway line. Excludes Coogee, North Coogee, Hamilton Hill, Spearwood and part of Munster (north of

Mayor Road and Beeliar Drive road reservation). Excludes Coolbellup, Bibra Lake, North Lake and part of Leeming.


Includes Coogee, North Coogee, Hamilton Hill, Spearwood and part of Munster (north of Mayor Road and Beeliar Drive road reservation).

Includes Bicton and Palmyra. Excludes Samson and part of O’Connor.

Melville Significantly expanded to include Coolbellup, Bibra Lake, North Lake, Samson and part of O’Connor.

Expanded east to Willeri Drive and Roe Highway to include Rossmoyne, Shelley, Willetton, Leeming and part of Riverton.

Rockingham Unchanged

Canning Gosnells

Western boundary relocated to the Roe Highway and Willeri Drive. Northern boundary relocated to Orrong Rd and Leach Highway.


2

Local Governments

Proposed Change

South Perth Victoria Park

Expanded south to Leach Hwy. Transferred Burswood Entertainment Precinct (Crown Casino) to City of Perth.

Source: Cockburn Community Steering Group (2013), Department of Local Government and Communities

The State Government Proposal requires a much more fundamental change to the current local government structure than the Cockburn Community Proposal, which effectively amalgamates the Cockburn and Kwinana in their current forms while taking

the opportunity to address a known boundary issue by transferring the portion of the suburb of Leeming to Melville.

Figure 1.1. Cockburn Community Proposal Vs State Government Proposal

Source: City of Cockburn

1.2 Validation of Cockburn Community Proposal Rationales

The Cockburn Community Proposal contains a number of rationales (Cockburn Community Steering Group, 2013, p80), components of which AECgroup has been asked to provide a further evidence base for and validate. These have been considered under the following impact areas: reform cost, financial sustainability, planning and development and economic development.

Some of the findings are then extended to the Local Government Advisory Board Guiding Principles (LGAB 2013) for considering changes to local government boundaries.


3

2. Reform Cost Impacts

In the last twenty years most states and territories have reformed their local governments. These reforms have taken many forms and include forced and voluntary agreements. In almost every case the approach used have sought to bring together entire local governments rather develop entirely new boundaries.

2.1 Cockburn Community Proposal Rationale

The Community Submission Proposal makes the following rationale in relation to the impacts of local government reform on reform costs:

3. Our proposal is the lowest cost option and optimises the use of existing assets,

uses the boundary adjustment process, minimises staff redundancy, simplifies harmonisation of planning schemes and preserves existing capability.

P83 However, what is clear is that under this [State Government Proposal] scenario Cockburn residents in the new City of Cockburn-Kwinana would lose around $100 Million in civic infrastructure assets and reform costs.

2.2 Reform Challenges

Local government reforms in other states and territories have faced significant challenges in delivering the anticipated service efficiency gains and cost savings which typically underpin the need for reform (Tiley 2009). These challenges have emerged despite these reforms almost all involving the amalgamation of entire entities. Options which involve the disaggregation of entities are rare and are likely to create additional difficulties

associated with splitting staff, assets and liabilities between the new local governments.

Analysis of other local government reforms highlights the potential for disruption and risks to service delivery. The reforms studied were based on the amalgamation of existing entities rather than their disaggregation which is almost certain to have greater risks. The following table summarises some of the major challenges specific to a

disaggregation model.

Table 2.1. Key Challenges of Disaggregation

Challenge Issues to be Addressed

Accommodating Staff

One of the largest costs of the disaggregation process is likely to be the development of office and depot accommodation which can accommodate the staff of each new entity. Splitting existing local governments would also fundamentally change the spatial distribution of each Council meaning that services which are currently centrally located may be inappropriate under the new boundary changes.

Staff Reallocation Reallocating staff to a new Council rather than continuing within an expanded entity is likely to incur additional costs including the cost of compensating staff for additional travel costs to and from new offices and the opportunity cost of lost staff time travelling to and from new offices.

Maintaining Services

Service disruption is one of the biggest risks under any local government reform. However, while bringing together two existing entities allows an interim position where the former local governments operate in tandem while services an integrated in turn, disaggregating councils means that the former service divisions would cease to exist simultaneously. Therefore, the new entity would need to be ready to operate all services from day 1. While some pre-planning could be undertaken, staff would still need to continue to provide current services in this period up to the formation of the new entity. Observations from other jurisdictions show that while critical services have been maintained during transition periods, this has been achieved by reducing focus on other aspects of service delivery such as economic development, community infrastructure and recreation services.

Mono-centric v Polycentric Development

The historical boundaries and pattern of development mean that Fremantle is a mono-centric local government. The addition of a part of the current Cockburn would require a fundamental shift in this approach to ensure equitable representation and access to services for rate payers. Achieving such a change in outlook, as well implementing this through changes to planning schemes, community plans and service delivery networks would require a fundamental change.


4

Challenge Issues to be Addressed

Allocation of Fixed Assets

Many fixed assets (e.g. libraries, aquatic facilities, recreation centres) are part of a network which has been developed over time, these networks will be broken down leaving stranded assets in some areas and duplicating assets in others

Allocation of Mobile Assets

Mobile assets may have been purchased to service a given area and may be duplicated at the other local government

Allocation of Liabilities

Local governments pursue a variety of budgetary approaches to funding their activities. If liabilities also follow assets, existing residents may be asked fund liabilities associated with assets they had no say in their purchase or use and which service a different catchment.

Source: AECgroup

2.2.1 Allocation Methodology

With the exception of part of the suburb of Leeming and a small area north of Rollinson Road, the Cockburn Community Proposal involves the amalgamation of two entire local

governments, all of the other potential reform options involve some form of disaggregation.

In the 2008 Queensland local government reform process, only five of a total of 73 remaining local governments included any change to the original defined boundaries. The five cases included boundary changes (referred to as Type 1 Councils) and splitting councils (referred to as Type 2 Councils). Despite only applying to five local governments, the Queensland Government prepared detailed instructions describing the Transferring

Areas Allocation Methodology (Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning 2007) to be applied to the boundary changes (see Appendix A for a brief description of the methodology). The methodology noted:

‘a boundary change allocation need not be as onerous as the process that applies to the splitting of the council. For this reason, the methodology incorporates different approaches to the allocation of staff, assets and liabilities, depending on

the type of allocation required.’

Councils were encouraged to begin negotiations early through transition committees, prior to the formal creation of the new body following local government elections. This

was in recognition that:

‘By making allocation decisions prior to the March 2008 elections, councils will be able to focus on the transition rather than on negotiating with neighbouring councils.’

The Queensland Local Government Grants Commission played a critical role as an arbitrator between each party and were tasked with ensuring transfers were deemed to be fair and equitable from the perspective of an affected citizen. There was a process for decisions to be challenged and reviewed.

Implications for local government reform

Over the last 20 years there has been a wave of local government reform across Australia. Almost all local government reform of recent times involved amalgamations

with some minor boundary changes. Disaggregation of a local government is rare and presents significant challenges and greater risks.

Local government reform is a complex and time consuming process which inevitably has significant impacts on staff and communities. Amalgamating existing local governments is almost certain to be less complex and this is the reason why this approach has been used in other jurisdictions, augmented by small boundary

adjustments where appropriate.

The challenges presented by the State Government Proposal include: accommodating staff, staff reallocation, maintaining services, mono-centric v polycentric development focus, allocation of fixed assets, allocation of mobile assets and allocation of liabilities. To date no detailed methodology has been proposed to deal with this complexity. This creates uncertainty and risk.


5

2.3 Costs of Amalgamation v Disagregation

2.3.1 Amalgamation (Cockburn Community Proposal)

The amalgamation of councils into a larger local government authority will give rise to a number of administrative costs to consolidate and align all aspects of operations, policy and process. These costs may occur in year one or may need to be phased over a number of years as more complex policies and procedures are addressed as a staged process.

In the short to medium term, amalgamating councils can achieve cost savings from the

elimination of any duplicate services.

It should also be recognised that amalgamating councils can also benefit indirectly in the longer term through cost savings driven by economies of scale (i.e. larger region and rate base) and greater leverage with suppliers and funders (e.g. banks, State and Commonwealth Government). However, any such benefits are difficult to quantify and will differ for each amalgamated government authority depending on size, nature of

services, location, existing contractual arrangements, etc.

The key factors expected to financially impact Cockburn and its ratepayers from aggregation of Cockburn and Kwinana operations are summarised in the table below.

Table 2.2. Estimates of the Administrative Costs and Savings from the Amalgamation of Cockburn and Kwinana

Factor Detail Financial Impact

Human Resources

Amalgamation will give rise to a requirement to ensure pay equity for staff working in similar roles (which currently differ between councils). It is likely this will mean in increase to match the highest paying council’s rates.

Greater responsibility for senior management and executive will result in pay rises.

The opportunity to streamline duplicate services and management roles (including directors and a CEO) will give rise to a very high likelihood for staff redundancies. Even though this will give rise to longer term savings, the upfront redundancy cost needs to be recognised.

Training: $1.2 million (over 2 years). Pay alignment: $1.1 million (1 year) Redundancy: $3.3 million (1 year) Streamlined Executive: $1.21 million

saving (ongoing from year 2).

Business Process

A new amalgamated council will require the redevelopment of all stationery, policies, procedures and strategies.

Business Process: $1.1 million cost over phased 2 years

Contingency Allowance for unforeseen costs. Contingency: $1.1 million cost phased over 2 years

Corporate Support

Aggregation will provide opportunity for the amalgamated councils to deliver a more streamlined level of internal corporate support, as duplicated services are eliminated.

Not assessed in this report.

Improved Service Delivery

Aggregation of services for a number of councils as a single authority may provide the opportunity to review processes and structure to deliver optimal outcomes. Some services may be delivered more efficiently.

Not assessed in this report

Bulk Purchasing Arrangements

The aggregation of services for a number of councils as a single authority may provide leverage with all suppliers to provide discounted bulk purchasing contracts.


Asset Management

A standardised approach to asset management (life, condition, renewal programs) will have a significant financial impact as depreciation charges are aligned.



6

Factor Detail Financial Impact

Financing Decisions

A larger local government authority may benefit from greater access to debt and better debt rates for loan borrowings.

Not assessed in this report but note that Councils in WA can access funding through the WA Treasury Corporation at the rate applicable to the State Government’s credit rating.

Sourcing of External Funding

A larger local government authority may gain better leverage to access capital grants and subsidies as a result of developing a regional framework and stronger consistent regional business case for funding.


New planning scheme, community plan

There will be a need to merge existing planning schemes and prepare a new strategic community plan

Sections 4.2.6.1 and 4.4.2.1 indicated a minimal cost of around $100,000 to $200,000 to prepare these. These are assumed to be part of the contingency.

Source: AECgroup, City of Cockburn

Table 2.3 provides an indicative projection of administrative costs and savings likely to

occur under amalgamation.

The broader Cockburn Community Proposal also includes the amalgamations of (with minor boundary changes) Fremantle with East Fremantle and Melville with western

suburbs of Canning (see Table 1.1). Although no detailed analysis of the administrative costs and savings of these other amalgamations has been undertaken, extending similar costs to that estimated for the Cockburn-Kwinana amalgamation the total administrative cost could be up to $23.4 million.


7

Table 2.3. Estimates of the Administrative Costs and Savings from Amalgamation of Cockburn and Kwinana

Function Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8

Human Resources

Training $750,000 $450,000

Redundancy $3,280,000

Pay Alignment $1,108,800

Business Process

Alignment of Process $750,000 $350,000

Contingency (incl. planning scheme & strategic community plan)

$650,000 $500,000

Annual Cost $6,538,800 $1,300,000 - - - - -

Saving - Streamlined Executive

($1,210,000) ($1,210,000) ($1,210,000) ($1,210,000) ($1,210,000) ($1,210,000) ($1,210,000)

Net Annual Cost / (Savings) $6,538,000 $90,000 ($1,210,000) ($1,210,000) ($1,210,000) ($1,210,000) ($1,210,000) ($1,210,000)

Cumulative Impact Cost/(Savings) $6,538,000 $6,628,000 $5,418,000 $4,208,000 $2,998,000 $1,788,000 $578,000 ($632,000)



8

2.3.2 Disaggregation (State Government Proposal)

Disaggregation of a local government will generally incur a range of other (greater) costs than just organisational costs. In the case of the State Government Proposal these also include: accommodation of staff, disposal and reconstruction of assets, disruption around

the Developer Contribution Scheme, stranded assets and social costs.

2.3.2.1 Accommodation, Assets & Administrative Costs

The Cockburn Community Proposal (2013, p83) states that “residents in the new City of Cockburn-Kwinana would lose around $100 million in civic infrastructure and reform costs” from the State Government Proposal. The following table provides some detail on AECgroup’s approach used to test the reasonableness of the estimated costs.

Table 2.4. Estimates of the Net Cost of the State Government Proposal

Cost Item Basis Cost Estimate

Accommodation for 120 (FTE) additional staff at Fremantle Community Proposal: $12.0m

Allocation of 15 sqm per FTE Land $300 sqm Construction $2,950 sqm Fit Out $2,818 sqm Work Stations $363 sqm Loose Furnishing $123 sqm Underground Car Parking

$57,350 per space (24 spaces(a))

Land $202,500 Construction $5,310,000 Fit Out $5,071,500 Work Stations $43,500 Loose Furnishings $220,500 Car Parking $1,376,400

AECgroup: $12.2m

Accommodation for 220 FTE additional staff (100 from Cockburn and 120 from Canning) Community Proposal: $22.0m


$57,350 per space (44 spaces)

Land $371,250 Construction $9,735,000 Fit Out $9,297,750 Work Stations $79,750 Loose Furnishings $404,250 Car parking $2,523,400

AECgroup:: $22.4m

Accommodation for 235 FTE additional staff displaced from Spearwood Community Proposal: $25.5m


$57,350 per space (47 spaces)

Land $396,563 Construction $10,398,750 Fit Out $9,931,688 Work Stations $85,188 Loose Furnishings $431,813 Car parking $2,695,450

AECgroup: $23.9m

New depot to service Cockburn Community Proposal: $29.4m

Land required 7 hectares (larger than the current Cockburn Depot at 5 hectares)

Land $300 per sqm

Land Cost $15.0m (like for like) Development costs dependent

upon scale of development undertaken and requirement for specialist plant and equipment $14.4m

AECgroup: ~$29.4m

Administrative costs (includes amalgamations for Melville, Fremantle and Kwinana-Cockburn including redundancy, systems integration, planning integration and training – see Table 2.5) Community Proposal: $31.2m

QTC (2009) found total costs of $194.8m directly attributable to amalgamation across 24 local governments

Equivalent to approximately $117 per capita ($2013)

2012 populations: o Fremantle 53,601 o Melville 116,725 o Cockburn-Kwinana 128,356 o Total 298,682

AECgroup: $34.8m (b)

TOTAL COST Community Proposal: $120.1m

AECgroup: $122.8m


Most recent valuation $25.0m

NET COST Community Proposal: $95.1m

AECgroup: $97.8m

Note: (a) Assumes 1 car park per 5 FTE (b) Assumes costs for new planning schemes, community plans included.


9

Source: Cockburn Community Proposal (2013), Rawlinsons (2013), Queensland Treasury Corporation (2009), AECgroup

Although there are some variations in the estimates, it is considered the stated costs are

realistic under the conditions described. The costs are reflective of high quality developments with appropriate scope for future expansion. While lower cost alternatives could be developed, these would also be likely to incur additional operating costs associated with sub-optimal configuration. An example of such a scenario could include the additional direct and opportunity costs of staff travelling between council offices to attend meetings compared to operating from a single location.

Administrative cost estimates have been assessed by Cockburn not only for the Cockburn

disaggregation but also for the disaggregation of Canning (also a State Government Proposal), part of which impacts on the new Melville.

Table 2.5. Estimates of the Administrative Costs of the State Government Proposal

Area of Cost Cockburn- Kwinana

Fremantle- East Fremantle

Melville - Canning

Total

Redundancy-CEO $700,000 $350,000 $350,000 $1,400,000

Redundancy-Directors $2,000,000 $2,750,000 $1,000,000 $5,750,000

Redundancy-Dept heads $3,300,000 $4,200,000 $1,650,000 $9,150,000

Re-appointed Directors/Dept Heads -$1,060,000 -$1,390,000 -$477,000 -$2,927,000

Recruitment Costs $150,000 $150,000 $75,000 $375,000

Cash LSL/AL $2,192,308 $2,667,308 $1,096,154 $5,955,769

Mileage $500,000 $750,000 $250,000 $1,500,000

New Financial/Non-Financial Systems $500,000 $1,000,000 $250,000 $1,750,000

Equipment - IT $500,000 $500,000 $250,000 $1,250,000

Training-Systems $450,000 $450,000 $225,000 $1,125,000

Training - Resilience $250,000 $350,000 $125,000 $725,000

Staff Replacement $375,000 $375,000 $187,500 $937,500

Legal, accounting & valuation $350,000 $350,000 $175,000 $875,000

Communications with Community $350,000 $350,000 $175,000 $875,000

Pay Anomolies $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $2,500,000

Total $11,557,308 $13,852,308 $5,831,654 $31,241,269


Analyses of the impacts of previous local government reforms are inconclusive in regards to the overall administrative costs and benefits associated with the disaggregation of local governments. This is largely due to the complexity of separating the changes in local government finances post reform compared to a no change option.

However, in 2012 Queensland local governments which had been amalgamated in the 2008 reform process were given the opportunity to de-amalgamate and return to their previous forms. Queensland Treasury Corporation (2012) analysed the largest of these

local governments the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, which was formed in 2008 following the amalgamation of Caloundra City, Maroochy Shire and Noosa Shire Councils, where the residents of Noosa elected to deamalgamate from Sunshine Coast. Prior to de-amalgamation its population was approximately 151,000, of which the former Noosa accounted for 30,000.

QTC’s (2012) analysis found that the total one-off deamalgamation administrative cost to

disaggregate Sunshine Coast was estimated to include $3.6 million of one-off costs, $7.4 million of one-off fixed asset costs and incremental annual recurring costs of $2.6 million per annum, a total of $13.6 million in the first 2 years. This of course was to form an entirely new local government.

Splitting Cockburn into three and adding to existing councils could be considered similar to three deamalgamations. The cost therefore is likely to be three times the cost of one deamalgamation and could be using the Queensland experience, estimated at around $40

million before any savings in the newly formed council can be realised. This roughly confirms the order of magnitude of the above Cockburn estimate.

In contrast, QTC (2012) assessed the direct costs to ratepayers of the 2008 amalgamation that created the Sunshine Coast Regional Council as $4.0 million.


10

Comparing local governments of different sizes and between states can be misleading

given differences in the services provided. However, the QTC (2012) analysis suggests the cost of deamalgamating councils is significantly greater than bringing them together.

2.3.2.2 Impact on Developer Contribution Scheme

The current Developer Contribution Scheme (DCS) is a Town Planning Scheme Development Contribution Area Scheme for the whole of Cockburn under State Planning Policy 3.6 gazetted in November 2009 (see Section 4.3). The establishment of this DCS was part of an extended three year process to have the Town Planning Scheme (TPS) amended by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and Minister to allow Cockburn to collect contributions for a range of community infrastructure assets similar to the more popular and widespread schemes to fund so called hard assets such as roads

and drains. If Cockburn is disaggregated as per the State Government Proposal, the effect is twofold:

First the land (suburbs) transferred to Fremantle and Melville will no longer be liable to contribute to community infrastructure assets in the transferred area. The new

council may seek to enforce the obligations contained within the TPS but it would be subject to significant legal cost to test the case. Given the financial numbers involved

and without defining legislation (it is not within the amending Local Government Act currently sitting in front of the upper house of the WA Parliament) it would expected to go to the State Supreme Court or even the High Court. There is some ability for a new Council to adopt other Council TPS including contribution schemes but this would be a legally challenging area given that it discriminates between land owners within a new council.

Secondly, the assets to be constructed in the new Cockburn-Kwinana would receive

less developer contributions as it will lose funds from those lands transferred to Fremantle and Melville for regional assets. This would impose a greater funding requirement on Cockburn-Kwinana which would have to raise rates, raise debt or defer delivery of assets.

The loser will be the community as assets will not be delivered in the same time frame as

there will be less funds available to undertake the work scheduled to be delivered or alternative funding sources will be required.

2.3.2.3 Stranded Assets

A number of assets belonging to Cockburn under the State Government Proposal will become the property of a new council and assets that are planned to be improved/rebuilt will have to go through another council planning process potentially delaying or even cancelling delivery of the community asset. In the case of the former class of stranded asset there are two, namely the Cockburn Administration Centre and the Cockburn

Depot.

Under the current State Government Proposal, the Administration Centre would be in the new Fremantle and the Depot would be in the new Melville. The assets would not disappear but ownership would no longer be with the new Cockburn-Kwinana. Fremantle have indicated that they may be willing to lease back to the new Cockburn-Kwinana, but there is no certainty as it would have to address its own needs too. Accommodating

Fremantle staff and part of Cockburn-Kwinana staff in one building is not a workable

solution. This would be a significant cost but one that may not be avoided as the current offices at Kwinana do not have the capacity to fit an additional 150 to 200 staff. Melville have indicated similar comments to Fremantle in respect of the Depot. The issue is that the Melville Depot will soon be in the new Murdoch Activity Centre with significantly more traffic than it currently has with the opening of the Fiona Stanley Hospital in 2014. The Bibra Lake Depot would a suitable alternative for the new Melville but will be located at the south western extremity of the new local government. Given both of these stranded

assets are on freehold land, the legal obligation to all rate payers has to be considered including the issue of compensation for the new Cockburn-Kwinana to offset the cost of new civic assets that have to be constructed.

The second form of stranded assets are the community assets that are due for either replacement or upgrade, these include the Wally Hagen Basketball Stadium, the Beale Park Club rooms and the Cockburn Bowling Club to name but a few. These are existing


11

community infrastructure assets due for action as part of the Cockburn long term

financial plan. The work on these assets was to be funded in part by developer contributions. Disaggregation will see this work cease as the requirement for the new council to fund not only the council or municipal contribution as well as the developer

contribution as the following table demonstrates.

Table 2.6. Stranded Community Assets under State Government Proposal

Asset Cost ($m)

Developer Contribution

($m)

Developer Contribution

Council Contribution

($m)

Council Contribution

Cockburn Bowling Club $7.5 $3.2 43% $4.3 57%

Bibra Lake Management Plan $13.6 $5.8 43% $7.8 57%

Beale Park $5.0 $1.9 38% $3.1 62%

Wally Hagen Stadium $5.0 $1.9 38% $3.1 62%

Total $31.1 $12.8 41% $18.3 59%


So in the above table, the new Fremantle and Melville will no longer collect developer contributions and as such will have to fund not only the $18.3 million but now will have to fund an additional $12.8 million. Given most budgets are fiscally constrained the expectation is for the assets to be stranded and that they will no longer expect to be upgraded or re-built.

This problem is further compounded when assets were due to be relocated. For example, The Cockburn Bowling Club is scheduled to be relocate to Beeliar, but there would be no

incentive to do this as it now has to move across new Local Government boundaries (from Fremantle under the State Government Proposal to Cockburn-Kwinana) and the project would have no DCS funding to assist with financing of the $7.5m capital cost.

2.3.2.4 Social Services Costs

The above disaggregation costs do not consider the social costs especially if service delivery is impacted. Whilst an assessment of the social costs is beyond the scope of this

paper the following case study provides some insight.

Case Study – Jean Willis Centre

The Jean Willis Centre (the Centre) is located in the suburb of Hamilton Hill, close to the current northern boundary of the City of Cockburn.

The Centre is the base for Cockburn Community Care which provides Home and Community Care (HACC) and Community Aged Care Package (CACP) funded support

services from the Centre for seniors and younger people with disabilities. The services are funded the by the Australian Government and the West Australian Government and assist people to remain living in their own home.

The City of Cockburn also provides 30 general Community Aged Care Packages, 5 packages specifically for Aboriginal people and the Kwoberup Aboriginal Adult Day Centre Program.

Impact of the Cockburn Community Proposal

Cockburn Community Care provides an advanced level of service relative to surrounding local governments. Under the Cockburn Community Proposal, the City of Cockburn would continue to provide services from the Centre. The current approach allows for greater flexibility in service delivery and the achievement of economies of scale. Services could be rolled out across the new local government area offering a locally based solution to the community. Demand for these types of services is likely to increase as the number of

older residents wishing to remain in their own homes continues to grow.

Impact of the State Government Proposal

Under the State Government Proposal it is almost certain there would be a fundamental restructuring of current services provided at the Centre and in the way other Cockburn Community Care services are delivered. Residents of the cities of Fremantle and Melville have access to a more limited range of services which are provided under agreements


12

with third party organisations based outside of the local area. It would be expected that a

similar approach would be applied to transferring areas of Cockburn under this reform option.

For those residents left in the residual portion of Cockburn, the net cost of the service delivery would go up as the economies of scale will be lost during disaggregation.

Over a number of years Cockburn Community Care has developed to become a high quality service provider, managing over $1.9 million of HACC and CACP grants in 2013. The service is tailored to local needs and is likely to continue to see increased demand. Under the State Government reform proposal this would be undone and the current

locally based approach replaced by a generic service offering.

2.4 Cost Summary

A comparison of the estimated costs of the State Government Proposal and the Cockburn

Community Proposal shows that the disaggregation approach is likely to cost almost four

times as much as amalgamation.

Table 2.7. Comparison of Estimated Cost of Proposals ($m)

Element State Government Proposal


Administrative Cost

Cockburn-Kwinana $11.6 $7.8

Fremantle-East Fremantle $13.9 $7.8

Melville-Canning $5.8 $7.8

Total Administrative Cost $31.2 ($34.8) $24.3

Accommodation Cost

120 FTE at Fremantle $12.0 ($12.2) Na

220 FTE at Melville (100 from Cockburn, 120 from Canning)

$22.0 ($22.4) Na

235 FTE displaced from Spearwood $25.5 ($23.0) Na

Total Accommodation Cost $59.5 ($57.6) Na

New depot to service Cockburn $29.4 Na

Total Cost $120.1 ($122.8) $24.3


$25.0 Na

Net Cost $95.1 ($97.8) $24.3

Note: Figures in () are AECgroup estimates where they differ.

Source: Cockburn Community Proposal (2013), Rawlinsons (2013), Queensland Treasury Corporation (2009), AECgroup


The administrative costs of Cockburn Community Proposal has been costed at $7.8 million which will be recovered by savings of $1.2 million per year, resulting in payback

period of eight years. Furthermore, this option does not impact accommodation of staff in other council buildings, disposal and reconstruction of assets, disruption around the Developer Contribution Scheme, stranded assets and social costs.

Extending the estimated administrative cost for the Cockburn-Kwinana amalgamation to Fremantle-East Fremantle and Melville-Canning in the Cockburn Community

Proposal, could result in a potential overall cost of up to $23.4 million.

The net costs of the State Government Proposal, however, are estimated at four times higher than amalgamation. The net cost of housing Cockburn’s staff in three other council buildings, disposal and reconstruction of assets along with administration costs escalate towards $100 million.


13

2.5 Key Validation Points

The Cockburn Community Proposal reform cost rationales are validated by the following key points:

Disaggregation of local governments, which has not been a feature of local government reform, is disruptive, high risk and costly for staff, communities and business:

o Over the last 20 years there has been a wave of local government reform across Australia. Almost all local government reform of recent times involved

amalgamations with some minor boundary changes. Disaggregation of a local government is rare and presents significant challenges and greater risks.

o Local government reform is a complex and time consuming process which inevitably has significant impacts on staff and communities. Amalgamating existing local governments is almost certain to be less complex and this is the reason why this approach has been used in other jurisdictions, augmented by

small boundary adjustments where appropriate.

o The challenges presented by the State Government Proposal include: accommodating staff, staff reallocation, maintaining services, mono-centric v polycentric development focus, allocation of fixed assets, allocation of mobile assets and allocation of liabilities. To date no detailed methodology has been proposed to deal with this complexity. This creates uncertainty and risk.

Amalgamation is by far the lowest cost option and results in minimal staff

accommodation costs, no disposal and re-construction of Councils assets, no stranded assets, no disruption to the Developer Contribution Scheme and no social costs:

o The administrative costs of the Cockburn Community Proposal have been costed at $7.8 million which will be recovered by savings of $1.2 million per year, resulting in payback period of eight years. Furthermore, this option does not impact accommodation of staff in other council buildings, disposal and

reconstruction of assets, disruption around the Developer Contribution Scheme,

stranded assets and social costs.

o Extending the estimated administrative cost for the Cockburn-Kwinana amalgamation to Fremantle-East Fremantle and Melville-Canning in the Cockburn Community Proposal, could result in a potential overall cost of up to $23.4 million.

o The net costs of the State Government Proposal, however, are estimated at four times higher than amalgamation. The net cost of housing Cockburn’s staff in three

other council buildings, disposal and reconstruction of assets along with administration costs escalate towards $100 million.


14

3. Financial Sustainability Impacts

Financial sustainability has been a key driver of recent local government reforms throughout Australia. The major challenge to achieving financial sustainability for Local Governments has been well documented in the report Local Government Finances in Western Australia (Access Economics 2006). This report provided the defining concept of

financial sustainability:

“Effectively, a financial sustainability assessment involves a comparison of a council’s long-term financial capacity with its long-term financial requirements.

A council’s financial capacity was defined as the funding (both operating and capital) that can be mobilised through its existing revenue-raising and financing policies and any additional funding available were the council to increase its revenue-raising efforts to levels commensurate with those displayed by higher-

effort councils.

Council’s finances can be judged to be sustainable in the long term only if they are strong enough – currently and in the foreseeable future given likely developments in the council’s revenue-raising capacity and in the demand for and costs of its services and infrastructure – to allow the council to manage financial risks and financial shocks over the long term financial planning period without having to

introduce substantial or disruptive revenue (or expenditure) adjustments during that period.”


The Cockburn Community Proposal makes the following rationales in relation to the impacts of local government reform on financial sustainability:

2. Our proposal is consistent with the objectives of Local Government reform and the objectives of scale, efficiency and effectiveness are met by the proposal.

11. Our proposal avoids destruction of asset value and the need to build new assets or

relocate services. The Cockburn Administration Centre was recently refurbished at a cost of $10 million and will not have a similar function under the State Government Proposal. The Cockburn Council Depot at Bibra Lake would be in a sub

optimal position to be of use to the new City of Melville. Other community facilities would also become stranded assets.

16. Our proposal minimises need for rate increases. The effective use of assets, lower redundancy costs, higher productivity, lower staff turnover and retention of a balance of industrial and commercial ratepayers minimises the need for rate increases.

3.2 Financial Sustainability

3.2.1 Current Financial Sustainability

The proposed reform options of themselves do not change the current financial

sustainability of the individual councils, however, harmonising rates, harmonising employment conditions, the reallocation of revenue streams, expenditure, assets results

in changes to financial sustainability ratings based on an assessment of the 2013/14 budgets. However, the new Fremantle is likely to remain as “vulnerable” even with the proposed additional suburbs, the associated rate revenue and service and asset costs, as these will not significantly improve the operating surplus above the 5%.


15

Table 3.1: 2011 Financial Sustainability Ratings

Local Government

Financial Sustainability Position

Commentary

Cockburn Sustainable Strong operating result of 8.6% in 2010/11 with an improving trend and a rolling five year average of 3.7%, no debt and an accumulation of savings through reserve funds of $49.844M.

Kwinana Marginal

Weak operating result of -1.1% in 2010/11 but with an improving trend and a rolling five year average of -2.3%, reasonably high debt ($11.930M), and an accumulation of savings through reserve funds of $12.691M.

Melville Sustainable

Strong operating result of 11.3% in 2010/11 with an improving trend and a 5 year rolling average of 9.7%, low debt ($4.017M- all self-supporting loans), and an accumulation of savings through reserve funds of $62.303M.

Fremantle Vulnerable Moderate [sic] operating result of -8.2% in 2010/11 with an improving trend and a rolling 5 year average of 2.3%, moderate debt ($10.876M) and an accumulation of savings through reserve funds of $8.719M.

East Fremantle Sustainable Strong operating result of 6.5% in 2010/11 with an improving trend and a rolling 5 year average of 9.6%, low debt ($0.471M), and an accumulation of savings through reserve funds of $2.672M.

Source: Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel (2012b), Council Annual Reports 2011/12, City of Cockburn

3.2.2 Future Financial Sustainability

The impact of service delivery for transferred suburbs will most likely be in line with current service delivery and therefore the ability to improve the operational efficiency (and reduce expenditure) will be governed by the ability to rationalise services and resources and assets within the constraints of community expectations. The additional

rate revenue from transferred suburbs, plus other related revenue such as grant funding are the key funding streams for operational activity. It is not possible to quantify the impact of this until a detailed service delivery assessment is undertaken. However, the magnitude of the change in service delivery, reflected by the population change as

identified in the table below, indicates Fremantle would be significantly impacted with a 2.64 times increase in its population base.

Table 3.2: 2012 Population Transferred under the Proposals

Population Source

Population Destination

State Government Proposal Cockburn Community Proposal

Cockburn-Kwinana

Fremantle Melville Cockburn-Kwinana

Fremantle Melville

Cockburn 52,805 29,399 15,196 95,644 500 2,846

Kwinana 32,900 - - 32,712 - -

East Fremantle - 7,700 - - 7,579 -

Fremantle - 27,194 - - 29,555 -

Melville - 13,715 89,149 - 15,967 88,298

Canning - - 39,132 - - 26,001

Total 85,705 78,008 143,477 128,356 53,601 117,145


The following key points are noted:

Current (2012) population for Fremantle is 29,555. The State Government Proposal increases Fremantle’s size by 2.64 times. The Cockburn Community Proposal increases it by a factor of 1.81.

Current (2012) population for Melville is 104,265. The State Government Proposal increases Fremantle’s size by 1.38 times. The Cockburn Community Proposal

increases it by a factor of 1.12.

Population transferring to a new local government that does not have their former local government as part of the new organisation is 82,246 under the State Government Proposal. The Cockburn Community Proposal reduces this to almost half at 45,314 persons.


16

Given the big part of a local government is to maintain its asset base. Although additional

suburban populations contribute additional rate revenue they also impose additional expenditure in relation to infrastructure and community asset maintenance and renewal. In assessing the future financial sustainability of the proposals the following analysis on

the transfer of revenue and assets indicate that for the proposed new Fremantle:

The State Government Proposal decreases financial sustainability by significantly increasing the asset base without providing sufficient additional revenue.

The Cockburn Community Proposal maintains financial sustainability by increasing the asset base and revenue in similar proportions.

Table 3.3: Impact of Transfer of Revenue and Assets to new Fremantle, as per 2013/14 Budget

Council State Government Proposal Cockburn Community Proposal

Total Operating

Revenue ($m)

Assets WDV ($m)

Ratio Revenue to

Assets

Total Operating

Revenue ($m)

Assets WDV ($m)

Ratio Revenue to

Assets (m)

Fremantle $67.37 $426.00 16% $67.37 $426.00 16%

East Fremantle $8.32 $24.70 34% $8.32 $24.70 34%

Total $75.69 $450.70 17% $75.69 $450.70 17%

Melville (part) $11.41 $79.57 14% $6.50 $49.84 13%

Cockburn (part) 23.43 $249.93 9% $1.00 $4.27 23%

Total $110.54 $780.19 14% $83.19 $504.81 17%

% Increase over Fremantle and East Fremantle

46% 73% - 10% 12% -

Note: For proposed changes to local government boundaries in each proposal see Table 1.1. Source: City of Cockburn, City of Fremantle 2013/14 Budget

The original Metropolitan Local Government Review (2012a) proposal, which combined Melville with Fremantle and East Fremantle, would have improved the financial

sustainability of the new council. Currently Melville has a five year rolling average operating surplus of 9.7% which provides sufficient capability (and resources) to meet the needs of the combined three councils in terms of asset maintenance for an urban

developed group of Councils. When combined, the Long Term Financial Plans of the three councils (see Table 3.4) highlights the future operating surplus is 6% which demonstrates the financial strength of the combination proposed in the Metropolitan Local Government Review (2012a) proposal.

Table 3.4: Long Term Financial Plan (ten years) Operating Revenues & Surpluses

Council Melville Fremantle East Fremantle New Melville/Fremantle

Operating Revenue ($m) $1,195.53 $838.24 $102.40 $2,136.16

Operating Surplus ($m) $82.83 $41.30 $1.39 $125.52

% Operating Surplus 7% 5% 1% 6%


Financial sustainability is not only a reflection of past financial performance, but also takes account of a local government’s ability to support future community services and infrastructure requirements (intergenerational equity). The other major influencing factor on financial sustainability is the ability of a local government to deliver and fund future community infrastructure requirements without placing a significant additional financial

burden on its ratepayers.

As described further in section 4.3 Cockburn has a Developer Contribution Scheme (DCS) that has identified future community infrastructure capital requirements, and has collected funding from developers for the funding of this community infrastructure.

The transfer of Cockburn’s North West suburbs (Hamilton Hill, North Coogee, Coogee, Spearwood and part of Munster) to Fremantle will result in the transfer of $80 million in

community infrastructure requirements. Cockburn had a planned to collect a total of $23 million from the DCS towards this. Fremantle will have to establish a mechanism for the


17

raising of $80 million for the community infrastructure or, defer the community

infrastructure. Due to the limited greenfield development opportunity in Fremantle it is likely the burden of the funding will impact the current rate base.

Table 3.5: Planned Community Infrastructure Requirements

Community Asset Identified for Transfer Transferred to Melville

Transferred to Fremantle

Loss of DCS Funding for

these Projects

Regional

Coogee Surf Club - $7,626,000 $3,263,089

Coogee Golf Complex - $10,000,000 $4,278,900

North Coogee Foreshore Management Plan - $1,300,000 $556,257

Cockburn Coast Foreshore Reserve - $18,000,000 $7,702,020

Cockburn Coast Beach Parking - $178,799 $76,506

Wetlands Ed/Native Arc $2,500,000 - $1,069,725

Bibra Lake Management Plan $13,640,000 - $5,836,420

Sub Regional

Seniors & Life Long Learning Centre - $17,000,000 $6,474,960

Beale Park Sports Facilities - $5,000,000 $1,904,400

Western Suburbs Skate Park - $350,000 $133,308

Bicycle Network West (portion of)* - $1,912,449 $728,414

Dixon Reserve/Wally Hagen - $5,000,000 $1,904,400

Bicycle Network East (portion of)* $145,935 - $70,884

Bicycle Network West (portion of)* $654,989 - $249,472

Local

Southwell Community Centre - $750,000 $117,825

Cockburn Coast Sports Oval and Clubroom - $13,368,090 $10,632,578

Administration (adjust to proportion of DCS)** $5,806 $27,592 $33,398

Estimate of Total Costs and lost DCS revenue as Fremantle & Melville do not have a DCS

$16,946,730 $80,512,930 $45,032,555

Potential Funding under DCS Scheme Lost if Fremantle and Melville develop a DCS

$216,298 $23,633,474

Funding Already Collected $325,039 $1,572,328

Funding lost from DCA scheme -$108,741 $22,061,146

Future Funding Requirement to be Sourced by LGA

$16,621,691 $78,940,602 $43,135,188

Note: Further details are contained in Appendix B.


In summary the Cockburn Community Proposal provides the most opportunity to improve the future financial sustainability outcomes, particularly for Fremantle, as outlined in the following table.


18

Table 3.6: Future Financial Sustainability Ratings*

Local Government

Financial Sustainability Position

Commentary


Cockburn Kwinana

Sustainable

Estimated strong operating result will continue in order of 15%, maintaining 2011 levels reserve funds of $103.5M less any specific asset reserves transferred with the assets. The combined strength will enable a substantial reduction in Kwinana residential rates and hamonisation of commercial/industrial rates as part of the amalgamation process.


Moving towards Sustainable

Estimated similar low operating surplus of 5%. A 12% increase in asset base ($54.11 million) supported by a similar level of increase in operating revenue (10%) resulting in the revenue to asset ratio being maintained at 17%.

Melville Sustainable Estimated operating result of 12% based on transfer of suburbs are similar in age characteristic, asset maintenance demands and service standards as proposed under the State Government Proposal.

State Government Proposal (12th November 2013)

Cockburn Kwinana

Sustainable Estimated operating result will continue as positive surplus however this cannot be verified without detailed service expenditure analysis. Reserve fund to be reduced with the transfer of specific asset reserves.


Vulnerable and declining

Estimated operating surplus will continue at low level of 5%, low reserve fund of $29.3M. A 73% increase in asset base ($329.5 million) not supported by similar level of increase in operating revenue (43%) resulting in a declined revenue to asset ratio from 17% to 14%.

Greater Melville

Sustainable Estimated continuation of the strong operating result of 12%, and maintenance of the moderate reserve funds of $73.9M.

Note * Financial Sustainability Ratings based on 2013/14 budgets, allocation of Cockburn Council as per City of Cockburn. For proposed changes to local government boundaries in each proposal see Table 1.1. Source: Council Annual Reports 2011/12, Council Budgets 2013-14, City of Cockburn


Under the State Government Proposal, the allocation of Cockburn across the three

proposed LGAs increases the financial sustainability of all the proposed LGAs due to the

reallocation of the strong revenue stream of Cockburn. However, the weaker new Fremantle will incur additional negative impacts from the transfer of suburbs and assets, and the demand for community infrastructure with limited funding streams.

The Cockburn Community Proposal amalgamation would provide the greatest improvement with the larger and stronger Cockburn operating position providing a buffer for the relatively weaker Kwinana operating position. The new Fremantle will

improve with the addition of a population base and revenue to support the transferred assets.

The original Metropolitan Local Government Review (2012a) proposal which combined Melville with Fremantle and East Fremantle would have improved the financial sustainability of the new local government by joining the stronger operating position of Melville with the asset base of Fremantle.

3.3 Asset Utilisation

Over the long term, as services are rationalised the infrastructure required to support the delivery of services could also be rationalised. The provision of infrastructure assets impacts not only the balance sheet financial ratios, but also streamlines the ongoing requirement to fund the operational, maintenance and the renewal expenditure of the

asset (noting renewal expenditure is usually funded by the allocation of depreciation).

The main opportunity for rationalisation is within the council operational assets where either:

A service delivery review identifies community assets which can be disposed upon service rationalisation, or

Surplus assets arising from merger of plant and equipment and other organisational activities.


19

In reviewing the asset structure of the councils the following is concluded:

Rationalisation of infrastructure assets from amalgamation is limited as the process of boundary change does not alter the requirement to continue to provide roads, footpaths and drainage to the community. These assets represent 66% of the book

value of the Cockburn’s asset base.

Open space assets such as parks are determined by the open space strategy and development guidelines. An assessment of the individual council’s spatial criteria may identify opportunities for rationalisation of open space subject to community consultation. Parks represent 4% of the book value of the Cockburn’s asset base.

The book value of Cockburn’s plant and equipment, furniture and fittings and office equipment is $12.9m, which is equivalent to 2% of the total book value of the assets,

and therefore rationalisation will not have a significant impact on the asset base and associated costs.

Community assets and council facilities such as civic centres and operational assets (including the administration building and the depot site) account for 22% of the

book value of the Cockburn’s asset base.

A review of the asset base also identified that Cockburn has two specific assets which

have been identified as potentially not being required, the Administration Building/Senior Centre/Library at Coleville Crescent, Spearwood (written down value 30 June 2013 $20 million) and the Cockburn Council Depot at Bibra Lake (written down value 30 June 2013 $5.7 million).

The following graph highlights the large asset base of the Cockburn in comparison to the other LGAs.

Figure 3.1: Written Down Asset Value as at 30 June 2012

Note: The written down value is as 30 June 2012 as the value as at 30 June 2013 has not been published for all councils.

Source: Council Annual Reports 2011/12


Over 70% (roads, footpaths, drainage and open space) of the asset base of Cockburn

would not be available for review (ie continued need for maintenance and replacement) therefore little benefit is achieved from reform in regard to asset rationalisation.

Over 34% of Cockburn’s road, footpath and drainage assets will be transferred to other LGA areas mainly in mature suburbs, shifting the burden for maintenance and renewal from Cockburn to the other LGA’s.

The Cockburn Community Proposal results in the consolidation of the road network that is vital to the productivity of the important industrial areas of the Western Trade Coast

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

Cockburn Kwinana Melville Fremantle East Fremantle

$ M

illio

ns

Refuse Site

Plant & equipment,Furniture & Fittings,Computer

Land and Buildings

Open Space

Roads, footpaths,drainage


20

The State Government Proposal would incur the expense of the reallocation of the

asset base on an asset by asset basis based on methodology that is not yet known.

3.3.1 Roads, Footpaths & Drianage Assets

The following table indicates that 34% of Cockburn’s current Roads, Footpaths and

Drainage Assets will be transferred to the Cities of Fremantle and Melville. The quantum of the transferred assets increases Fremantle Road, Footpath and Drainage asset base by 91% and the Melville Road, Footpath and Drainage asset base by 39%. The age of the suburbs and related assets will impose a liability for ongoing maintenance and potential asset renewal requirements in the near future.

Table 3.7: Road, Footpath and Drainage Asset Transfer

Asset Current Asset WDV ($m)

Impact to Fremantle Impact to Melville

Transferred to

Fremantle ($m)

Current Fremantle

Asset WDV ($m)

Increase in Asset

WDV

Transferred to Melville

($m)

Current Melville

Asset WDV ($m)

Increase in Asset

WDV

Roads $367.70 $64.29 $84.17 76% $53.85 $151.84 35%

Footpaths $42.42 $10.12 $27.72 37% $6.14 $29.84 21%

Drainage $185.88 $36.45 $10.44 349% $30.54 $51.31 60%

Total $596.00 $110.86 $122.34 91% $90.53 $232.99 39%

% of current asset base Transferred

34% 19% - - 15% - -

Source: Council Annual Reports 2011/12, City of Cockburn

3.3.2 Administration Building/Senior Centre/Library at Coleville Crescent, Spearwood

Under the Cockburn Community Proposal, there are two options for consideration. Either the Cockburn administration building would be retained as the primary Council

administration centre and provide a northern service centre. The Council Chambers would be relocated to a new central location within the re-development of Cockburn Central.

The Kwinana building will be retained as the southern service center.

Alternatively a new depot site could be developed for the new Cockburn-Kwinana. This would require the purchase of a green field site that provides sufficient size (7 hectares) to provide services for a population destined to grow beyond 200,000 persons estimated at a cost of $21 million (70,000 sqm at $300 per sqm). The construction of

administration, training workshops buildings and covered areas has been estimated at a cost of $15 million. The total cost of a new facility would be $36 million. The current sale of the Cockburn Council Depot at Bibra Lake is expected to realise $15 million. The current Kwinana depot site of 2 hectares has limited development potential and therefore has limited sale value estimated at $4 million (20,000 sqm at $200 per sqm). This option would have a net cost impact of $17 million. It is noted in Table 2.4 the replacement cost of the current Cockburn Depot is $29.4 million which is based on the current 5 hectare

facility and building replacement cost of $15m. The larger 7 hectare site is for a combined depot site. The current facility could partially accommodate plant which is servicing the northern Kwinana developments of Wandi (next to Cockburn’s Aubin Grove

and Hammond Park).

The State Government Proposal would result in the Cockburn administration centre, located within the new Fremantle, becoming a surplus asset given that Fremantle is

progressing the development of the CBD including the redevelopment of their council administration centre.

3.3.3 Cockburn Council Depot at Bibra Lake

Under the Cockburn Community Proposal, the depot would be retained as the northern depot centre, complementing the Kwinana southern depot, minimising travel and allowing for specialisation at each depot to rationalise assets.

The State Government Proposal would result in the depot being located within the new

Melville LGA. It would likely be considered as surplus to requirements, and disposed for


21

commercial/industrial development. The value of the site is in the order of $15 million

(City of Cockburn estimate).

3.3.4 Other Assets

Other assets such as Henderson Waste Recovery Park landfill site would be transferred to

the disaggregated LGAs. There has not been a methodology proposed for the transfer of this asset.


The Cockburn Community Proposal would promote the continued use of existing council service centres. The administration building and depot would be retained and utilised. The relocation of the council chambers to a neutral central location at Cockburn Central would facilitate better regional community needs.

In contrast, the State Government Proposal would result in possible stranding of the Cockburn administration building, with little potential for commercial re-development

of the site. This in conjunction with the possible disposal of the Cockburn Bibra Lake depot site would result in loss of community owned assets with a written down value of $25.7 million.

Any gains from the transfer or disposal of assets would be dispersed to the wider LGA

areas rather than benefit those communities that contributed to the development of the assets. For example the potential sale proceeds ($15 million) from the disposal of the Bibra Lake depot site may not be returned to the Cockburn community but could be dispersed for the benefit of the wider Melville community.

3.4 Rate Impacts

The transition of ratepayers to a different rating structure will result in an impact on both the individual property as well as on the total rate revenue of each council. The impact is different for different rate classes.

3.4.1 Profile of Rate Base

Both Cockburn and Kwinana collect a significant proportion (40% respectively) of their rate revenue from the industrial and commercial rate base, and both have a small rural

rate base. These regions are urban growth areas with new green field development sites for both residential and industrial development. In comparison, Fremantle has a high density residential and CBD profile. Melville has urban developed profile with some commercial land use.


22

Figure 3.2: Budget Rate Revenue by Rate Category, 2013/14

Source: Council Budget 2013/14 Rating Information

The profile of Cockburn and Kwinana are similar with a 40% of the rate base consisting of

commercial and industrial land use. Melville and Fremantle do not have any industrial rate categories, with Melville only having commercial and strata storage units categories and Fremantle having city centre, undeveloped commercial and nightclub categories.

Table 3.8: Commercial and Industrial Rate Profile

Proposed Rate Revenue 2013/14 Budget


Commercial $7,352,204 $448,163 $13,069,963 $317,641 $1,021,884

City Centre - $867,013 - $5,856,915 -

Service Commercial - $98,221 - - -

Other (Nightclubs, Storage Units)

- - $23,363 $308,805 -

Commercial $7,352,204 $1,413,397 $13,093,326 $6,483,361 $1,021,884

% of Total Rate yield 13% 5% 23% 18% 17%

Industrial $10,667,933 $4,866,321 - - -

Large Industrial $4,083,381 - - - -

Light Industrial - $89,012 - - -

Special Industrial $438,991 $5,027,904 - - -

Industrial $15,190,304 $9,983,237 $0 $0 $0

% of Total Rate Yield 27% 35% 0% 0% 0%

Caravan Parks $176,875 - - - -

Other $176,875 $0 $0 $0 $0

% of Total Rate Yield 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total Commercial/Industrial Rate Yield

$22,719,383 $11,396,634 $13,093,326 $6,483,361 $1,021,884

Commercial/Industrial Rate as % of Total Rate Yield

40% 40% 23% 18% 17%


Melville and Fremantle under the Cockburn Community Proposal will have a similar rate profile as other urban developed LGA’s, with around 20% of rate revenue coming from

commercial/industrial rates, as shown in Table 3.8.

59%

49%

77%

82%

83%

40%

40%

23%

18%

17%

1%

11%

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60


Mill

ion

s

Residential Rates Commercial/Industrial Rural Other (specific rates)


23

There is no justification based on this comparison for Bibra Lake Industrial Area being

ceded to Melville based on improving Melville’s financial position in both the short and long term.

Table 3.9: Proposed Rate Yield for Urban Developed LGA’s

Council Residential Rate Yield

% of Total Rate Yield

Commercial/ Industrial Rate Yield

% of Total Rate Yield

Total Rate Yield

Melville $40,080,777 77% $12,208,503 23% $52,289,280

Joondalup $65,197,004 80% $16,134,858 20% $81,331,862

Stirling $92,238,427 78% $23,059,607 22% $115,298,034

Bassendean/Bayswater $35,155,188 78% $10,101,466 22% $45,256,654

South Perth/Vic Park $44,275,557 75% $14,913,650 25% $59,189,207

Average $365,077,931 79% $95,009,327 21% $460,087,258


3.4.2 Residential Rates

Figure 3.3 highlights that Cockburn and Kwinana have the lowest average residential

property values (general rate and minimum rate) across the LGAs. Cockburn and Kwinana also have the “flattest” residential rate structure in terms of the proximity of the average general rate per property and the minimum rate per property at $233.53 and $322.32, respectively.

Figure 3.3: Average Value per Residential Property 2013/14


Cockburn has the lowest average general residential rate per property, and the lowest minimum rate per residential property.

Table 3.10: Average Rate per Residential Property, 2013/14


Residential Rates Revenue $25,520,878 $8,599,615 $37,145,358 $23,070,858 $4,840,000

Number of Residential Properties 28,658 7,076 33,216 9,284 2,931

Avg residential rate $890.53 $1,215.32 $1,118.30 $2,485.01 $1,651.31

Waste Collection $408.00 $310.00 $403.50 General Rate General Rate

Minimum Rate $657.00 $883.00 $697.50 $1,099.00 $835.00

Note: Fremantle and East Fremantle general rate includes the waste collection service charge.


$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000


Average Value per Property (General Rate) Average Value per Property (Minimum Rate)


24

The impact from any proposed reform is dependent on the rating structure adopted by

the new council. As there has been no guidance on the proposal methodology, a range of possible outcomes have been assessed.

3.4.2.1 Cockburn Community Proposal

Issue: Kwinana rate in the $ is 37% higher than Cockburn and Kwinana residents pay a 29% higher average rate per property.

If under the new arrangement Kwinana ratepayers are charged the same rate in the $ and minimum rate as Cockburn ratepayers the impact would be:

Total loss of rate revenue of $3.7 million.

Kwinana ratepayer’s average rate per property decreases by $262 per annum and the minimum rate decreases by $226 per annum.

Note: If the $3.7 million lost revenue has to be recovered from all ratepayers (Cockburn and Kwinana), average rate per annum will increase by $83 (both general and minimum

rates), the equivalent of a 9% rate increase. Note Kwinana ratepayers would still have decreases in annual general rate of $178 and minimum rate of $143 per annum.

3.4.2.2 State Government Proposal

Issue: Cockburn rate in the $ is lower than all other LGAs.

If under the new arrangement Cockburn ratepayers transitioned to same rate in the $ as disaggregate council ratepayers.

Overall additional rate revenue will be taken from Cockburn ratepayers of $13.1 million per year from:

Cockburn ratepayers transferred to Kwinana will have increase in average annual rate of $520 (58%) per annum and increase in average minimum rate of $226 (34%) per annum.

Cockburn ratepayers transferred to Melville will have increase in average annual rate

of $55 (6%) per annum and increase in average minimum rate of $41 (6%) per annum.

Cockburn ratepayers transferred to Fremantle will have increase in average annual rate of $395 (44%) per annum and increase in average minimum rate of $442 (67%) per annum.

3.4.3 Commercial/Industrial Rates

Cockburn and Kwinana collect 40% of the rates revenue from commercial/industrial ratepayers reflective of the commercial and industrial profile of the LGAs. In comparison the commercial rate component of Melville (23%), Fremantle (18%) and East Fremantle (17%) reflect their CDB and residential profile.

Cockburn and Kwinana have a similar commercial and industrial profile as outlined below:

Table 3.11: Profile of Proposed Commercial/Industrial Rate Revenue, 2013/14

Proposed Rate Revenue Cockburn Kwinana

Commercial - Improved $2,666,602 $399,228

Large Commercial - Improved $4,512,760 $-

City Centre - Improved $- $765,393

Service Commercial - Improved $- $87,862

Commercial - Vacant $172,842 $48,935

City Centre - Vacant $- $101,620

Service Commercial - Vacant $- $10,358

Commercial $7,352,204 $1,413,397

% of total rate yield 13% 5%

Industrial - Improved $8,995,094 $4,388,909


25

Proposed Rate Revenue Cockburn Kwinana

Large Industrial - Improved $4,083,381 $-

Light Industrial - Improved $- $89,012

Special Industrial $438,991 $5,027,904

Industrial - Vacant $1,672,839 $473,231

Light Industrial Vacant $- $4,180

Industrial $15,190,304 $9,983,237

% of total rate yield 27% 35%

Caravan Parks $176,875 $0

Other $176,875 $0

% of total rate yield -% -%

Total Commercial/Industrial $22,719,383 $11,396,634


3.4.3.1 Cockburn Community Proposal (AEC Suggestion)

Issue: Cockburn and Kwinana have similar commercial/industrial rate structures.

All Kwinana commercial/industrial ratepayers charged on the same basis as the Cockburn

ratepayers, and the existing Kwinana Special Industrial category is adopted.

Impact:

Potential reduction in rates collected from Kwinana commercial/industrial ratepayers of $0.5 million.

No requirement to re-categorise properties or create new rate categories.

3.4.3.2 State Government Proposal

Issue: Cockburn commercial/industrial ratepayers will be allocated across the three LGAs on the following basis:

Table 3.12: Allocation of Commercial/Industrial Rates, 2013/14

Proposed Rate Revenue Allocated to Kwinana

Allocated to Melville

Allocated to Fremantle

Commercial $5,269,914 $384,043 $1,675,143

Industrial $7,232,859 $7,045,642 $883,407

Other $27,435 $0 $149,457

Total Commercial/Industrial Rate Yield $12,530,207 $7,429,685 $2,708,008

Share of Rates Allocated 55% 33% 12%

Source: Council Budget 2013/14 Rating Information, City of Cockburn

All Cockburn ratepayers transitioned to same rate in the $ as disaggregate council ratepayers.

Impact:

Cockburn ratepayers transferred to Kwinana would be charged an additional $0.6

million in rates.

Industrial ratepayers transferred to Melville do not have an existing rate category and are subject to the uncertainty of a rate category yet to be determined. This category

puts $7.0 million rate revenue at risk.

Industrial and other ratepayers transferred to Fremantle do not have an existing rate category and are subject to the uncertainty of a rate category yet to be determined. This category puts $1.0 million rate revenue at risk.


The Cockburn Community Proposal provides for the alignment of LGA’s with similar land use profiles of a 60% residential and rural / 40% commercial ratio. The proposal

would result in a reduction the average rate for Kwinana ratepayers of $262 per year


26

for general rates and $226 for minimum rates. The lost revenue of $3.7 million could

be collected across all Cockburn and Kwinana residential ratepayers by an increase of $83 per property. Kwinana commercial/industrial ratepayers would have a reduction in total rates collected of $0.5 million.

The State Government Proposal could increase the rates taken from Cockburn residential ratepayers by $13.1 million, an average increase of $378 per property. Industrial ratepayers from Cockburn transferred to Melville and Fremantle, which do not currently have industrial rate categories, would be subject to the uncertainty of future rate levels.


The Cockburn Community Proposal financial sustainability rationales are validated by the following key points:

Access to Cockburn’s strong and growing revenue stream will improve the

financial sustainability of all reform options moreso under the Cockburn Community Proposal than the State Government Proposal:

o Under the State Government Proposal, the allocation of Cockburn across the three proposed LGAs increases the financial sustainability of all the proposed LGAs due to the reallocation of the strong revenue stream of Cockburn. However, the weaker new Fremantle will incur additional negative impacts from the transfer of suburbs and assets, and the demand for community infrastructure with limited funding streams.

o The Cockburn Community Proposal amalgamation would provide the greatest improvement with the larger and stronger Cockburn operating position providing a buffer for the relatively weaker Kwinana operating position. The new Fremantle will improve with the addition of a population base and revenue to support the transferred assets.

o The original Metropolitan Local Government Review (2012a) proposal which

combined Melville with Fremantle and East Fremantle would have improved the

financial sustainability of the new local government by joining the stronger operating position of Melville with the asset base of Fremantle.

Consolidation of the asset base is preferable to disaggregation (for which there is no methodology) and in particular the road network servicing industrial areas:

o Over 70% (roads, footpaths, drainage and open space) of the asset base of Cockburn would not be available for review therefore little benefit is achieved

from reform in regard to asset rationalisation.

o Over 34% of Cockburn’s road, footpath and drainage assets will be transferred to other LGA areas mainly in mature suburbs, shifting the burden for maintenance and renewal from Cockburn to the other LGA’s.

o The Cockburn Community Proposal results in the consolidation of the road network that is vital to the productivity of the important industrial areas of the

Western Trade Coast

o The State Government Proposal would incur the expense of the reallocation of the asset base on an asset by asset basis based on methodology that is not yet known.

Disagregating Cockburn will result in the net writedown and loss of community assets:

o The Cockburn Community Proposal would promote the continued use of existing

council service centres. The administration building and depot would be retained and utilised. The relocation of the council chambers to a neutral central location at Cockburn Central would facilitate better regional community needs.

o In contrast, the State Government Proposal would result in possible stranding of the Cockburn administration building, with little potential for commercial re-


27

development of the site. This in conjunction with the possible disposal of the

Cockburn Bibra Lake depot site would result in loss of community owned assets with a written down value of $25.7 million.

o Any gains from the transfer or disposal of assets would be dispersed to the wider

LGA areas rather than benefit those communities that contributed to the development of the assets. For example the potential sale proceeds ($15 million) from the disposal of the Bibra Lake depot site may not be returned to the Cockburn community but could be dispersed for the benefit of the wider Melville community.

Aggregating Cockburn and Kwinana will significantly benefit Kwinana ratepayers. Disaggregating Cockburn will significantly dis-benefit ratepayers

and introduce uncertainty to industry and business:

o The Cockburn Community Proposal provides for the alignment of LGA’s with similar land use profiles of a 60% residential and rural / 40% commercial ratio. The proposal would result in a reduction the average rate for Kwinana ratepayers

of $262 per year for general rates and $226 for minimum rates. The lost revenue of $3.7 million could be collected across all Cockburn and Kwinana residential

ratepayers by an increase of $83 per property. Kwinana commercial/industrial ratepayers would have a reduction in total rates collected of $0.5 million.

o The State Government Proposal could increase the rates taken from Cockburn residential ratepayers by $13.1 million, an average increase of $378 per property. Industrial ratepayers from Cockburn transferred to Melville and Fremantle, which do not currently have industrial rate categories, would be subject to the uncertainty of future rate levels.


28

4. Planning & Development Impacts

Local plans interpret state and regional planning documents to coordinate land use and development, balancing economic, social and environment considerations. The plans inform decisions with significant and long-term implications for local communities. Community planning is an increasingly important tool guiding the long-term development

character of local areas by ensuring community views are reflected in the application of planning policy.


The Cockburn Community Proposal makes the following rationales in relation to the

impacts of local government reform on planning and development:

10. Our proposal simplifies ‘Developer Contribution Scheme’ issues that equitably fund future community facilities. The Cities of Cockburn and Kwinana have well

developed community infrastructure contribution schemes providing for multi-million contributions from land developers. Splitting the areas involved in these schemes will provide significant risk in the loss of private sector support for community infrastructure in any area that would otherwise be transferred to

another Local Government under the Government’s model.

12. Our proposal preserves community planning. The Cities of Cockburn and Kwinana have well advanced synergistic asset investment plans developed with extensive community engagement that can be readily integrated. It is expected that an extensive review of asset investment and new community engagement would have to occur under the State Government’s proposal.

14. Our proposal preserves planning and service delivery capability. Cockburn is a high

performing Local Government delivering a wide range of valued services to its communities. Kwinana has many similarities with its service model, but does not provide the same range. The experience of Cockburn can be utilised to expand services not offered in Kwinana. Fremantle and Melville deliver a different bundle of

services.

4.2 Development Planning

Local government planning schemes are informed by a hierarchy of broader planning tools which provide a strategic context and ensure an integrated approach across local governments. Directions 2031 and Beyond (Directions 2031) (Planning Western Australia 2010b) establishes a long-term vision for future growth of the metropolitan Perth and

Peel region.

Directions 2031 highlights key regional challenges to be addressed. These challenges are based on a series of population growth scenarios including the need for between 358,000 and 429,000 additional residences as well as the infrastructure, employment lands and job opportunities needed to support the growth.

Cockburn and Kwinana are both located within the South-West planning sub-region, which also includes the City of Rockingham. The Cities of Fremantle and Melville are part

of the Southern-Metropolitan planning sub-region.

4.2.1 South-West Sub-Region

The South-West sub-region plan (see Figure 4.1) identifies Cockburn Central and Kwinana as the two Secondary Centres of the South-West sub-region, of which Rockingham is the Strategic Metropolitan Centre (Planning Western Australia 2010c). Cockburn and Kwinana are expected to be the location for significant future residential and industrial development.


29

Figure 4.1. South-West sub-region Spatial Framework

Source: Planning Western Australia (2010c)


30

The following table identifies the estimated greenfields land available for development

within the sub-region.

Table 4.1. Estimated Greenfields Land Available for Development (Hectares)

LGA Undeveloped Urban Zones

Undeveloped Urban Deferred

Zones

Urban Expansion

Areas (2011-2015)

Urban Investigation

Areas (2011-2020)

Total

Cockburn 800 100 500 1,400

Kwinana 1,100 700 400 2,200

Rockingham 800 1,100 100 3,100 5,100

Total 2,700 1,900 1,000 3,100 8,700

Source: Planning Western Australia (2010c)

There are approximately 8,700 hectares of land potentially available for greenfields development within the south-west sub-region made up of approximately 4,600 hectares of existing urban zoned and urban deferred zoned land and approximately 4,100 hectares

of land identified in the draft urban expansion plan. The plan estimates that by 2031 Cockburn will have between 22,170 and 29,380 additional residences and Kwinana between 15,850 and 21,280 (Planning Western Australia 2010c).


Cockburn is located within the South West Planning Sub-Region – an identified key growth corridor for the Perth and Peel Region over the next 30 years. The planning strategy for Cockburn has been designed to plan for and respond to this growth and accommodate the major changes expected for the region over the coming years. Kwinana is also located in the South West Growth Corridor and has a similar planning scheme approach designed to respond to the changes in the region and accommodate

growth.

4.2.2 Central Metropolitan Perth Sub-Region

While the South-West sub-region is focussed on accommodating future infill development to accommodate planned growth, as a fully urbanised sub-region the current planning context for the Central Metropolitan sub-region plan focusses on structural elements such as activity centres, urban growth areas, transit oriented development nodes, urban corridors and industrial areas.

The Central Metropolitan sub-region plan notes that Fremantle is a highly diverse centre with a strong heritage and cultural identity. Fremantle is a recognised tourism and entertainment destination and is also home to important institutional facilities. It is expected there will be continued growth and development of the centre although this must recognise heritage and cultural features. The Central Metropolitan sub-region plan estimates that an additional 11,000 additional dwellings will be needed in Melville and a

further 3,500 in Fremantle, this would represent an increase on current dwellings of 1.1% and 1.0% per annum to 2031 (Planning WA 2010b).

The ways in which these additional dwellings are provided is likely to be very different from the approach in the South-West sub-region. The following table presents similar

data to that in Table 4.1.for the local government areas of the Central Metropolitan sub-region.

Table 4.2. Estimated Greenfields Land Available for Development. Central Metropolitan Sub-Region (Hectares)

LGA Undeveloped Urban and Urban Deferred Land

Underdeveloped Areas of Urban Zone

Average Annual Land Consumption 2003-2010

Bassendean 20 0 1

Bayswater 80 10 1

Belmont 40 10 3

Cambridge 10 0 1

Canning 110 120 13


31

LGA Undeveloped Urban and Urban Deferred Land

Underdeveloped Areas of Urban Zone

Average Annual Land Consumption 2003-2010

Claremont 10 0 0

Cottesloe 0 0 0

East Fremantle 0 0 0

Fremantle 50 10 3

Melville 10 40 3

Mosman Park 10 0 1

Nedlands 10 0 2

Peppermint Grove 0 0 0

Perth 0 0 1

South Perth 20 10 1

Stirling 40 20 23

Subiaco 10 0 3

Victoria Park 30 20 4

Vincent 0 0 1

Total 430 240 61

Source: Planning Western Australian (2010a)

The 670 hectares of undeveloped, deferred and underdeveloped urban land in the entire Central Metropolitan sub-region contrasts with the 8,700 hectares which is potentially available in the South West sub-region. While Fremantle, East Fremantle and Melville are faced with the challenge of accommodating future population growth with 110 hectares of greenfields land, Cockburn and Kwinana have up to 3,600 hectares available. These contrasts are illustrative of the very different challenges facing the two groups of local governments in meeting future housing demand and the need for equally different

solutions.


The current and future development of the cities of Melville and Fremantle is expected

to be largely brownfield. That is redevelopment, densification (multi-unit, multi-storey) and reconfiguration of lots. This form of development is quite different to greenfields development and requires different assessment skills.

4.2.3 Local Government Planning Strategies

While sub-regional plans set the context, it is local plans which interpret this information and translate it into practical planning decisions. Appendix C outlines the key features of the relevant local planning strategies and Table 4.3 compares strategic areas.

Table 4.3. Summary of Planning Strategy Strategic Areas

Strategic Area Cockburn Kwinana Fremantle Melville

Transportation

Integrated Transport

Strategy

Transport Strategy

Planning for Access

and Movement

Transport and Infrastructure

Urban Development

Local Planning

Strategy & Revitalisation

Strategies

Housing Strategy

Planning for Urban Form and Public

Spaces

Development and

Population community

Commercial Development

Local Commercial &

Activities Centre Strategy

Commercial Centres

Strategy

Planning for Urban Form and Public

Spaces

Economy

Industrial Development

Industrial

Development Policy

Industrial Strategy

Economy

Rural Development

Rural Sub-division

Policy

Rural Strategy


32

Strategic Area Cockburn Kwinana Fremantle Melville

Ground Water Protection

Water Conservation

Strategy

Basic Raw Materials

Raw Materials Position

Statement

Public Purpose Sites

Position Statement

Open Space

Sport & Recreation

Plan

Open Space and

Recreation

Planning for Urban

Form & Public Spaces

Open Space and

Recreation

Buffers

Position Statement &

Mapping

Industrial Strategy

Employment

Economic

Development Plan Stage 1

Planning for Urban Form & Public Spaces

Environment

Natural Areas

Management Strategy

Environmental and

Landscape Protection

Planning for

Community and Culture

Environment and

Heritage

Heritage

Local Government

Heritage List

Planning for Urban

Form & Public Spaces

Environment and

Heritage

Coastal Development

Coastal Foreshore

Plan & North Coogee Foreshore

Management Plan

Economy

Economic

Development Plan Stage 1

Draft Economic Development Framework

Economic

Development Strategy

Note: = coverage of the strategic area, = no or limited coverage

Source: AECgroup

A comparison of the 15 strategic areas across all planning strategies shows that Cockburn and Kwinana have the highest level of alignment (9 similar areas), whilst Fremantle (7) and Melville (8) have slightly less. Of the four cities Fremantle has a quite

different approach concentrating on community and culture, urban form and public spaces, access and movement. Given the urban nature and characteristic of Fremantle this is not surprising. It does however mean Fremantle will need to broaden its focus, skill and experience base if it acquires suburban and greenfields areas.


Both Cockburn and Kwinana have included the appropriate treatment of rural areas

within the land planning strategies. This reflects the characteristics of land use on these local government areas and is in contrast with the urban focus of the Fremantle and Melville Plans.

Under the Cockburn Community Proposal, it is almost certain the two existing planning schemes could be combined much more easily than under the disaggregation scenarios. Maintaining existing suburbs and the associated growth plans is almost certain to offer a lower cost and lower risk solution.

Fremantle and Melville, whilst also expected to experience growth, are already urbanised areas and would be expected to adopt a different growth response strategy and planning controls.

Cockburn and Kwinana are undergoing similar levels of growth and therefore could develop and adopt a shared planning scheme more quickly than under a circumstance where there are significant differences in the plans for different parts of the same local government as would be the case under the disaggregation scenarios.


33

4.2.4 Building Approvals

Cockburn is growing rapidly, in 2012/13 it recorded 1,302 residential building approvals with a combined value of $337.8 million, a 7.3% increase in the number of residential approvals and an 11.8% increase in the value of residential approvals from 2011/12.

Figure 4.2 shows the value of residential approvals from 2005/06 to 2012/13 for the four largest local governments.

Figure 4.2. Value of Residential Building

Source: ABS (2013)

Of the four local governments, in each year since 2005/06 Cockburn has recorded the

highest value of residential approvals, accounting for 48.1% of total residential approvals

across the four local governments in this period.

Figure 4.3 shows the share of total non-residential approvals across the four local governments between 2005-06 and 2012-13. The 2009-10 figures are significantly impacted by the inclusion of the $1.8 billion Fiona Stanley Hospital Project in Melville.

Figure 4.3. Share of Non-Residential Building Value

Source: ABS (2013)

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

$500

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Valu

e o

f Resi

dential B

uild

ing A

ppro

vals

($M

)

Cockburn Kwinana Fremantle Melville

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Shar

e o

f N

on

-Res

iden

tial

Ap

pro

vals



34

With the exception of 2009-10 and 2012-13, non-residential building value in Cockburn

has accounted for over half of all non-residential value across the four local governments. Table 4.4 shows the value of residential and non-residential building approvals over this period.

Table 4.4. Value of Residential and Non-Residential Building Approvals ($m)

Residential Non-Residential

Year Cockburn Kwinana Fremantle Melville Cockburn Kwinana Fremantle Melville

2005-06 $218.6 $65.9 $71.9 $142.3 $95.0 $18.1 $31.2 $21.7

2006-07 $321.6 $59.1 $69.6 $123.4 $177.8 $87.7 $27.3 $30.9

2007-08 $428.7 $80.5 $70.1 $194.3 $214.1 $32.7 $39.4 $84.1

2008-09 $254.5 $60.2 $59.2 $177.0 $133.8 $40.7 $15.1 $32.3

2009-10 $352.2 $106.9 $185.3 $126.7 $198.8 $68.7 $46.7 $1,559.8

2010-11 $329.4 $94.4 $89.1 $246.7 $141.3 $53.2 $38.8 $53.8

2011-12 $302.3 $76.9 $62.9 $228.6 $154.9 $26.4 $29.2 $38.9

2012-13 $337.8 $113.2 $96.3 $148.3 $167.3 $24.0 $53.8 $144.8

Source: ABS (2013)

In 2012/13, the City of Cockburn approved $167.3 million of non-residential development, more than the other local governments, reflecting the historic pattern.


Cockburn has historically dealt with a greater number and value of building approvals than surrounding local governments.

4.2.5 Building Approvals Efficiency

An approvals efficiency measure can be calculated by dividing building activity by the number of full time equivalent (FTE) staff involved in statutory building approval. Table 4.5 shows that Cockburn approved the largest number of dwellings per FTE (90) and the

highest value of total building per FTE ($34.89 million). Kwinana was the second most efficient council in regard to dwelling approvals per FTE (83).

Table 4.5. Building Approval Efficiency, 2012/13

Measure Cockburn Kwinana Fremantle Melville

Total dwellings (number) 1,302 551 342 242

Value of total residential building ($m) $337.8 $113.2 $96.3 $148.3

Value of non-residential building ($m) $167.3 $24.0 $53.8 $144.8

Value of total building ($m) $505.2 $137.2 $150.0 $293.1

Building approvals staff (FTE) 14.48 6.67 na 11.00

Dwelling approvals/FTE 90 83 na 22

Value of total building/FTE ($m) $34.89 $20.56 na $26.65

Source: ABS (2013)

Furthermore, Cockburn achieves consistently good turnaround times for building

approvals (see Table 4.6). Note: Fremantle and Kwinana do not publish equivalent data.

Table 4.6. Building Approval Times, Certified and Uncertified Applications (days)

Month WA Uncertified Target

Cockburn Uncertified Achieved

WA Certified Target Cockburn Certified Achieved

Jul-13 25 22 10 10

Aug-13 25 22 10 10

Sep-13 25 21 10 11

Oct-13 25 17 10 11

Nov-13 25 19 10 7

Dec-13 25 19 10 9



35

Cockburn staff consistently achieve good turnaround times for building approvals because

of processes adopted, staffing resources provided and priority for response to the community. For example, Cockburn and Rockingham are the only local governments in the South West Metropolitan Sub-Region to use WALGA’s ‘Councils on-line’ website. This

portal allows the building industry to electronically lodge building applications and for the local government to similarly approve them electronically. This makes for faster processing and less cost for both parties, with over 40% of all applications for single residences processed this way. While these only make up 34% of all applications, this has a big impact on numerous small businesses (builders).

Offering developers consistent decision making has increased certainty and become a critical point of difference for Cockburn. These efficient processes will be adopted in a

Cockburn-Kwinana amalgamation to improve turnaround times for new home owners and the building industry.

Under a disaggregation strategy it is almost certain the benefits of the work Cockburn has done to develop clear decision making processes and provide certainty for the development community would be lost. By retaining the current corporate knowledge,

approach and processes through amalgamation with Kwinana, the benefits of the current

approach could be retained and these key advantages would be used to help stimulate additional investment.


Cockburn has historically dealt with a greater number and value of building approvals than surrounding local governments.

Building approval efficiency is important for the development industry and the local economy. In 2012-13 Cockburn had the most efficient statutory building approval team

in terms of dwelling approvals per FTE and total value of building per FTE out of Kwinana and Melville. Cockburn staff consistently achieve good turnaround times for building approvals.

The disaggregation of the Cockburn statutory building approval team combined with the differing development focus of Fremantle and Melville may impact on building

approval efficiency and therefore slow development and thereby impact the performance of the local economy.

4.2.6 Costs of Planning Change

In addition to the direct costs of new planning instruments, changes in planning departments and to planning schemes introduce uncertainty to the approval process. This in turn leads to delays in approvals which at best delays construction activity and economic output.

4.2.6.1 Costs of New Planning Schemes

The fundamental nature of the proposed State Government Proposal would almost certainly require that the existing local planning schemes be replaced. Doing so would require a significant investment in consultants fees, staff time and community consultation. The cost of preparing these documents varies depending on the scope of

the assessment and the opportunity to utilise the existing materials. Given such a significant change in the focus of each local government it would be expected entirely new planning schemes would be needed. Based on estimated consultants fees of

$200,000, staff inputs equivalent to 50% of the consultants’ time and public consultation costs of $50,000, it is estimated each new planning strategy would cost approximately $350,000 resulting in an overall cost of $1.05 million.

These cost estimates are broadly in line with Queensland Treasury Corporation analysis of the costs of the 2008 local government reforms. Based on the claims received from 24 local governments to 2009, the final assessment of costs was $8.9 million for statutory plans (QTC 2009), equivalent to approximately $400,000 per local government in 2013

dollar terms.

Under the Cockburn Community Proposal, these costs would be significantly lower given that entire local governments would be amalgamating, there would be no need to cut


36

across suburbs and the level of similarity between the challenges the existing local

government face, as reflected in the existing plans. It is estimated the existing planning schemes could be brought together for approximately $100,000 to $150,000 including community consultation costs.

It is likely that to develop an entirely new set of local planning tools could take 12-18 months to complete. The uncertainty amongst the development sector and other stakeholders during this period has the potential for far greater cost implications than simply the direct costs of developing new planning schemes (see below).

4.2.6.2 Economic Impacts of Delays to Planning Approvals

It is almost certain the development community would prefer any reform process to be as simple as possible, reducing the risk of a long period of uncertainty while complex

boundary change issues are addressed.

While any reform process will incur a period of consolidation, this is likely to be much shorter when two existing local governments with a growth based planning focus are

brought together. Where existing local governments are broken up and distributed amongst expanding councils, particularly where these areas are less well aligned, this is almost certain to take much longer and incur additional costs.

To demonstrate the economic impact of a delay to building approvals a $100 million (approximately 20% of the value of annual building approvals) negative shock to the construction sector has been applied to the Cockburn economy.

Table 4.7. Economic Impact of a $100 million Reduction in Construction Activity

Impact Output ($m) GVA ($m) Income ($m) Employment (FTE)

Direct Impact -$100.0 -$22.7 -$9.9 -196

Indirect Impact (Type I) -$103.3 -$40.3 -$22.4 -331

Sub-Total -$203.3 -$63.0 -$32.3 -526

Indirect Impact (Type II) -$65.8 -$32.8 -$17.4 -288

Total Impact -$269.1 -$95.8 -$49.7 -814

Note: FTE = full time equivalent

Source: AECgroup

This negative economic shock to the local economy results in a loss of $269.1 million to output, $95.8 million to gross value added and 814 jobs representing nearly $50 million

in income. At a time when construction in the mining sector is peaking, a negative shock to local construction would not be welcome.


It is inevitable that new planning schemes will be required by the resulting new local governments. New planning schemes are expensive and take considerable time to prepare and implement. Based on the Queensland local government reform experience

it is estimated that three new planning schemes would cost between $1.05 million and $1.2 million to prepare and implement. This compares to the Cockburn Community Proposal where an amalgamation of existing planning schemes could be achieved for an approximate cost of $100,000.

Whilst planning uncertainty is being experienced, delays to building approvals and construction activity may be experienced. As an example a negative economic shock of $100 million to the construction sector could result in a loss to the local economy of

$269.1 million and 814 full time jobs. This may occur at a time when local development is needed to offset the fall in mining construction activity.

4.3 The Developer Contribution Scheme

The Cities of Cockburn and Kwinana were amongst the first two local governments in

Western Australia to have implemented a Developer Contribution Scheme (DCS). DCS’ have also been developed or implemented in outer metropolitan councils Rockingham, Kwinana, Cockburn, Swan, Serpentine-Jarrahdale (Byford). Under the DCS, developers are required to contribute to a fund which is used to finance community infrastructure.


37

The DCS has operated successfully for a number of years and is well understood and

accepted by the development industry. Cockburn has $235.6 million in community facilities planned, of which $109.6 million (46%) is to be funded by Developer Contributions (Cockburn Community Steering Committee 2013)1. It is estimated that

under the State Government Proposal there would be a total of $34.3 million of funding which would have been collected under the DCS which would now fall outside of the scheme (see Table 4.8). If the infrastructure is still to be established, the additional funding would need to come from other sources, most probably ratepayers.

Table 4.8. Community Infrastructure Allocation and Impact

LGA Total infra cost (a)

% share DCP13 liability (b)

DCP13 shortfall (c)

Municipal proportion

(d) = (a)+(c)

Fremantle $80,485,338 34.2% $23,633,474 $14,166,775 $94,652,113

Melville $16,940,924 7.2% $216,298 $7,016,007 $23,956,931

Cockburn (residual) $138,358,199 58.7% $51,534,823 $13,110,394 $151,468,593

Total $235,784,461 100.0% $75,384,595 $34,293,176

Notes: (a) Minus administration costs. (b) Collectable based on new State Government Proposal boundaries. (c) Developer liability not able to be collected due to new LG boundaries. (d) Plus DCP shortfall to be covered for suburbs outside local government boundaries.


The establishment of the DCS recognised that Cockburn and Kwinana are rapidly developing areas which required essential supporting infrastructure in order to create

sustainable communities with a range of local employment opportunities. More established local government areas, including Melville and Fremantle, have already put this community infrastructure in place and so currently have less need for a DCS. Should they take over greenfield expansion areas from Cockburn then they will need to establish a DCS. Indeed the establishment of a DCS is a lengthy and time consuming process as experienced by Cockburn referenced by the following experience:

Time take to prepare, consult, develop Capital Investment Plans, amend Town Planning Scheme (TPS) and have the DCS approved.

Preparatory work would cover 3-4 years. The items of community infrastructure to be included in the Developer Contribution Plan (DCP) have been previously identified in one of various plans including the City’s Strategic Community Plan (formerly known as the Plan for the District), Bibra Lake Landscape, Recreation and Environmental Management Plan, the Bicycle Network and Footpath Plan, the Sport and Recreation

Plan or the Review of Cockburn Library Services. These documents establish the need for the proposed DCP infrastructure items and the link to the future development within the City. Drafting of the TPS amendment and Capital Expenditure Plan was the legal mechanism to introduce the DCP into the TPS and took at least 12 months given the demographic analysis, determination of a methodology and the need to justify each infrastructure item against the State Planning Policy principles. Consultation / approval of DCS amendment, a vital component, consumed nearly 12 months itself.

Significant cost both in dollars, legal fees and manpower.

The DCS amendment was produced ‘in house’ by senior City staff – for several years this largely consumed the resource of Cockburn’s Coordinator Strategic Planning. The

cost of this would be approximately $0.25 million but, if done with external consultants, the cost estimate is $0.5 million to $0.75 million depending on the time frame for delivery of the project.

Extensive consultation to convince the UDIA and have them on side at public consultation phases in the planning phases.

Cockburn’s TPS amendment was discussed in detail with the UDIA working group on development contributions. While they did not 100% support the version ‘as advertised’ Cockburn was able to make the appropriate changes to address their particular concerns. UDIA attended and presented at the community information forum during the public consultation phase to give their point of view and take public

1 For a list of infrastructure and the anticipated developer contributions by suburb see Appendix A.


38

questions. One successful outcome in 2012, UDIA gave a testimonial to Cockburn’s

application for a Planning Institute of Australia (WA) award for the Community Infrastructure DCP. Cockburn won the ‘Hard Won Victory’ award for that year.

Objections by certain parts of the development industry.

As above, initially UDIA expressed concerns. Many smaller developers/landowners also expressed objections, believing only large developers should pay development contributions. This was deemed inequitable and the DCP applies to all developers.

The role of the DCS to provide vital funding.

The Capital Expenditure Plan acknowledges the DCP as a vital component of the funding for each infrastructure item. The alternative is that Cockburn (and its existing ratepayers) have to wholly fund infrastructure, seeking grants where they can. The

need for the local government to ‘make up the shortfall’ is embedded in Cockburn’s Town Planning Scheme. Other options available to Cockburn are ‘special area rates’ which squarely places the burden back on the existing community for the infrastructure requirements of the future community.

Given the lack of development for non-growth councils (such as Fremantle and Melville) the cost and effort of preparing a DCP is not likely to be worthwhile as the greater burden

of provision would sit with those local governments municipal funds as against the developer’s contribution.


No process has been suggested as to how the DCS funds currently held by Cockburn and Kwinana could be treated under the State Government Proposal. It is almost certain, however, that these funds will be distributed and this will create conflict and uncertainty with the development sector. The contributed funds for development of

essential supporting infrastructure within Cockburn and Kwinana respectively, could potentially be used to fund infrastructure or other non-infrastructure related expenditure in locations outside Cockburn’s current boundaries.

As well as the direct impact on expenditure in the relevant catchment, such a move

would also make developers much less likely to agree to future schemes with significant implications for the provision and funding of community infrastructure.

The Cockburn Community Proposal would address this issue, allowing the seamless

investment of the DCS funds as planned and the continued operation of the schemes. If the transferring areas of Cockburn are to have a DCS in future this would require the receiving local government to either implement a DCS of their own over the entire local government or to develop a scheme entirely for the former Cockburn communities.

4.4 Community Planning

4.4.1 Community Plans

A community plan aims to develop common goals that help guide the community to work together to achieve their aspirations. Community plans are an increasingly important aspect of local government strategy and help ensure that the views of residents are

reflected in council actions.

The development of a community plan requires as many community voices as possible to be heard and thus requires an extensive community engagement process to ensure that all residents from all walks of life have an opportunity to have input. Needless to say a community plan will be influenced by the history and heritage and socio-economics of residents that participate. Appendix D outlines the key features of the relevant local community plans strategies and Table 4.9 attempts to compare the vision and strategy/themes between each city.


39

Table 4.9. Summary of Community Planning Strategies


Vision

Build on the solid foundations that our history has provided to ensure that the Cockburn of the future will be the most attractive place to live, work, visit and invest in, within the Perth Metropolitan area.

Rich in spirit, alive with opportunities, surrounded by nature – it’s all here!

Fremantle to be recognised as a unique city of cultural and economic significance.

A safe, liveable, prosperous and sustainable Melville where we enjoy high levels of health and wellbeing; where opportunities to participate in decisions are transparent and inclusive. Our communities are accountable for our actions now and in the future, our local cultures are respected and our natural spaces and built facilities are accessible to all who live, work and play in the City.

Strategy/Themes

Growth Alive with opportunity (employment, education, retail & commercial, industrial, strategy & planning, approval system)

Economic development Growth & prosperity

Community & lifestyles Rich in spirit (identity, events, safety, programs & activities, capacity building, volunteers, arts & culture, heritage, disability access & inclusion)

Community & safety Safe & secure Health lifestyles Sense of community

Prosperity Alive with opportunity

Urban renewal & integration Character

Livable built environment

Environment & sustainability Nature – Preserve and Enhance (bushland & natural areas, renewable energy, water management, climate change)

Climate change and environment

Clean & green environment

Infrastructure Moving around

Its all here – services, facilities, diverse lifestyle (community facilities, parks & public open spaces, well serviced, well maintained, transport network)

Transport Sustainable & connected transport

Leading & listening Capability Involved & engaged

Source: Councils, AECgroup

As can be observed each community plan is quite different. However, there are some commonalities that all communities are exposed to, for example: safety, lifestyle, employment. It is clear, however, that communities with more urban development consider issues such as preservation of heritage and character, transport and

revitalisation of infrastructure with more importance than industrial land development, preservation of bushlands and provision of new infrastructure.


As a result of their differing community profiles, the community plans for Melville and Fremantle have a different focus to those of Cockburn and Kwinana. The more urbanised councils have a greater focus on transport solutions and revitalising key CBD

infrastructure while the Cockburn Community Proposal, reflective of the new development in Cockburn and Kwinana has a greater emphasis on the provision of community services.


40

4.4.2 Costs of Planning Change

4.4.2.1 Cost of New Community Planning Strategies

Should the State Government Proposal be implemented then there would be a requirement for three community planning exercises as opposed to one for the Cockburn

Community Proposal. It is important that the communities joining a new council area are fully consulted as their views and aspirations are likely to be different to those of the existing council. If these views are not fully considered in council decision making then the joining community will become disenfranchised.

Because community planning involves extensive consultation it is an expensive exercise whether it be undertaken by council staff or consultants (in reality both will be required). It is conservatively estimated that a community planning exercise costs in the order of

$150,000 to $250,000. Therefore at the upper end, the State Government Proposal will cost $600,000. Under the Cockburn Community Proposal because the communities have more similarities and it’s an amalgamation creating a new Strategic Community Plan would be a less costly exercise.


Local Governments are required to have a Strategic Community Plan in place as a

component of their integrated planning. The development of a Community Strategic Plan requires a significant investment both for the community and council. The cost to undertake three new community planning exercises could be as high as $600,000. If the exercise is not undertaken properly for the joining communities then they could be ignored in council decision making and become disenfranchised.


The Cockburn Community Proposal planning & development rationales are validated by the following key points:

The planning strategies of Cockburn and Kwinana are greenfield and growth

orientated, Fremantle and Melville are brownfield orientated:

o Cockburn is located within the South West Planning Sub-Region – an identified

key growth corridor for the Perth and Peel Region over the next 30 years. The planning strategy for Cockburn has been designed to plan for and respond to this growth and accommodate the major changes expected for the region over the coming years. Kwinana is also located in the South West Growth Corridor and has a similar planning scheme approach designed to respond to the changes in the region and accommodate growth.

o The current and future development of the cities of Melville and Fremantle is

expected to be largely brownfield. That is redevelopment, densification (multi-unit, multi-storey) and reconfiguration of lots. This form of development is quite different to greenfields development and requires different assessment skills.

o Both Cockburn and Kwinana have included the appropriate treatment of rural areas within the land planning strategies. This reflects the characteristics of land

use on these local government areas and is in contrast with the urban focus of the

Fremantle and Melville Plans.

Combining planning schemes that deal with similar circumstances is less disruptive than combining urban and greenfields focussed ones:

o Under the Cockburn Community Proposal, it is almost certain the two existing planning schemes could be combined much more easily than under the disaggregation scenarios. Maintaining existing suburbs and the associated growth plans is almost certain to offer a lower cost and lower risk solution.

o Fremantle and Melville, whilst also expected to experience growth, are already urbanised areas and would be expected to adopt a different growth response strategy and planning controls.


41

o Cockburn and Kwinana are undergoing similar levels of growth and therefore

could develop and adopt a shared planning scheme more quickly than under a circumstance where there are significant differences in the plans for different parts of the same local government as would be the case under the

disaggregation scenarios.

Cockburn deals with more building approvals than its neighbours and does so more efficiently. Loosing this ability will slow development:

o Cockburn has historically dealt with a greater number and value of building approvals than surrounding local governments.

o Building approval efficiency is important for the development industry and the local economy. In 2012-13 Cockburn had the most efficient statutory building

approval team in terms of dwelling approvals per FTE and total value of building per FTE out of Kwinana and Melville. Cockburn staff consistently achieve good turnaround times for building approvals.

o The disaggregation of the Cockburn statutory building approval team combined

with the differing development focus of Fremantle and Melville may impact on building approval efficiency and therefore slow development thereby impacting

the performance of the local economy.

The development of new planning schemes rather than combining them is much more costly:

o It is inevitable that new planning schemes will be required by the resulting new local governments. New planning schemes are expensive and take considerable time to prepare and implement. Based on the Queensland local government reform experience it is estimated that three new planning schemes would cost

between $1.05 million and $1.2 million to prepare and implement. This compares to the Cockburn Community Proposal where an amalgamation of existing planning schemes could be achieved for an approximate cost of $100,000.

o In addition to the cost to prepare new planning schemes the new planning departments will experience disruption with the addition of planning staff from the

disaggregated Cockburn.

o Whilst planning uncertainty is being experienced, delays to building approvals and

construction activity may be experienced. As an example a negative economic shock of $100 million to the construction sector could result in a loss to the local economy of $269.1 million and 814 full time jobs. This may occur at a time when local development is needed to offset the fall in mining construction activity.

The disaggregation of Cockburn would destroy the Developer Contribution Scheme with these funds being diverted from their assigned purpose and a

short term funding gap will prevail for at least three years whilst new schemes are established:

o No process has been suggested as to how the DCS funds currently held by Cockburn and Kwinana could be treated under the State Government Proposal. It is almost certain, however, that these funds will be distributed and this will create conflict and uncertainty with the development sector. The contributed funds for development of essential supporting infrastructure within Cockburn and Kwinana

respectively, could potentially be used to fund infrastructure or other non-infrastructure related expenditure in locations outside Cockburn’s current boundaries.

o As well as the direct impact on expenditure in the relevant catchment, such a move would also make developers much less likely to agree to future schemes with significant implications for the provision and funding of community infrastructure.

o The Cockburn Community Proposal would address this issue, allowing the seamless investment of the DCS funds as planned and the continued operation of the schemes. If the transferring areas of Cockburn are to have a DCS in future this would require the receiving local government to either implement a DCS of their own over the entire local government or to develop a scheme entirely for the former Cockburn communities, a process that would take at least three years.


42

Any new local governments will be required to prepare new strategic

community plans at a substantial cost:

o As a result of their differing community profiles, the community plans for Melville and Fremantle have a different focus to those of Cockburn and Kwinana. The

more urbanised councils have a greater focus on public transport solutions and revitalising key CBD infrastructure while the Cockburn Community Proposal has a greater emphasis on the provision of community services and amenity.

o Local Governments are required to have a Strategic Community Plan in place as a component of their integrated planning. The cost to undertake three new community planning exercises could be as high as $600,000. If the exercise is not properly undertaken for the joining communities then they could be ignored in

council decision making and become disenfranchised.


43

5. Economic Development Impacts

Local government has a key role in supporting a vibrant economy which builds on a region’s strengths to create a wide range of employment opportunities. There is a clear link between a sound economy and standards of living, community wellbeing and the overall attractiveness of an area. It is essential local government actions focus on the

strengths and opportunities of the communities they serve.


The Cockburn Community Proposal makes the following rationale in relation to the impacts of local government reform on economic development:

19. Our proposal reflects economic linkages between the Australian Marine Complex, Bibra Lake Industrial area, Kwinana and Jandakot. The oil and gas, defence, resources, shipbuilding, marine services and construction sectors have strong

linkages within the Cockburn and Kwinana LGAs including industrial locations at the Australian Marine Complex, Bibra Lake, Kwinana and Jandakot. The Cities of Cockburn and Kwinana have shown strong support for the development of these sectors and the support infrastructure required for these sectors.

5.2 Current Economic Profile

Manufacturing and construction lie at the heart of the Cockburn and Kwinana economies. The manufacturing sector accounts for 14.8% of the Cockburn economy and 25.3% in Kwinana, employing 8,045 FTE in Cockburn and 4,878 FTE in Kwinana. In contrast the

manufacturing sector accounts for 10.0% in Fremantle and 5.9% in Melville where transport, postal and warehousing (Fremantle) and construction (Melville) make the greatest contribution to total output.

The continued development of a network of major industrial areas in the region will be critical to economic and employment growth in the region and the State as a whole. The

Western Trade Coast (WTC) is an area of state significance with established industrial and strategic assets, covering approximately 3,900ha between Munster and

Rockingham/Kwinana Beach. WTC is critical to both existing businesses and planned future expansion which includes:

The Australian Marine Complex.

Fremantle Outer Harbour / Kwinana Quay.

Bibra Lake.

Cockburn Central.

Jandakot Airport Precinct (Jandakot City).

Kwinana Strategic Industrial Centre.

Latitude 32.

These sites are either already critical pieces of industrial infrastructure of State

significance or will become so over the next 20 years.

The following figure summarises the composition of the economies of the four existing local governments. Industry sectors which contribute less than 5 percent of the total

gross value added output have been aggregated into an ‘other’ category.


44

Figure 5.1. Structure of Local Government Economies, 2012/13

In 2012/13 the City of Cockburn had an estimated total Gross Regional Product (GRP) of $6.1 billion. The construction sector makes the largest contribution (24%) to the Cockburn economy, followed by mining (15%) and manufacturing (15%). The largest seven sectors account for

approximately 80% of total gross value added output.

In 2012/13 the City of Kwinana economy had an estimated GRP of $4.0 billion(a). Mining, manufacturing and construction are also the three largest contributors to the Kwinana economy accounting for 76% of total gross value added output. Of the other sectors, only the electricity, gas, water and

waste services (6%) and transport, postal and warehousing (5%) contribute 5% or more.

In 2012/13 the City of Fremantle economy had an estimated GRP of $4.3 billion. Transport, postal and warehousing (27%) is the largest sector of the Fremantle economy, primarily due to the impact of the Port of Fremantle. The remainder of the economy includes contributions from a

further seven sectors of between 5% and 10% of GVA output.

In 2012/13 the City of Melville economy had

an estimated GRP of $4.8 billion. Construction (19%) is the largest contributor to the Melville economy followed by health care and social assistance, retail trade and professional and scientific services. Like Fremantle, the Melville

economy is more diverse than either Cockburn or Kwinana.

Note: (a) Kwinana maybe underestimated due to the presence of higher value added export industries. Source: AECgroup

Construction24%

Mining15%

Manufacturing15%Transport, postal &

warehousing9%

Electricity, gas, water & waste services

6%

Wholesale trade6%

Professional, scientific & technical

services5%

Other20%

Cockburn

Mining28.5%

Manufacturing25.3%

Construction22.1%

Electricity, gas, water & waste services

6.0%

Transport, postal & warehousing

4.6%

Other13.5%

Kwinana


27%

Manufacturing10%

Construction9%

Mining7%

Wholesale trade7%

Professional, scientific & technical

services6%

Health care & social assistance

6%

Retail trade5%

Other23%

Fremantle

Construction19%

Health care & social assistance

12%

Retail trade10%

Professional, scientific & technical services

9%

Mining7%

Financial & insurance services

6%

Manufacturing6%


5%

Other25%

Melville


45


There are clear parallels between the structure of the economies of Cockburn and Kwinana (mining, manufacturing, construction). Both local government areas have strong industrial sectors while the economies of Melville and Fremantle are more

diverse and have a greater contribution from the services sector.

The distribution of existing and planned key industrial areas within the Cockburn and Kwinana LGAs highlights the key role this region will have in future local and State economic development. Establishing a single local authority which is skilled and experienced in working to support these sectors and which has the appropriate development of these sites are its priority is almost certain to offer significant benefits.

5.3 Economic Development Planning

Each of the existing local governments recognises their role in the development of the local economy and has published strategic objectives to guide their activity in this area

(see Appendix E). It is critical economic development planning is tailored to the strengths and opportunities of the area covered and has a clear strategic focus. Focus areas in the

economic development plans of each local government are:

Cockburn’s economic development focus targets on multiple areas within its boundaries. The focus has been on developing Cockburn Central which has been classified as a strategic regional centre by the State Government with the second (Cockburn Central West) and third (Muriel Court) phases in the planning stages. This is not to detract from the active planning of key industrial developments to assist the

State’s growing oil and gas industry with planning and delivery of the industrial precincts of Bibra Lake Estate (including the Cockburn Commercial Park and Phoenix Business Park), the AMC and Jandakot City. These three precincts not only contain significant service providers such as GE Oil and Gas, Haliburton and Chevron but provide substantial manufacturing services and employment opportunities to the oil and gas industry. In addition, Cockburn is involved in the planning of Latitude 32, the next industrial precinct in conjunction with LandCorp. This has been earmarked for

service provision to the outer harbour and inter-modal rail facility.

Kwinana’s economic development framework caters for effective planning (including a social and economic evidence base, rapid response to emerging opportunities, annual review and planning), support of local business, attracting new business, best practice development approval system, effective use of infrastructure for economic development, maximising benefits of the WTC, promoting local jobs, and embracing innovation. Kwinana is also involved in the planning of Latitude 32 along with

Cockburn.

Fremantle’s economic development strategy is CBD focussed looking to diversify its economic base in consumer orientated activity through redevelopment of the CBD along with a focus on growing the tourism sector and external marketing to attract investment.

Melville’s economic development goals are orientated around commercial centres and

the business environment. There is a focus on activity centres and the Melville City

Centre. A friendly business environment will be delivered through facilitating macro business opportunities, advocating improvements to infrastructure, providing public assets and infrastructure and support of micro business opportunities.

Of these, Kwinana is the most comprehensive and action orientated economic development plan (albeit a draft framework) as Kwinana recognises the opportunity it has in regards to large scale industrial possibilities, in addition to the range of older

industries already in place, and the ability to improve economic outcomes for its residents. Cockburn also has these opportunities and is aligned with Kwinana in this regard.

Furthermore, Cockburn has seen the delivery of significant industrial development of new and innovative industry including oil and gas together with servicing the ship building (including the national service centre for the Australian Navy’s Collins class submarines and Anzac Frigates). The future development of the outer harbour (the current inner

harbour is located in Fremantle) will see the development of Latitude 32 as the service


46

centre for the outer harbour including the provision of the inter-modal rail facility. This

future planning has already seen major transport companies vie for land as existing facilities are either too small or, they seek to expand so as to move away from the congested areas associated with the inner harbour.

Fremantle has a completely different set of economic circumstances being urban, consumer and redevelopment focussed. Melville is somewhere between the two growth councils with a focus on existing activity centres and the business environment.


Economic planning requires a clear focus which underpins activity over the plan period. The key economic development issues identified in the Kwinana economic development framework are closely aligned to actions needed to continue to develop the strengths

of the Cockburn economy, reflecting the similarities between the economic bases of each local government area and the shared future opportunities and challenges. At the same time Cockburn has seen the delivery of significant industrial development.

The Cockburn Community Proposal, which maintains existing boundaries, would support a clear economic development direction aligned with Cockburn’s and Kwinana’s parallel strengths. Fremantle and Melville have a different economic focus and would

require the development of knowledge in a set of different industries.

5.3.1 Costs of Economic Development Change

5.3.1.1 Estimated Cost to Prepare New Economic Development Strategies

As with local planning tools, the scale of reform proposed under the State Government Proposal would require that new economic development strategies be developed for all of the three new local governments and especially for Fremantle and Melville since they would need to extend their focus to greenfield industrial areas. In addition, larger local

government areas are generally expected to devote more resources to economic development. If the Directions 2031 employment self-sufficiency targets are to be attempted, a significant economic development effort is required.

It would expected that developing a new economic development strategy for the Cockburn Community Proposal would be much simpler given the similarities between the existing plans and the close alignment between the challenges each area faces. Furthermore, the Kwinana Economic Development Strategy (AECgroup 2013) could be

readily adapted to Cockburn-Kwinana at minimal cost.

The cost of developing an economic development strategy would vary depending on the scope and level of detail. Assuming an average consultant’s fee of $100,000 per strategy and a 50% allowance for council staff inputs suggests that the costs of developing a new economic development strategy for Fremantle and Melville would be approximately $300,000.

5.3.1.2 Disruption to Economic Development

As with the planning schemes, it is likely the uncertainty created by the absence of an integrated economic development approach during the period of up to 18 months while a

new plan was developed has a potentially much higher cost to the community than the direct costs of developing a new plan. In an increasingly competitive investment environment, it is vital local governments play their part in securing investment which they can only do effectively when there is a clear strategy in place.

Whilst it is not possible to quantify the economic impact of a delay in implementing an economic development strategy the loss of local business or failure to attract relocating business are self-evident in employment terms alone.


The estimated costs of developing new economic development plans for Fremantle and Melville could be as much as $300,000 when staff time is also taken into account. These costs and the time taken to develop them are likely to be much higher where

there is less alignment between the economies of the amalgamating entities. Delays


47

and uncertainty in the business sector are potentially of greater significance than the

direct costs of replacing the economic development strategies.

The Cockburn Community Proposal provides an opportunity to create a new local government with lower risks to ongoing economic development and job creation as a

result of the existing alignment between the two economies and the shared areas of strategic focus.

5.4 Congestion

Given the existing and potential amount of residential and industrial development to

occur in the Cockburn and Kwinana local government areas, traffic congestion represents a major threat to productivity, new investment and regional growth. A paper by the South West Group (2013) conservatively estimates the avoidable annual cost of congestion for the South West Metropolitan Region at $300 million increasing to $450 million by 2020. Congestion costs fall on private time, business time, vehicle operating costs and air pollution. The table below indicates the locations where congestion currently

occurs and its impact on productivity.

Table 5.1. Congested Roads, Locations and Intersections in the South West Metropolitan Region

Congestion Site Current Action Further Action Impact on Productivity

East Fremantle

Stirling Highway High Street Upgrade will have an impact

Stirling Bridge at capacity by 2031

Connection to Fremantle Inner Harbour

Fremantle

High Street High Street upgrade funded and construction scheduled

30% of containers through port on rail and extend port hours

Connection to Fremantle inner Harbour

Hampton Road Improved Public Transport and reconstruct Rockingham Road intersection

Access to commercial centre

Melville

Canning Highway from Canning Bridge to Riseley Street

Improved Public Transport Use

Access to commercial centre

Canning Bridge New bridge and bus interchange Enhancing public transport use

Mount Henry Bridge ITS

Murdoch Activity Centre

South Street Murdoch Drive Intersection

Canning Vale Park and Ride Improved Public Transport

Functioning of Health and Education Precinct

South Street Grade Separation at Stock Road and determine action following decision on environmental approvals for the Roe Highway Extension

Port Access

Leach Highway Grade separation at Stock Road Port Access

Murdoch Drive and Farrington Street

Southern connection of Murdoch Drive to the Freeway

Functioning of Health and Education Precinct

Karel Avenue Jandakot Eastern Link Improved Public Transport Jandakot City

Cockburn

Stock Road Grade Separations Freight Corridor

Kwinana Freeway between Roe Highway and Cockburn Central

Kwinana Congestion Management

Additional lane northbound and determine action following decision on environmental approvals for the Roe Highway Extension

Freight Route

North Lake Road from Beeliar Drive to Phoenix Road

Bridge over Kwinana Freeway Access to light industrial areas


48

Congestion Site Current Action Further Action Impact on Productivity

Armadale Road west of Warton Road

Dual Carriageway

Access to light industrial areas

Rockingham Road and Russell Road

Improve public transport Access to AMC

Kwinana

Access and Egress to KIA

Intersection redesign Access to KIA

Source: South West Development Group (2013)

Some of the key existing and future developments in the region impacting on congestion include (nine of the thirteen are located in Cockburn and Kwinana):

Development of Fremantle Outer Harbour by 2025 (Cockburn).

Growth of the Murdoch Activity Centre, stimulated by the opening of the Fiona Stanley Hospital in 2014 and LandCorp’s Transit Orientated Development (TOD)

(Cockburn).

Continuing development of Latitude 32 with its estimated 10,000 employment up to and beyond 2031 (Cockburn & Kwinana).

Commencement of Keralup town site development which will ultimately grow to

100,000 residents.

Continuing development of the Eastern Residential Intensification Concept (Kwinana).

Development of Canning Bridge Structure Plan and Riseley Precinct Plan.

Development of Melville City Centre Structure Plan, including expansion of Garden City Shopping Centre.

Development of Cockburn Coast for 10,000 residents (Cockburn).

Continuing development of Cockburn Central and the Gateway Shopping Centre (Cockburn).

The billion $ development of Jandakot City (Cockburn).

Development of Transit Oriented Developments (TODs) at Canning Bridge and Bull Creek.

Further development of the Australian Marine Complex (Cockburn).

Environmental and funding approvals for Roe Highway Extension (Cockburn).

In addition new or improved east west linkages are required such as Rowley Rd and Anketell Rd as well as for the planned intermodal freight terminal in Latitude 32.

Whilst transport planning is largely the role of the State and there is much transport planning currently underway (eg. The Perth Public Transport Plan due for release soon), local governments have a key role to play in the mitigation of traffic congestion. Mitigation measures that local government can influence generally include:

Local employment.

High quality and high frequency public transport.

The use of technology for traffic management and journey planning.

Investment in road and associated transport infrastructure.

Integration of transport and land use planning.

Higher density development.

The concentration of services, amenities, facilities.

Employment in activity centres.

The increased use of walking and cycling.

Cockburn through its major capital projects (City of Cockburn 2013c) (see Appendix F) as based on its District Traffic Strategy (City of Cockburn 2011c) has planned to spend


49

$253.5 million over the next 17 years to assist in the improving of road transport

primarily aimed at the business community but also targeting traffic congestion for commuters. Several of these projects will have an enormous benefit to businesses in Cockburn, including the road network around Cockburn Central aiming to remove

commuters from the east and west from the business precinct. It is noted that Melville, Kwinana and Fremantle do not have comparable Council adopted strategies.


Traffic congestion represents a major threat to productivity, new investment and regional growth. The South West Group (2013) has estimated that traffic congestion could be as much as $300 million rising to $450 million by 2020.

Transport access to key industrial areas in Cockburn and Kwinana is and will be of


Whilst the majority of transport congestion solutions are considered a State

Government responsibility (9/13 of the key existing and future developments are in Cockburn-Kwinana), an amalgamated Cockburn-Kwinana will have a focus on industry, business and employment and therefore a higher motivation in reducing transport

congestion through appropriate planning, advocacy and investment.

Cockburn through its major capital projects has planned to spend $253.5M over the next 17 years to improve of road transport primarily aimed at the business community but also targeting traffic congestion for commuters.


The Cockburn Community Proposal economic rationales are validated by the following key points:

The similar economic structures of Cockburn and Kwinana means a convergence of focus to deliver economic outcomes:

o There are clear parallels between the structure of the economies of Cockburn and Kwinana (mining, manufacturing, construction). Both local government areas

have strong industrial sectors while the economies of Melville and Fremantle are more diverse and have a greater contribution from the services sector.

o The distribution of existing and planned key industrial areas within Cockburn and Kwinana highlights the key role this region will have in future local and state economic development. Establishing a single local authority which is skilled and experience in working to support these sectors and which has the appropriate development of these sites are its priority is almost certain to offer significant

benefits.

Economic planning aligned to a few core strengths delivers stronger results as opposed to trying to service all parts of the economy:

o Economic planning requires a clear focus which underpins activity over the plan period. The key economic development issues identified in the Kwinana economic

development framework are closely aligned to actions needed to continue to

develop the strengths of the Cockburn economy, reflecting the similarities between the economic bases of each local government area and the shared future opportunities and challenges. At the same time Cockburn has seen the delivery of significant industrial development.

o The Cockburn Community Proposal, which maintains existing boundaries, would support a clear economic development direction aligned with Cockburn’s and Kwinana’s similar strengths. Fremantle and Melville have a different economic

focus and would require the development of knowledge in a set of different industries.

Avoidance of additional planning costs and disruption to economic development allows getting on with the job:


50

o The estimated costs of developing new economic development plans for

Fremantle and Melville could be as much as $300,000 when staff time is also taken into account. These costs and the time taken to develop them are likely to be much higher where there is less alignment between the economies of the

amalgamating entities. Delays and uncertainty in the business sector are potentially of greater significance than the direct costs of replacing the economic development strategies.

o The Cockburn Community Proposal provides an opportunity to create a new local government with lower risks to ongoing economic development and job creation as a result of the existing alignment between the two economies and the shared areas of strategic focus.

An amalgamated Cockburn-Kwinana will have a focus on reducing congestion to improve industry and business productivity:

o Traffic congestion represents a major threat to productivity, new investment and regional growth. The South West Group (2013) has estimated that traffic

congestion could be as much as $300 million rising to $450 million by 2020.

o Transport access to key industrial areas in Cockburn and Kwinana is and will be of


o Whilst the majority of transport congestion solutions are considered a State Government responsibility (9/13 of the key existing and future developments are in Cockburn/Kwinana), an amalgamated Cockburn-Kwinana will have a focus on industry, business and employment and therefore a higher motivation in reducing transport congestion through appropriate planning, advocacy and investment.

o Cockburn through its major capital projects has planned to spend $253.5M over the next 17 years to improve of road transport primarily aimed at the business community but also targeting traffic congestion for commuters.


51

6. Summary of Proposals

Even if a strong case could be made for the proposed disaggregation of the City of Cockburn, the State Government Proposal still represents a high risk approach which introduces significant additional complexity, challenges and uncertainty over alternative reform options. The Cockburn Community Proposal is simpler, less complex and less

disruptive.

Table 6.1. Selected Area Summary Comparison of Proposals


Reform Cost

Allocation Methodology Unknown Not required

Net Costs $95.1 million ($97.8) $24.3 million

Developer Contribution Scheme No method for allocation of existing contributions

Transferring suburbs no longer liable for contributions

Cockburn-Kwinana receives less developer contributions therefore shortfall in funding

Minimal impact

Stranded Assets Cockburn Administration Centre and Cockburn stranded

Need to be sold to provide funds for new civic assets

Upgrades or replacement of Community assets no longer funded

No change

Social Services Potential disruption to funding No change

Financial Sustainability

Financial Sustainability Immediately improves Kwinana (but does not allow for rate reductions)

Fremantle remains vulnerable and declining


Capacity to fund Kwinana residential rate reduction

Fremantle moves towards sustainable


Road Assets Reallocation of asset bases asset by asset

May result in mixed focus on reducing congestion and productivity increases

Consolidation of road network vital to productivity increases and industrial development

Civic Assets Cockburn Administration Centre surplus to requirements

Bibra Lake Depot surplus to requirements

Unknown asset allocation methodology

Either Cockburn Administration Centre as primary centre and Kwinana Administration Centre as southern service centre

Council Chambers moved to Cockburn Central

No change to depot

Residential Rate Impacts Dependent on new council but transferring Cockburn rates likely to increase substantially

Potential reduction to Kwinana residents

Commercial Rate Impacts Potential increase for Cockburn businesses transferring to Kwinana

Fremantle and Melville do not have existing rate categories. Therefore revenue at risk or new regime introduced

Potential reduction in rates for Kwinana businesses

Planning & Development

Development Planning Fremantle with a city focus acquires suburbs requiring different planning approach

Both Cockburn and Kwinana are greenfield orientated


52


Costs of New Planning Schemes Need new planning schemes at a higher cost and increased uncertainty for developers

Easier and cheaper to combine planning schemes providing more certainty for developers

Building Approvals Disaggregation of the Cockburn statutory building approval team and differing development focus of Fremantle and Melville may impact on building approvals development

Cockburn has the most efficient statutory building approval team providing certainty for developers

Developer Contribution Scheme Distribution of existing funds to new councils will create conflict and uncertainty with developers

May result in less community infrastructure or increase in rates to cover funding shortfalls

Time and effort required to establish new DCS schemes may delay provision of new community infrastructure

Minimal impact with only one project, North Foreshore Management Plan impacted

Community Planning All Community Plans will need to be redone by each new council (3)

Potential conflicts between urban and sub-urban approaches

Community Plans need to be redone by each new council (1)

Cockburn and Kwinana communities more aligned in regard to community planning

Costs of New Community Planning Strategies

Three new Strategic Community Plans required

Risk that transferring communities may not have a voice in council decision making

One new Community Plan required

Economic Growth

Economic Structure Fremantle and Melville have different economic structures than Cockburn

Cockburn and Kwinana have similar economic structures with strong industrial sectors

Economic Development Planning Fremantle and Melville have a different economic development focus and may struggle to balance the needs of industry with urban development

Similar economic structures enables a more focussed approach to economic development

Cost of New Economic Development Strategies

Three new Economic Development Strategies required

One new Economic Development Strategy required

Congestion The activity centre and public transport focus of Fremantle and Melville will reduce the priority for local road investment on the boundaries of the new local governments

Focus on industry, business and employment provides a high motivation to reduce transport congestion particularly for freight transport

Source: AECgroup

Analysis of the challenges facing the four local governments very clearly indicates the Cockburn Community Proposal offers a lower cost and lower risk solution which would

bring together two existing local governments with similar characteristics and facing very

similar challenges over the next twenty years.


53

7. Local Government Advisory Board Guiding Principles

The Cockburn Community Proposal rationales validated in this report directly rate to a number of the Local Government Advisory Board’s Guiding Principles for considering

changes to local government boundaries.

7.1 Matters Affecting the Viability of Local Governments

Local government should have a sufficient resource base:

to be able to efficiently and effectively exercise its proper functions and delegated

powers and operate facilities and services;

to be flexible and responsive in the exercise of its functions and powers and operation

of its facilities and services;

to employ appropriate professional expertise and skills; and

to be capable of embracing micro-economic reform.

Each local government should have a diverse and sufficient rate base to ensure that general purpose grants do not represent the major revenue source.

The Cockburn Community Proposal will provide a stronger financial sustainability base for the whole of the Cockburn-Kwinana community. The larger organisation will broaden the workforce resource and provide opportunities to improve efficiencies from the shared deployment of the operational asset base. Both communities have a similar revenue and rate base, with segmentation of revenue streams representative of the residential, commercial and industrial mix of the local government area, and therefore will provide minimum rate risk and uncertainty for both the community and the council.

7.2 Effective Delivery of Local Government Services

A broad range of factors can be relevant to the effective delivery of local government services and these are often directly relevant to those that also affect the viability of local governments. They include:

the size and geographical spread of the population;

management effectiveness and efficiency;

the availability of staff expertise;

appropriate infrastructure and equipment; and

customer satisfaction and feedback.

The focus of service delivery across the Cockburn-Kwinana amalgamated LGA with

service hubs established in northern, central and southern locations will ensure access to services at current levels is maintained. The similarity in the profiles of the communities, with a mixture of existing and new communities will ensure service and infrastructure

provision for current and future ratepayers will be addressed.

7.3 Economic Factors

Economic factors can include any factor that reflects the character of economic activities and resources in the area including:

industries within the local area;

distribution of community assets; and

infrastructure.

There are clear parallels between the structure of the economies of Cockburn and

Kwinana (mining, manufacturing, construction). Both local government areas have strong


54

industrial sectors while the economies of Melville and Fremantle are more diverse and

have a greater contribution from the services sector. Fremantle is particularly focussed on opportunities from CBD redevelopment and tourism.

Furthermore, Cockburn and Kwinana contain the Western Trade Coast, Bibra Lake

Industrial area and Jandakot airport. They also have significant industrial expansion areas vital for the economic growth of Western Australia. It makes sense for these areas to be under the same pro-industry local authority so that economic development and productivity improvements through infrastructure provision and be seamlessly planned (especially to address congestion).

7.4 Transport & Communication

The transport and communications linkages between towns and other areas may be a significant barrier to movement and therefore an appropriate boundary between local governments.

Consideration of the following factors is important in any assessment of local government

boundaries:

port access;

neighbouring towns;

railways; and

major roads.

A Cockburn-Kwinana amalgamation will contain one specialised activity centre (Jandakot Airport) and two secondary centres (Cockburn Central and Kwinana). Whilst there are

few barriers to transport linkages between these centres (Kwinana Freeway, Roe Highway, passenger rail) there is growing traffic congestion. There is also a need to improve east west linkages especially for road and rail freight transport between current and future industrial areas.

Although transport planning is mainly a State Government responsibility a pro-industry

local government will be accommodating and will be able to further benefit from such transport improvements through integrated land planning (including its own roads) and

economic development aimed at improving productivity (travel time savings, local job creation).


55

References

AECgroup (2013). City of Kwinana Draft Economic Development Framework. AECgroup, Western Australia, Perth.

AECgroup (2012). SEE Regional Index 2012. AECgroup, Queensland, Brisbane.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013). Building Approvals, Australia. Cat. No. 8731.0.

ABS, Canberra.

Cockburn Community Steering Group (2013). Cockburn Community Proposal to the Local Government Advisory Board to establish the City of Cockburn – Kwinana, November 2013. Western Australia, Perth.

City of Cockburn (2010). Cockburn Community Development: Strategic Plan 2011-2014. City of Cockburn, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Cockburn (2011a). Strategic Community Plan 2012-2022. City of Cockburn,

Western Australia, Perth.

City of Cockburn (2011b). Cockburn Local Planning Strategy. City of Cockburn, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Cockburn (2011c). Cockburn District Traffic Strategy. City of Cockburn, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Cockburn (2012). Annual Report 2011/12. City of Cockburn, Western Australia,

Perth.

City of Cockburn (2013a). Budget 2013/14. City of Cockburn, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Cockburn (2013b). City of Cockburn Corporate Business Plan 2012/13-2016/17. City of Cockburn, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Cockburn (2013c). City of Cockburn Major Projects 2013 to 2030. City of Cockburn, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Cockburn (2013d). City of Cockburn Sustainability Strategy 2013-2017. City of

Cockburn, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Fremantle (2001). Fremantle Planning Strategy. City of Fremantle, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Fremantle (2010). Fremantle Economic Development Strategy 2011-2015. City of Fremantle, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Fremantle (2012). Annual Report 2011-12. City of Fremantle, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Fremantle (2013a). Budget for the Year Ended 30th June 2014. City of Fremantle, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Fremantle (2013b). 2010-15 Strategic Plan: Community Update March 2013. City of Fremantle, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Kwinana (2003). Local Planning Strategy. City of Kwinana, Western Australia,

Perth.

City of Kwinana (2012). Financial Statements 2011-2012. City of Kwinana, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Kwinana (2013a). Adopted Budget 2013-2014. City of Kwinana, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Kwinana (2013b). Plan for the Future. City of Kwinana, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Melville (2008). The City of Melville’s Plan for the Future: 2008-2012. City of Melville, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Melville (2008). Draft Local Planning Strategy Community Engagement Report. City of Melville, Western Australia, Perth.


56

City of Melville (2012a). Annual Financial Report 2011-2012. City of Melville, Western

Australia, Perth.

City of Melville (2012b). People, Places, Participation 2012-2022: A strategic community plan for the City of Melville. City of Melville, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Melville (2013a). Budget 2013-2014. City of Melville, Western Australia, Perth.

City of Melville (2013b). Local Planning Scheme Information. City of Melville, Western Australia, Perth. Available from: http://www.melvillecity.com.au/index.php/component/alfrescocontent/?nodeid=c492c42d-aecf-43eb-aea2-bf9d2ca4a26f Accessed 11 December 2013.

Department of Local Government and Communities (2013a). State Government Model for Metropolitan Local Governments July 2013. Available from:

www.metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au. Accessed 2nd December 2013.

Department of Local Government and Communities (2013b). State Government Model for Metropolitan Local Governments November 2013. Available from:

www.metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au. Accessed 2nd December 2013.

Local Government Advisory Board (2013). Guiding Principles. Available from: http://dlg.wa.gov.au/Content/LG/AdvisoryBoard/. Accessed 28th November 2013.

Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel (2012a). Metropolitan Local Government Review – Final report of the Independent Panel. Available from: http://metroreview.dlg.wa.gov.au/Page.aspx?PID=DraftFindings. Accessed 28th November 2013.

Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel (2012b). Metropolitan Local Government Review – Financial Position Review May 30, 2012.

Planning Western Australia (2010a). Central Metropolitan Sub-regional Strategy.

Available from: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/762.asp. Accessed 3rd December 2013.

Planning Western Australia (2010b). Directions 2031 and Beyond, Metropolitan Panning Beyond the Horizon. Available from:

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/826.asp. Accessed 3rd December 2013.

Planning Western Australia (2010c). South-West Metropolitan Sub-regional Strategy.

Available from: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/990.asp. Accessed 3rd December 2013.

Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (2007). Transferring Areas Allocation Methodology. Available from: http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/guideline/local-government/transferring-areas-allocation-methodology.pdf. Accessed 9th December 2013.

Queensland Treasury Corporation (2009). Review of Local Government Amalgamation Costs Funding Submissions – Final Summary Report. Available from: http://services.dip.qld.gov.au/opendata/RTI/dlgcrr/rti137/Documents%20for%20release%20-%20RTI137.PDF. Accessed 4th December 2013.

Queensland Treasury Corporation (2012). De-amalgamation Analysis of Sunshine Coast Regional Council. Available from: http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/report/local-government/bc/noosa-qtc-

report.pdf. Accessed 9th December 2013.

Regional Development Australia (2012). Perth Regional Plan. Available from: http://www.rdaperth.com.au/publications. Accessed 3rd December 2013.

South West Group (2013). Congestion Strategy for the South West Metropolitan Region. Draft discussion paper for comments, 4 July 2013.

Tiley, I. (2009), Structural Reform in Australian Local Government, Working Paper Series 06-2009, Centre for Local Government, University of New England, Armidale.

Town of East Fremantle (2012). Annual Report Town of East Fremantle for the Year ending 30 June 2012. Town of East Fremantle, Western Australia, Perth.

http://www.melvillecity.com.au/index.php/component/alfrescocontent/?nodeid=c492c42d-aecf-43eb-aea2-bf9d2ca4a26f

http://www.melvillecity.com.au/index.php/component/alfrescocontent/?nodeid=c492c42d-aecf-43eb-aea2-bf9d2ca4a26f

http://www.metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au/

http://www.metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au/

http://dlg.wa.gov.au/Content/LG/AdvisoryBoard/

http://metroreview.dlg.wa.gov.au/Page.aspx?PID=DraftFindings

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/762.asp



http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/guideline/local-government/transferring-areas-allocation-methodology.pdf

http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/guideline/local-government/transferring-areas-allocation-methodology.pdf

http://services.dip.qld.gov.au/opendata/RTI/dlgcrr/rti137/Documents%20for%20release%20-%20RTI137.PDF

http://services.dip.qld.gov.au/opendata/RTI/dlgcrr/rti137/Documents%20for%20release%20-%20RTI137.PDF

http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/report/local-government/bc/noosa-qtc-report.pdf

http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/report/local-government/bc/noosa-qtc-report.pdf

http://www.rdaperth.com.au/publications


57

Town of East Fremantle (2013). 2013/14 Budget. Town of East Fremantle, Western

Australia, Perth.

Town of Kwinana (2012). Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023. City of Kwinana, Western Australia, Perth.


58

Appendix A: Queensland Transferring Areas Allocation Methodology

Guiding Principles Applied

The Transferring Areas Methodology included a set of guiding principles which included:

The transfer of assets is made regardless of perceived past investments made by ratepayers and the State.

There is no compensatory aspect to the transfer process.

If assets are essential to service delivery, long term shared use arrangements should

be developed including a cost recovery model based on annual operations and maintenance costs for the shared facilities.

The transfer of employees should be fair and equitable to employees, and result in a manageable workforce for the Councils involved while recognising:

o Service delivery levels should be maintained or enhanced; and

o As far as possible, the locations at which local government employees perform their work should not be changed.

Transfer of Employees

The Transferring Areas Methodology made specific recommendations on the transfer of employees:

Employment security for local government employees should be maximised and staff

should be retained to the maximum extent achievable

There should be no overall reduction in working conditions for any employee or overall disadvantage to an employee in relation to the employee’s working conditions.

Transfers can only occur where a person can reasonably travel to and from home on a daily basis to the new work location and this does not cause undue hardship to the employee.

Where an employee’s work headquarters changes as a result of the reforms, and that

employee is required to travel an excessive distance as a result of that change, the employee shall be entitled to a travel allowance.

Where someone is not able to genuinely transfer, Voluntary Redundancy is a last resort option following exhaustion of other redeployment options such as deployment to another position, re-training, re-skilling etc.

Staff will not be financially disadvantaged when participating in any re-training,

reskilling or other transitional strategies.

Assets and Liabilities

Physical assets can either individually or cumulative involve very large sums. The transfer of these assets was guided by the following principles:

The physical assets within transferring areas will also transfer, physical location is based on the origin /source location of the physical asset. Networked infrastructure managed as a network is to be allocated based on the source /origin of the network.

Moveable plant and equipment is to be allocated based on the service requirements of the transferring area and with reference to the service capacities of the receiving council.

Liabilities associated with the transferring areas are to be subject to estimation for

the purposes of being netted off against the estimated value of other assets associated with the transferring areas.


59

The general principle with the allocation of other assets is that the allocation is to be

based on the nature of the underlying transaction in each instance. Where the underlying transaction is related to physical assets or staff, the allocation will be made on the same basis. Proportional apportionments shall be made with reference to a base that reflects

the nature of the transaction.


60

Appendix B: Community Infrastructure Contribution Schedule

Table B.1. City of Cockburn Community Infrastructure Contribution Schedule 2013-14

Ref Description State Govt Prop

Est Cost Du's Existing

Du's DCA

DCA Cont Atwell Aubin Grove/ Banjup South

Banjup North Beeliar

$ % % $m % $ % $ % $ % $

Regional

1 Coogee Surf Club Fremantle 7,626,000 57.211 42.789 3,263,089 2.148 70,091 8.765 286,010 0.619 20,199 7.179 234,257

2 Wetlands Ed/Native Arc Melville 2,500,000 57.211 42.789 1,069,725 2.148 22,978 8.765 93,761 0.619 6,622 7.179 76,796

3 Cockburn Central Recn and Aquatic Centre Cockburn 82,000,000 57.211 42.789 35,086,980 2.148 753,668 8.765 3,075,374 0.619 217,188 7.179 2,518,894

4 Cockburn Central Community Facilities Cockburn 2,535,500 57.211 42.789 1,084,915 2.148 23,304 8.765 95,093 0.619 6,716 7.179 77,886

5 Visko Park Bowling and Recreation club Cockburn 7,500,000 57.211 42.789 3,209,175 2.148 68,933 8.765 281,284 0.619 19,865 7.179 230,387

6 Coogee Golf Complex Fremantle 10,000,000 57.211 42.789 4,278,900 2.148 91,911 8.765 375,046 0.619 26,486 7.179 307,182

7 Bibra Lake Management Plan Melville 13,640,000 57.211 42.789 5,836,420 2.148 125,366 8.765 511,562 0.619 36,127 7.179 418,997

8 Atwell Oval Cockburn 750,000 57.211 42.789 320,918 2.148 6,893 8.765 28,128 0.619 1,986 7.179 23,039

14 North Coogee Foreshore Management Plan Fremantle 1,300,000 57.211 42.789 556,257 2.148 11,948 8.765 48,756 0.619 3,443 7.179 39,934

Cockburn Coast Foreshore Reserve Fremantle 18,000,000 57.211 42.789 7,702,020 2.148 165,439 8.765 675,082 0.619 47,676 7.179 552,928

Cockburn Coast Beach Parking Fremantle 178,799 57.211 42.789 76,506 2.148 1,643 8.765 6,706 0.619 474 7.179 5,492

Sub Regional

9 Cockburn Central Library and Community Cockburn 15,750,000 51.428 48.572 7,650,090 4.004 306,310 16.341 1,250,101 1.154 88,282

10 Cockburn Central Playing Fields Cockburn 6,000,000 51.428 48.572 2,914,320 4.004 116,689 16.341 476,229 1.154 33,631

11 Anning Park - Tennis Cockburn 3,090,000 51.428 48.572 1,500,875 4.004 60,095 16.341 245,258 1.154 17,320

12 Cockburn Heritage Park Cockburn 226,372 51.428 48.572 109,953 4.004 4,403 16.341 17,967 1.154 1,269

13 Bicycle Network East Mel/Coc 2,896,965 51.428 48.572 1,407,114 4.004 56,341 16.341 229,936 1.154 16,238

15 Seniors & Life Long Learning Centre Fremantle 17,000,000 61.912 38.088 6,474,960 15.485 1,002,648

16 Beale Park Sports Facilities Fremantle 5,000,000 61.912 38.088 1,904,400 15.485 294,896

17 Western Suburbs Skate Park Fremantle 350,000 61.912 38.088 133,308 15.485 20,643

18 Bicycle Network West Fre/Mel/Coc 3,895,846 61.912 38.088 1,483,850 15.485 229,774

19 Dixon Reserve/Wally Hagen Fremantle 5,000,000 61.912 38.088 1,904,400 15.485 294,896

Local

20 Lakelands Reserve Cockburn 2,500,000 43.560 56.440 1,411,000

21 Southwell Community Centre Fremantle 750,000 84.290 15.710 117,825

22 Hammond Park Recreation Facility (Comp) Cockburn 900,000 24.733 75.267 677,403

23 Frankland Park Rcn & Community Cockburn 3,000,000 24.733 75.267 2,258,010

24 Munster Recreation Facility Cockburn 1,000,000 61.260 38.740 387,400

Banjup Playing Field Cockburn 3,965,392 30.957 69.043 2,737,826 96.156 2,632,584

Banjup Community Centre Cockburn 4,827,046 30.957 69.043 3,332,737 96.156 3,204,627

Cockburn Coast Sports Oval and Clubroom Fremantle 13,368,090 20.463 79.537 10,632,578

Administration 80,750 100.000 80,750 2.148 1,735 8.765 7,078 0.619 500 7.179 5,797

Total 235,630,760 109,603,703 1,887,748 7,703,372 6,381,232 6,334,445

Future dwellings

23,041 391 1,678 2,151 1,277

Cost per Dwelling $4,757 $4,585 4,556 2,964 4,713


61

Table B.1. City of Cockburn Community Infrastructure Contribution Schedule 2013-14 - continued

Ref Description Bibra Lake West Bibra Lake East Coogee/ North Coogee

Coolbellup Hamilton Hill Hammond Park/ Wattleup/Henderson

Jandakot

% $ % $ % $ % $ % $ $ % $

Regional

1 Coogee Surf Club 0.312 10,181 0.752 24,538 18.853 615,190 1.191 38,863 4.387 143,152 14.410 470,211 0.440 14,358

2 Wetlands Ed/Native Arc 0.312 3,338 0.752 8,044 18.853 201,675 1.191 12,740 4.387 46,929 14.410 154,147 0.440 4,707

3 Cockburn Central Recn and Aquatic Centre 0.312 109,471 0.752 263,854 18.853 6,614,948 1.191 417,886 4.387 1,539,266 14.410 5,056,034 0.440 154,383

4 Cockburn Central Community Facilities 0.312 3,385 0.752 8,159 18.853 204,539 1.191 12,921 4.387 47,595 14.410 156,336 0.440 4,774

5 Visko Park Bowling and Recreation club 0.312 10,013 0.752 24,133 18.853 605,026 1.191 38,221 4.387 140,787 14.410 462,442 0.440 14,120

6 Coogee Golf Complex 0.312 13,350 0.752 32,177 18.853 806,701 1.191 50,962 4.387 187,715 14.410 616,589 0.440 18,827

7 Bibra Lake Management Plan 0.312 18,210 0.752 43,890 18.853 1,100,340 1.191 69,512 4.387 256,044 14.410 841,028 0.440 25,680

8 Atwell Oval 0.312 1,001 0.752 2,413 18.853 60,503 1.191 3,822 4.387 14,079 14.410 46,244 0.440 1,412

14 North Coogee Foreshore Management Plan 0.312 1,736 0.752 4,183 18.853 104,871 1.191 6,625 4.387 24,403 14.410 80,157 0.440 2,448

Cockburn Coast Foreshore Reserve 0.312 24,030 0.752 57,919 18.853 1,452,062 1.191 91,731 4.387 337,888 14.410 1,109,861 0.440 33,889

Cockburn Coast Beach Parking 0.312 239 0.752 575 18.853 14,424 1.191 911 4.387 3,356 14.410 11,025 0.440 337

Sub Regional

9 Cockburn Central Library and Community 1.401 107,178 26.866 2,055,273 0.820 62,731

10 Cockburn Central Playing Fields 1.401 40,830 26.866 782,961 0.820 23,897

11 Anning Park - Tennis 1.401 21,027 26.866 403,225 0.820 12,307

12 Cockburn Heritage Park 1.401 1,540 26.866 29,540 0.820 902

13 Bicycle Network East 1.401 19,714 26.866 378,035 0.820 11,538

15 Seniors & Life Long Learning Centre 0.673 43,576 40.662 2,632,848 2.570 166,406 9.463 612,725

16 Beale Park Sports Facilities 0.673 12,817 40.662 774,367 2.570 48,943 9.463 180,213

17 Western Suburbs Skate Park 0.673 897 40.662 54,206 2.570 3,426 9.463 12,615

18 Bicycle Network West 0.673 9,986 40.662 603,363 2.570 38,135 9.463 140,417

19 Dixon Reserve/Wally Hagen 0.673 12,817 40.662 774,367 2.570 48,943 9.463 180,213

Local

20 Lakelands Reserve

21 Southwell Community Centre 117,825

22 Hammond Park Recreation Facility (Comp) 677,403

23 Frankland Park Rcn & Community 2,258,010

24 Munster Recreation Facility

Banjup Playing Field 3.844 105,242

Banjup Community Centre 3.844 128,110

Cockburn Coast Sports Oval and Clubroom 79.537 10,632,578

Administration 0.312 252 0.752 607 18.853 15,224 1.191 962 4.387 3,543 14.410 11,636 0.440 355

Total 275,298 660,782 27,267,232 1,051,011 3,988,764 15,600,159 620,017

Future dwellings 54 145 6,439 129 684 2,709 86

Cost per Dwelling 4,836 4,532 4,138 5,806 5,314 $5,610.89 $7,209.50


62

Table B.1. City of Cockburn Community Infrastructure Contribution Schedule 2013-14 - continued

Ref Description Leeming Munster North Lake South Lake/ Cockburn Central

Spearwood Success Yangebup

% $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $

Regional

1 Coogee Surf Club 0.123 4,014 4.495 146,676 0.573 18,698 16.716 545,458 5.165 168,539 9.665 315,378 4.208 137,311

2 Wetlands Ed/Native Arc 0.123 1,316 4.495 48,084 0.573 6,130 16.716 178,815 5.165 55,251 9.665 103,389 4.208 45,014

3 Cockburn Central Recn and Aquatic Centre 0.123 43,157 4.495 1,577,160 0.573 201,048 16.716 5,865,140 5.165 1,812,243 9.665 3,391,157 4.208 1,476,460

4 Cockburn Central Community Facilities 0.123 1,334 4.495 48,767 0.573 6,217 16.716 181,354 5.165 56,036 9.665 104,857 4.208 45,653

5 Visko Park Bowling and Recreation club 0.123 3,947 4.495 144,252 0.573 18,389 16.716 536,446 5.165 165,754 9.665 310,167 4.208 135,042

6 Coogee Golf Complex 0.123 5,263 4.495 192,337 0.573 24,518 16.716 715,261 5.165 221,005 9.665 413,556 4.208 180,056

7 Bibra Lake Management Plan 0.123 7,179 4.495 262,347 0.573 33,443 16.716 975,616 5.165 301,451 9.665 564,090 4.208 245,597

8 Atwell Oval 0.123 395 4.495 14,425 0.573 1,839 16.716 53,645 5.165 16,575 9.665 31,017 4.208 13,504

14 North Coogee Foreshore Management Plan 0.123 684 4.495 25,004 0.573 3,187 16.716 92,984 5.165 28,731 9.665 53,762 4.208 23,407

Cockburn Coast Foreshore Reserve 0.123 9,473 4.495 346,206 0.573 44,133 16.716 1,287,470 5.165 397,809 9.665 744,400 4.208 324,101

Cockburn Coast Beach Parking 0.123 94 4.495 3,439 0.573 438 16.716 12,789 5.165 3,952 9.665 7,394 4.208 3,219

Sub Regional

9 Cockburn Central Library and Community 0.229 17,519 31.166 2,384,227 18.019 1,378,470

10 Cockburn Central Playing Fields 0.229 6,674 31.166 908,277 18.019 525,131

11 Anning Park - Tennis 0.229 3,437 31.166 467,763 18.019 270,443

12 Cockburn Heritage Park 0.229 252 31.166 34,268 18.019 19,813

13 Bicycle Network East 0.229 3,222 31.166 438,541 18.019 253,548

15 Seniors & Life Long Learning Centre 9.695 627,747 1.235 79,966 11.140 721,311 9.077 587,732

16 Beale Park Sports Facilities 9.695 184,632 1.235 23,519 11.140 212,150 9.077 172,862

17 Western Suburbs Skate Park 9.695 12,924 1.235 1,646 11.140 14,851 9.077 12,100

18 Bicycle Network West 9.695 143,859 1.235 18,326 11.140 165,301 9.077 134,689

19 Dixon Reserve/Wally Hagen 9.695 184,632 1.235 23,519 11.140 212,150 9.077 172,862

Local

20 Lakelands Reserve 56.440 1,411,000

21 Southwell Community Centre

22 Hammond Park Recreation Facility (Comp)

23 Frankland Park Rcn & Community

24 Munster Recreation Facility 387,400

Banjup Playing Field

Banjup Community Centre

Cockburn Coast Sports Oval and Clubroom

Administration 0.123 99 4.495 3,630 0.573 463 16.716 13,498 5.165 4,171 9.665 7,804 4.208 3,398

Total 108,059 4,353,520 505,478 16,102,551 4,557,278 8,494,375 3,713,009

Future dwellings 24 750 106 3,109 765 1,759 785

Cost per Dwelling 4,502 $5,365.97 $4,719.80 $4,992.09 5,376 4,744 4,642

Source: City of Cockburn (2011b)


63

Appendix C: Local Planning Strategy Summary

City of Cockburn

Table C.1. City of Cockburn Local Planning Strategy

Strategic Area Actions

Transportation Maximise development near public transport routes. Provide for a safe and efficient network of local and arterial roads facilitating access and the distribution of traffic through the area. Minimise trip lengths in order to maximise local convenience and minimise the environmental impacts of private care users. Encourage cycling by defining and implementing cycle networks and promoting the provision of end-of-trip facilities. Investigate the extension of the commuter rail network from Jandakot to Fremantle.

Urban Development Undertake Strategic Planning by the preparation and implementation of structure plans.

Commercial Development Implement a system of centres ranging from regional to district and neighbourhood centres to be the focus of commercial and community activity.

Industrial Development Make adequate provision for industrial development. Investigate strategic sites for the location of Technology Parks. Investigate the extension of the commuter rail network from Jandakot to Fremantle. Encourage existing industry to adopt state of the art technologies to minimise environmental impacts.

Rural Development Conserve a landbank of rural land to act as a 'Greenbelt' between urban areas and the Kwinana Industrial Strip and to provide opportunities for productive rural activities, rural living and the extraction of basic raw materials.

Preserve existing lot sizes in Rural areas zoned 'Urban Deferred' under the Metropolitan Region Scheme to promote orderly urban development.

Ground Water Protection Ensure that land use strategies are limited to protect groundwater resources.

Basic Raw Materials Protect the potential for extraction of basic raw materials within the rural zone. Improve the level of compliance by Extractive Industry operators with rehabilitation and other conditions of Planning Approval.

Public Purpose Sites Ensure that the Scheme reflects existing and future land requirements for infrastructure provided by public agencies. Ensure that public purpose community purpose sites are identified in Structure Plans/Development Plans.

Open Space Maintain the amount of local open space per capita. Improve the quality, amenity and accessibility of local and region open space.

Buffers Ensure that uses emitting dust, noise or odours are adequately buffered from residential areas. Reduce the extent of land adversely affected by industrial or public utility based buffers.

Employment Promote service sector employment by ensuring an adequate provision of appropriately zoned land for office and small business development.

Promote increased employment self-sufficiency by providing appropriately zoned land for businesses in accessible locations. Improve the appearance of industrial areas in order to promote their potential to attract new businesses.


64


Environment Ensure that wetlands are protected. Address remnant bushland protection. Conserve fauna habitats. Encourage recycling and ensure that sufficient land is allocated for composting and recycling centres. Seek to stabilise the local production of greenhouse gas emitters in the district. Adopt an integrated approach to 'sustainable development'.

Heritage Enhance local identity and character by preserving buildings and places with historic, architectural, scientific or scenic value.

Coastal Development To encourage appropriate forms of development on and adjacent to the coast, enhance possible recreational use and public access consistent with the protection of coastal areas.

Preserve the landscape value of coastal landforms.

Source: City of Cockburn (2011b)


65

City of Kwinana

Table C.2. City of Kwinana Local Planning Strategy


Housing Strategy To define an appropriate residential density pattern, that guides the provision of a variety of housing styles in new areas and permits redevelopment of established areas. It is also to enable increased residential densities in the vicinity of key centres and transport nodes and to enable such redevelopment to occur in an orderly manner, which preserves the positive attributes of the established residential areas.

Rural Strategy To define within the context of the “rural wedges” defined under Metroplan and previously the “Corridor Plan for Perth”, a land use pattern for the rural areas of the municipality which accommodates agriculture, basic raw materials extraction and associated rural land use demand within the limits of environmental and resource constraints and which preserves the open rural landscape. It is also necessary to control rural land use in such a way, as to enable clearly defined future urban areas, to occur in a planned and orderly manner, while maximising the use of the land in the interim and minimising land use conflict.

Industrial Strategy To facilitate industrial development within the Kwinana Industrial Area and in locations throughout the municipality consistent with State and Regional objectives, while preserving the residential health and amenity of existing and planned residential areas within the limits of environmental constraints.

Commercial Centres Strategy To identify the location and size of Commercial Centres within the municipality consistent with the hierarchy of centres defined in the Metropolitan Centres Policy (Statement of Planning Policy No.9). Such Centres are intended to accommodate retail, commercial, administrative and community facilities in locations that are convenient and accessible to the surrounding residential populations and to provide an appropriate level of service in the context of the hierarchy of centres.

Transport Strategy To identify long term and short term road networks, that are complementary to the planned land use pattern for the municipality and also complement regional transport road network objectives. This includes the identification of new road linkages particularly in developing areas and includes changes to the existing local, district and regional road networks, which will satisfy both local and regional transport objectives.

Environmental and Landscape Protection To manage development within the study area in a manner which preserves natural resources and balances the protection of environmental qualities and the needs of the development industry.

Open Space and Recreation To ensure the level of provision and distribution of Local Open Space, is sufficient to meet the Community’s needs in the context of the range of recreation types and the accessibility of these sites.

Heritage To preserve places and structures of aboriginal and European cultural heritage significance to the community within the Municipal Area.

Source: Town of Kwinana (2003)


66

City of Fremantle

Table C.3. City of Fremantle Local Planning Strategy


Planning for Community and Culture Goal 1: To accommodate a diverse mix of people, cultures and lifestyles. Goal 2: To ensure the community has access to an adequate range of services and facilities. Goal 3: To provide greater housing choice to cater for a diverse and sustainable population. Goal 4: To ensure development promotes a sense of community and encourages participation in community life. Goal 5: To promote a safe and healthy environment.

Planning for Urban Form and Public Spaces Goal 1: To protect and conserve Fremantle’s unique cultural heritage. Goal 2: All development compliments and contributes to the community’s desired identity and character for Fremantle. Goal 3: To develop diverse and attractive local centres that provide a community focus for neighbourhood areas. Goal 4: To develop a diverse and attractive city centre that functions as a town centre and a regional centre. Goal 5: To encourage the development of business and employment generating activities in appropriate locations. Goal 6: To ensure urban form and development contribute to sustainability (environmental, social/cultural and economic). Goal 7: To provide safe and accessible open spaces.

Planning for Access and Movement Goal 1: To promote management of regional traffic that contributes positively to the community and landscape and minimises the impact of regional traffic flows.

Goal 2: To integrate planning for land use and transport to achieve sustainable urban development. Goal 3: To reduce reliance on, and the impact of, private motor vehicles. Goal 4: To reduce the demand for and balance the provision of parking, to ensure convenient access while promoting economic,

environmental and social sustainability. Goal 5: To encourage the use of public transport and promote Fremantle as a major public transport node. Goal 6: To promote and enhance the pedestrian and cycling transport modes. Goal 7: To ensure universal access to buildings, spaces, services and facilities for all people.

Source: City of Fremantle (2013a)


67

City of Melville

Table C.4. City of Melville Local Planning Strategy


Development and Population To enhance the character and amenity of existing residential areas. To integrate planning for land use and transport to achieve sustainable urban development. To accommodate a sustainable and diverse mix of people, cultures, ages and lifestyles. Support housing choice and variety in neighbourhoods to match changing household needs with community identity and high levels of

amenity. To promote a high standard of development. Provide a sustainable built urban environment.

Environment and Heritage To have a healthy and sustainable local environment that makes a positive contribution towards the broader environment and ensure development complies with legislative requirements.

To ensure that the natural environmental values of the City are protected and conserved for existing and future generations. Contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity for the preservation of our natural flora and fauna. Use natural resources sustainably to reduce our ecological footprint. To ensure urban form and development contribute to sustainability (economic, social and environmental), promote efficient resource

use and minimisation of energy and waste. To protect significant natural landscapes and remnant vegetation. To protect and conserve Melville’s significant built heritage and

Aboriginal cultural heritage. To promote a safe, secure and healthy environment for the community. To protect and promote places of cultural heritage significance within the City including significant sites, buildings, structures, trees

and landscape elements.

Open Space and Recreation To enhance existing public open space and extend such space in appropriate locations. To provide a variety of safe, natural and structured opportunities for recreation. To maintain, increase and improve where required the quantity, quality, amenity and accessibility of regional and local open space in

accordance with the recommendations of the City’s Open Space Strategy.

Economy To have a strong, vibrant, diversified and sustainable local and regional economy with a range of business and employment opportunities.

To ensure access to different levels and types of retail and commercial activity and employment opportunities to promote a more liveable City in accordance with Directions 2031 and beyond and Liveable Neighbourhoods Community Design Code Principles.

To provide a transport system that will contribute to the quality of life and economic development of the City of Melville with minimum adverse effects on residents and the natural environment.

To ensure that appropriate utilities are provided on time and in a sustainable manner to suit the City’s growing needs. To protect and promote appropriate tourism opportunities within the City having regard to amenity and the environment. Enhance and maintain a business friendly environment. Have vibrant and diverse commercial centres that meet community and regional needs that provide a range of employment

opportunities and accommodate a range of uses by nurturing existing and encouraging new and diverse industries and business. To encourage the Melville City Centre to grow and evolve into a centre with a multitude of high order commercial, office, civic and

entertainment land uses and activities servicing the municipality and the region. To develop diverse and attractive local centres providing a community focus for neighbourhood areas.

Community To ensure citizens can lead a safe, healthy active life with opportunities to participate in social and cultural activities. To ensure the community has access to an adequate range of services and facilities to meet their needs.


68


To ensure development promotes a sense of community and encourages participation in community life. To ensure all development complements and contributes to the communities desired identity and character for Melville. To facilitate and encourage effective public involvement in issues of significance to the character, amenity and environmental attributes

of the city.

Transport and Infrastructure To promote management of regional traffic that contributes positively to the community and landscape and minimises the impact of regional traffic movements.

To encourage the reduction in reliance on, and impact of, private motor vehicles usage. To reduce the demand for, and balance the provision of parking in commercial centres and encourage use of public transport. To promote and enhance the pedestrian and cycling transport modes. To achieve an efficient and equitable relationship between land uses and available utility services. To promote a high level of amenity and environmental quality in the supply of required utility services. To promote the compatible use of land surrounding essential infrastructure. To promote sustainable transport options. Provide safe, affordable and effective transport modes available for all sectors of the community.

Source: City of Melville (2008)


69

Appendix D: Community Plans

City of Cockburn

The City of Cockburn’s community vision (City of Cockburn 2011a) is to:

“Build on the solid foundations that our history has provided to ensure that the Cockburn of the future will be the most attractive place to live, work, visit and invest in, within the Perth Metropolitan area.”

The strategy has several strategic themes for promoting community development.

Table D.1. Themes and Activities from Cockburn Strategic Community Plan

Strategy/ Themes Activities

Growing the City. Cater for a population expansion of around 25,000 new residents and increase the amount of serviced industrial land.

Sustainably growing the city by ensuring that strategic planning principles are in place and embraced Delivery of urban revitalisation strategies, town planning schemes and other strategic planning frameworks Working with stakeholders to establish, renew or expand commercial centres (including provision of education and technology)

Community and Lifestyles. Provide residents with high quality services, safe places to recreate and interact, as well as activities for their leisure time.

Providing and facilitating quality community services Providing community activities, events and programs that draw a wide cross-section of the community. Supporting the development local community associations and other advocacy groups. Facilitating equal access for the community to facilities and services. Provide and facilitate initiatives that improve safety for our communities. Provide and promote activities, services and recreational facilities that encourage our community towards an active and healthy lifestyle. Recognise, engage, include and celebrate the significance and richness of local Indigenous and diverse multicultural groups. Protect the heritage of the City through advocacy, statutory controls, promotion and education.

A Prosperous City by creating opportunities for businesses to develop, helping people to access education and/or improve their skills and increase local employment and career opportunities.

Identify, target and facilitate sustainable development in Cockburn Central reflecting the status of a Strategic Regional Centre. Engaging stakeholders on the delivery of industrial, commercial and infrastructure projects. Ensure that the City’s sustainable development framework drives and enables diverse business investment and activities. Facilitate and promote economic development aligned to business centre growth. Identify initiatives and incentives to broaden the range of educational facilities, programs and partnerships. Develop and promote a strategy for the growth and leisure and tourism based activities.

Environment and sustainability. Protect, manage and enhance our unique natural habitats, manage our natural resources sustainably and minimise risks to human health.

Implement sustainable resource management strategies and promote sustainable practices within the community. Adopt best practice management of the natural environment. Develop a coastal area management strategy. Actively pursue remediation and adaptation strategies in areas where the natural environment is at risk. Implement human health risk management strategies. Review the Strategic Waste Management Strategy. Investigate and implement appropriate waste minimization programs and new technologies. Implement programs to reduce and manage the City’s and community’s carbon footprint. Implement energy management strategies.


70

Strategy/ Themes Activities

Infrastructure. Create and maintain sporting, educational, social facilities, waste and other civic requirements for our community.

Develop and implement a City infrastructure plan that meets current and future needs. Develop multi-use facilities that cater for all ages, abilities and cultures to promote community interaction. Develop infrastructure provision and renewal strategies that direct investment in ongoing infrastructure provision and management. Work in partnership with Federal and State Government and other key stakeholders to provide infrastructure. Develop and implement the branding strategy of the City across all our communities and services. Maintain urban art investment and other initiatives that create interesting community places and encourage creativity.

Moving around. Develop road, pedestrian and cycleway networks to facilitate the safe movement of people and goods. Advocate for improvements to the public transport system.

Develop and implement strategies to facilitate the efficient and sustainable movement of people and goods. Enhance the City’s public transport advocacy programs. Develop and implement walkway, bike and trails master plans. Develop and promote the City’s TravelSmart initiative. Identify and address safety issues across the transport networks. Develop a transport network that effectively caters for demand and growth across various modes. Work with stakeholders to identify a holistic regional approach to freight management. Work with stakeholders to provide and support end of journey facilities.

Leading and listening. Lead the community through an exercise of stewardship over the City’s assets and resources, and listen and engage with our residents and ratepayers.

Establish and maintain effective communication channels and processes. Advocate for the needs of the community and continue to progress opportunities for the City. Develop and manage relationships with key stakeholders. Determine community requirements and report on performance and outcomes. Ensure appropriate governance systems are in place. Identify and implement initiatives to improve customer service, business processes and innovation in service delivery. Develop a framework for continuous business process improvement. Continue to implement the long term Asset Management Plan to deliver sustainable asset management. Implement a long term Financial Plan to deliver a sustainable financial future. Attract, engage, develop and retain our staff in accordance with a long term Workplace Plan. Identify and manage corporate risk. Ensure active compliance with relevant legislation, policy and guidelines.

Source: City of Cockburn (2011a)


71

City of Kwinana

The vision for the Kwinana community (Town of Kwinana 2012) is:

“Rich in spirit, alive with opportunities, surrounded by nature – it’s all here!”

The Community Strategic Plan has four key themes and areas for action which are outlined below:

Theme 1: Rich in Spirit:

o Identity: Protect and enhance community identity.

o Events: Inspire and strengthen community spirit.

o Safety: Facilitate improved community safety and reduced crime levels.

o Programs and Activities: All sections of the community are supported by the provision of relevant community and human resource services.

o Capacity Building: Actively work with the community to build local capacity.

o Volunteers: Increase the prevalence of volunteering in Kwinana.

o Arts and Culture: Develop and celebrate arts and culture in Kwinana.

o Heritage: Preserve and promote Kwinana’s unique heritage.

o Disability Access and Inclusion: Improve levels of disability access and inclusion throughout the community.

Theme 2: Alive with Opportunities

o Employment: Residents have access to a large and varied range of job opportunities that are available locally.

o Education: The community has a choice of quality public and private facilities to meet their education and training needs throughout their life time.

o Retail and Commercial: The City Centre is home to a thriving range of specialty shops, restaurant and family entertainment venues and an active night-life while neighbourhood centres are revitalised.

o Industrial: The Western Trade Coast Industrial Precinct is developed in a timely and co-ordinated manner with maximum leverage being

gained from investments in new infrastructure.

o Strategy & Planning: Stimulate economic development and encourage diversification.

o Approval System: Provide a best practice development approval system that attracts and retains business investment in the area.

Theme 3: Nature – Preserve and Enhance

o Bushland and natural areas:

Improve conservation of biodiversity and protection of native vegetation.


72

Ensure high levels of environmental protection are achieved in new developments.

Educate and promote improved environmental and land management.

o Renewable Energy: Promote the use of renewable energy within the City of Kwinana and reduce energy use where possible.

o Water Management: Encourage and exercise best practice water management.

o Climate Change: Understand the impacts of climate change and take a risk management approach to addressing these effects in future planning.

Theme 4: It’s all here – Services, Facilities, Diverse Lifestyle

o Community Facilities: Residents are provided with a range of multifunctional community places and accessible recreation facilities.

o Parks and Public Open Spaces: The community has easy access to well-equipped, quality parks and public open spaces.

o Well Serviced: The Kwinana community is well serviced by government and non-government services.

o Well Planned: Create diverse places and spaces where people can enjoy a variety of lifestyles with high levels of amenity.

o Well Maintained: Actively improve the appearance of streetscapes throughout the City.

o Transport Network: To provide a safe and efficient integrated network of roads, footpaths and cycle routes supported by a good public transport system.


73

City of Fremantle

The Fremantle City Council adopted a new strategic plan (City of Fremantle 2013b) in June 2010 with an overall vision for:

“Fremantle to be recognised as a unique city of cultural and economic significance”.

The City of Fremantle has seven strategic objectives identified under its strategic community plan. These are:

Economic Development: Strengthen Fremantle’s economic capacity.

Urban Renewal and Integration: Provide a great place to live, work and play through growth and renewal.

Climate change and environment: Lead the provision of environmentally sustainable solutions for the benefit of current and future generations.

Transport: Lead the provision of environmentally and economically sustainable transport solutions.

Character: Sustain and grow arts and culture, and preserve the importance of our social capital, built heritage and history.

Community and Safety: Create a community where people feel safe in both public and private spaces.

Capability: Deliver on the achievement of our strategic imperatives through good governance, strong leadership, effective communication and excellence in delivery.


74

City of Melville

The City of Melville community vision (City of Melville 2012b) for the future is to be:

“A safe, liveable, prosperous and sustainable Melville where we enjoy high levels of health and wellbeing; where opportunities to participate in decisions are transparent and inclusive. Our communities are accountable for our actions now and in the future, our local cultures are respected and our natural spaces and built facilities are accessible to all who live, work and play in the City.”

Strategic aspirations for the community plan include:

Safe and secure:

o Safe attractive places where people want to live, work and participate.

o Create and maintain safe and secure communities.

Health lifestyles:

o Our communities have active and healthy lifestyles with good physical and mental wellbeing.

o Accessible and inclusive:

o An inclusive and accessible community.

o An age-friendly city.

Sense of community:

o Connected communities with a strong sense of belonging and community spirit.

o Our places and spaces are vibrant and lively; we celebrate the diversity of our community.

Involved and engaged:

o Opportunities and processes which allow for all voices to be heard.

o A strong democracy and effective partnerships.

Livable built environment:

o A connected and liveable urban environment.

o A built environment that reflects and enhances our sense of identity.

o A diverse range of high quality housing to meet the needs of current and future communities.

Clean and green environment:

o Our unique environment is maintained and enhanced.

o The impact of our homes and businesses on our natural environment is reduced.


75

o The impacts of climate change on our city and community are reduced.

Sustainable and connected transport:

o An integrated, sustainable and efficient transport system that connects our communities and our city.

o A transport system that supports strong economic activity.

Growth and prosperity:

o A prosperous city with access to a range of businesses and services.

o A workforce with the appropriate skills to access employment opportunities.


76

Appendix E: Economic Development Strategies

City of Cockburn

The City of Cockburn economic development strategy is currently under development but the guiding principles and strategic focus for the future economic growth of the area is already well understood and is mapped out in the Corporate Business Plan (2012/13 – 2016/17) (City of Cockburn 2013a). Council has established a set of economic development targets to be achieved over the ten years (by 2022):

The City will be more compact: made up of mixed use neighbourhoods integrated with industrial and commercial areas.

Cockburn Central will become a Strategic Regional Centre.

The City will have a diverse range of business activities, offering new employment and career opportunities.

There will be a variety of education facilities, programs and partnerships.

There will be various leisure and tourism destinations.

To deliver these outcomes, six strategic objectives have been established:

Growing the City:

1.5: Investment in industrial and commercial areas, provide employment, careers and increase economic capacity in the City

A Prosperous City:

3.1 Development that ensures Cockburn Central becomes a Strategic Regional Centre.

3.2 Investment in the local economy to achieve a broad base of services and

activities.

3.3 Promotion and support for the growth and sustainability of local businesses and local business centres.

3.4 A range of leading educational facilities and opportunities.

3.5 Creation and promotion of opportunities for destination based leisure and tourism

facilities.

The delivery of these six strategic objectives is evidenced by the level of economic development activity engaged in and stimulated by Cockburn including:

Development Area 33 - Cockburn Coast

Mixed Use development including Activity Centres, sporting field and predominantly high density residential (6-8 storey). 5,193 dwellings to accommodate 10,000 people.

Cockburn Coast District Structure Plan (Part 1 and 2):

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Cockburn_Coast/District_Structure_Plan/default.asp

Robb Jetty Local Structure Plan:

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Cockburn_Coast/Robb_Jetty_Local_Structure_Plan/default.asp

Emplacement Local Structure Plan:

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Cockb

urn_Coast/Emplacement_Local_Structure_Plan/default.asp

Rezonings and Local Planning Policy (Design Guidelines):

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Cockburn_Coast/Cockburn_Coast_Background/default.asp





http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Cockburn_Coast/Emplacement_Local_Structure_Plan/default.asp

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Cockburn_Coast/Emplacement_Local_Structure_Plan/default.asp




77

Development Contribution Plans:

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Cockburn_Coast/Development_Contributions_for_Cockburn_Coast/default.asp

Strategic Employment Centre - Latitude 32 (Hope Valley/Wattleup)

Covering over 1400ha, one of the nation’s largest and most significant industrial and commercial redevelopment projects.

Masterplan and District Structure Plan:

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Latitude_32/default.asp

Development Area 22 - Port Coogee

Approximately 86ha (land and marina) Marina Village for ~300boats surrounded by

2318 dwellings to accommodate 4351 persons.

Local Structure Plan and Built Form Codes:

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Port_Coogee/default.asp

Specialised Centre - Jandakot City

Specialised centre accommodating airport (including flight schools) and surrounding

commercial and industrial developments

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Jandakot_Airport_Masterplan/default.asp

Development Area 6 - Australian Marine Complex

The Australian Marine Complex (AMC) in Henderson is a world-class centre of excellence for manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, service and repair for the marine, defence and resource industries. Adjacent to the Latitude 32 industrial

precinct.

http://www.landcorp.com.au/project/australianmarinecomplex/

Revitalisation Strategies - Phoenix

A strategy to ensure the suburbs of Spearwood and a portion of Hamilton Hill accommodate State residential infill targets (rezoning of ~3000 properties). Public realm improvements also strongly feature.

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Phoeni

x_Central_Revitalisation/default.asp

Revitalisation Strategies – Hamilton Hill

A strategy to ensure the suburb of Hamilton Hill accommodates State residential infill targets. Public realm improvements also strongly feature.

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Hamilton_Hill_Revitalisation_Strategy/default.asp

Revitalisation Strategies - Coolbellup

A strategy to ensure the suburb of Hamilton Hill accommodates State residential infill targets. Public realm improvements also strongly feature.

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Coolbellup/default.asp

District Structure Plan - Packham North

District Structure Plan over 75 lots to facilitate redevelopment of the former Watsonia

Smallgoods site:

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Packham_North_District_Structure_Plan/default.asp

District Structure Plan – Southern Suburbs Stage 3









http://www.landcorp.com.au/project/australianmarinecomplex/

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Phoenix_Central_Revitalisation/default.asp

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Phoenix_Central_Revitalisation/default.asp








78

Following on from the District Structure Plan for Stages 1 and 2 of Southern Suburbs

(covering recent suburban corridors through Aubin Grove, Success, Atwell) a plan to outline the development needs for Hammond Park.

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Southe

rn_Suburbs_District_Stage_3/default.asp

District Structure Plan – Branch Circus

A plan to outline the development needs for part of Success (west of Hammond Rd)

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Branch_Circus/default.asp

Local Commercial and Activity Centre Strategy

A strategy to outlines the City’s expectation for its centres (commercial and

specialised), in line with State Planning Policy 4.2 Activity Centres for Perth and Peel.

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Local_

Commercial_and_Activity_Centres_Strategy_/default.asp

Development Area 37 - Banjup Quarry

Rezoning and Local Structure Plan over ~144ha for town centre, school and over 1800 dwellings to accommodate 4,862 people.

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Banjup_Quarry_Redevelopment/default.asp

Structure planning generally

A variety of Structure Plan applications are received from across the City.

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Structure_Plans/default.asp

Development Contribution Planning

A range of Development Contribution Plans covering both community and hard

infrastructure:

o DCA1 - Success North - a proportional contribution towards widening and upgrading of Hammond Road, between Beeliar Drive and Bartram Road.

o DCA2 - Success Lakes - a contribution towards Hammond Road, between Bartram and Russell Roads, as well as 50% of Russell Road, between Hammond/Frankland Rd and the Kwinana Freeway.

o DCA3 - Gaebler Road - a contribution towards Hammond/Frankland Road between Russell and Gaebler Roads, as well as 50% of Russell Road, between Hammond/Frankland and the Kwinana Freeway. The contribution is also toward traffic lights at the intersection of Russell and Hammond Roads.

o DCA4 - Yangebup West - a proportional contribution (40.88%) towards Beeliar Drive, between Stock Road and Spearwood Avenue.

o DCA5 - Yangebup East:

North of Beeliar Drive: a proportional contribution (40.88%) towards Beeliar Drive, between Stock Road and Spearwood Avenue. It also includes a contribution towards cost of closing Yangebup Road at the railway line.

South of Beeliar Drive: a proportional contribution (40.88%) towards Beeliar Drive, between Stock Road and Spearwood Avenue. It also includes a proportional contribution (30.65%) towards Spearwood Avenue, between

Beeliar Drive and Fancote Avenue.

o DCA6 – Munster - a proportional contribution (23.4%) towards widening and upgrading of Beeliar Drive (Mayor Road), between Stock and Cockburn Roads.

o DCA7 - Aubin Grove - a proportional contribution towards regional drainage infrastructure.

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Southern_Suburbs_District_Stage_3/default.asp

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Southern_Suburbs_District_Stage_3/default.asp



http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Local_Commercial_and_Activity_Centres_Strategy_/default.asp

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Local_Commercial_and_Activity_Centres_Strategy_/default.asp






79

o DCA8 - Solomon Road - a proportional contribution to the cost of common

infrastructure for the Solomon Road Arterial Drainage System.

o DCA11 - Muriel Court - covers a number of roads and public open space and is more extensive than some of the earlier DCA.

o DCA12 - Packham North - a proportional contribution to land and infrastructure works required as part of the development of the Packham North Development Contribution Area.

o DCA13 - Community Infrastructure (City wide DCA)

http://www.cockburn.wa.gov.au/Council_Services/City_Development/Projects/Developer_Contributions/default.asp

City of Kwinana

The draft economic development strategy (AECgroup 2013) has six economic development themes:

Theme 1: Effective Planning

o Have available a robust social and economic evidence base.

o Respond rapidly to emerging opportunities.

o Establish an economic development annual review and planning process.

Theme 2: Support Local Business

o Engage with local business to understand them and determine how Council might be able to assist.

o Have available most up to date economic and social data on Kwinana.

Theme 3: Attract New Business Investment

o Increase the attractiveness of the City for prospective businesses.

o Assist prospective new businesses in their location decision making.

o Provide a best practice development approval system that attracts and retains business investment in the area.

Theme 4: Use Infrastructure Effectively

o Provide opportunities for economic development by promoting, developing and

transforming existing facilities and infrastructure.

Theme 5: Facilitate Infrastructure Investment

o Maximise the benefits to the City from the development of the Western Trade Coast Industrial precinct.

o Residents have access to a large and varied range of job opportunities locally.

Theme 6: Embrace Innovation

o A high proportion of local businesses are connected to the NBN.

o Kwinana is known as a place of innovation.

City of Fremantle

The City of Fremantle’s economic development strategy (City of Fremantle 2010) seeks to diversify its economic base to include greater contributions from tourism and

entertainment, specialist retail and leisure, education, home based businesses and arts, cultural and knowledge businesses. The economic development strategy has four strategic action areas:

Economic development leadership and collaboration: partnership to facilitate a collaborative approach to economic development (City of Fremantle, Fremantle Ports, University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle Chamber of Commerce and Business

Foundations).




80

Urban form and infrastructure: substantial redevelopment of a significant portion of

Fremantle City, so far this has focussed on the development of a new planning scheme to support development of Fremantle as a primary centre, in particular establishing a model for development in the Fremantle CBD.

Business capability and capacity: growing the tourism sector through the revitalisation of the business centre and the implementation of a whole-of-city retail management plan, establishment of a new and better resourced Fremantle Visitor Centre and other initiatives that enhance Fremantle as a creative city.

Marketing: providing information about Fremantle for current businesses and potential investors to support business growth and investment.

City of Melville

The City of Melville economic strategies (City of Melville 2008) outlines key result areas which drive economic development activity:

Goal: To have Vibrant and Diverse Commercial Centres that meet Local and Regional Needs:

o Strategy: To facilitate and support the Activity Centres of Network City.

o Strategy: Partner with other stakeholders to ensure that the Melville City Centre is a vibrant Regional Centre.

Goal: Enhance and maintain a business-friendly environment:

o Strategy: Facilitate macro business opportunities with other relevant stakeholders.

o Strategy: Advocate for the improvement of infrastructure required to meet needs of businesses through the planning process.

o Strategy: Provide public assets and infrastructure required to service the community.

o Strategy: Create and support new micro business opportunities.


81

Appendix F: City of Cockburn Major Capital Projects

Table F.1. Major Capital Projects 2013/14 to 2021/22

# Projects Cost Year/ Priority

11

HAMMOND RD - Bartram Rd to Branch Circus $7,000,000 2016/17

(land cost $2.0m) 2017/18

(construct 2nd c/w & upgrade verge $5.0M)

9 HAMMOND ROAD (Frankland Av)- Russel Rd to Gaebler Rd $2,000,000 2011/12

(construct 1 c/w $2.0M) 2012/13

10

HAMMOND ROAD - Gaebler Rd to Frankland Av $3,300,000 2016/17

(land cost $2.2m) (construct 1 c/w $1.3M)

10

HAMMOND ROAD - Frankland Av to Rowley Rd $5,300,000 2018/19

(land cost $3.2m) (construct 1 c/w $2.1M)

16 BEELIAR DR/ WENTFORD PD -INTERSECTION $1,000,000 2013/14

(signalisation $1.0M

16 BEELIAR DR - Wentford Pd to Freeway $5,000,000 2012/13

(construct up 6 line c/w $2.1m) 2013/14

15

BEELIAR DR/ HAMMOND RD - INTERSECTION $2,800,000 2012/13

land cost $1.3m 2013/14

Realignment and 4-way signalisation $1.5M

18 BEELIAR DRIVE - Spearwood Av to Stock Rd $3,000,000 2017/18

(construct 2nd c/w)

17 BEELIAR DRIVE - Stock Rd to Fewcatte $2,000,000 2018/19

(reconstruct Stock to Fewcatte $2.0M)

37 BERRIGAN DRIVE - Freeway to Jandakot Rd $5,000,000 2015/16

(construct 2nd c/w & upgrade verge)

38 BERRIGAN DRIVE/JANDAKOT RD - INTERSECTION $1,000,000 2013/14

Construct and signalisation $1.0M 2014/15

35 ORION ROAD - Berrigan Dr to JAH boundary $3,700,000 2012/13

(construct 1 c/w $3.7M) 2013/14

40 KAREL AV/BERRIGAN DR - INTERSECTION $1,000,000 2013/14

Re-construct and signalisation $1.0M 2014/15

22

NORTH LAKE RD - Kentucky Ct/over Freeway 2014/17

(construct 2nd c/w $2.0M) $5,000,000 bridge cost $??M - MRWA

21

NORTH LAKE RD - Kentucky Ct/Kwinana Fwy $2,000,000 2013/14

(construct 1 c/w)

23

NORTH LAKE RD - Prinsep Rd/Armadale Rd $13,000,000 2014/15

(land cost $8.0M) 2015/16

(complete dual 1-lane c/w $5.0M)

20

NORTH LAKE RD - Hammond Rd to Kentucky Ct $4,100,000 2013/14

(pipe open drain 1500x$1000= $1.5M 2013/14

(construct 2nd c/w $2.6M)

44 NORTH LAKE ROAD/DISCOVERY DR - INTERSECTION $500,000 2014/15

(signalisation $0.5M)

48 FARRINGTON ROAD DUPLICATION $4,000,000 2015/16

consider if Freeway connection provided

43 PRINSEP ROAD - Cutler Rd to North Lake Road $2,500,000 2019/20

(construct 1 c/w)

26 POLETTI RD/NORTH LAKE RD - INTERSECTION $1,000,000 2017/18

Traffic signal

26 POLETTI RD - Beeliar DR to Nth Lake Rd $4,000,000 2019/20

Road extension

25 MIDGEGOOROO AVENUE $2,500,000 2013/14

2 lane + intersections

53 INTERSECTION KNOCK/SOLOMAN/ARMADALE

Traffic Signal $1.0M $1,000,000 2014/15

29 ROCKINGHAM RD - Spearwood Av to Phoenix Rd

(upgrade) $4,000,000 2014/15

TOTAL $85,700,000

Source: City of Cockburn (2013c)


82

Table F.2. Major Capital Projects 2020/21 to 2029/30

# Projects Cost Year/ Priority

17A

BEELIAR DRIVE - Fewcatte Rd to Cockburn Rd $7,300,000 2020/21

(land cost $7.3m) $3,700,000 2021/22

(Fewcatte to Cockburn construct 1 c/w $3.7M) $4,000,000 2022/23

(construct bridge over wetland $4.0M)

41

JANDAKOT ROAD - Berrigan Dr to Solomon Rd $10,200,000 2024/25

(land cost $6.2M) (construct 2 c/w $4.0M)

42

JANDAKOT ROAD - Solomon Rd to Warton Rd $20,500,000 2025/26

(land cost $12.5M) (construct 2 c/w $8.0M)

36 ORION ROAD - Berrigan Dr to JAH boundary $3,000,000 2020/21

(construct 2 c/w $3.0M)

24 NORTH LAKE - Kwinana Freeway to Armadale Rd $8,000,000 2023/24

(duel 2-lane c/w)

27 SEMPLE CT - Berrigan Dr/North Lake Rd $4,000,000 2020/21

(land $4.0M)

27 SEMPLE CT - Jindabyne Hts/North Lake Rd $3,500,000 2021/22

(construct re-aligned c/w)

28 MURIEL CT - Semple Ct/North Lake Rd $1,800,000 2021/22

(land)

28 MURIEL CT - Semple Ct/North Lake Rd $5,200,000 2022/23

(realign & construct extension)

28 MURIEL CT/BERRIGAN DR -INTERSECTION $1,000,000 2022/23

Traffic Signal $1.0M

32

BARTRAM ROAD - Across Kwinana $18,000,000 2022/23

2023/24

Freeway (construct bridge/1 c/w) 2024/25

5 SPEARWOOD AVE - Barrington St to Beeliar Dr $5,500,000 2020/22

( bridge/construct )

5 SPEARWOOD AVE - Barrington St to Beeliar Dr 2021/22

(widen /construct 2nd c/w) $4,800,000

45 FORREST RD BYPASS - Rockingham Rd to Stock Rd 2020/21

(construct 1 c/w) $6,000,000

51 HAMMOND ROD - Beeliar Dr to Nth Lake Rd $3,000,000 2021/22

(construct 2 c/w)

52 HAMMOND ROD - Nth Lake Rd to Berrigan Dr $3,500,000 2021/22

(construct 1 c/w)

6 HENDERSON RD - Fancote Av to Russell Rd

$2,500,000 2025/26 (widen & upgrade 1 c/w)

49 RUSSELL ROAD - Hammond Rd to Henderson Rd 2025/26

(construct 2nd c/w) - land cost $6.0m $17,000,000 2026/27

50 RUSSELL ROAD - Henderson Rd to Rockingham Rd

(construct 2nd c/w) - land cost $6.0m $15,000,000 2027/28

33 ROWLEY RD - Hammond Road to Kwinana Freeway

(construct 1 c/w -land cost $6.2M $9,700,000 2026/28

34 ROWLEY RD - Hammond Road to 1.2 km west of Hammond Rd

(construct 1 c/w -land cost $10.8M $14,500,000 2029/30

47 ROLLINSON RD - Cockburn Rd to Rockingham Rd

(construct 1 c/w) $4,000,000 2022/23

25 MIDGEGOOROO AVE - North Lake Rd to Beeliar Dr

reduce to 2 lane $3,500,000 2021/22

39 KAREL AVENUE - Berrigan Dr to Farrington St $1,700,000 2025/26

(construct 2 c/w $1.7M)

TOTAL $180,900,000

Source: City of Cockburn (2013c)

E [email protected] W www.aecgroupltd.com ABN 84 087 828 902

Economics, Planning & Development

Business Strategy & Finance

Community Research & Strategy

Design, Marketing & Advertising

Information & Knowledge Management

Cockburn Community Proposal Rationale Validation Community... · optimal position to be of use to...

Documents

Transcript of Cockburn Community Proposal Rationale Validation Community... · optimal position to be of use to...