Council Meeting Agenda May 10

Transcription

NOTICE OF MEETING
ORDINARY COUNCIL
Members are advised that a meeting of the Council will be held in Council Chambers,
Civic Building, 83 Mandurah Terrace, Mandurah on:
Tuesday 10 May 2016
at 5.30pm
MARK R NEWMAN
Chief Executive Officer
4 May 2016
AGENDA:
1
OPENING OF MEETING AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS
2
ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES
Councillor Lawson (on Leave of Absence).
3
IMPORTANT NOTE:
Members of the public are advised that any decisions made at the meeting tonight,
can be revoked, pursuant to the Local Government Act 1995. Therefore, members
of the public should not rely on any decisions until formal notification in writing by
Council has been received.
4
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE
Please refer to Attachment 4.1
COUNCIL AGENDA: Tuesday 10 May 2016
5
Page 2
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Public Question time provides an opportunity for members of the public to ask a
question of Council. For more information regarding Public Question Time, please
 9550 3706 or visit the City’s website www.mandurah.wa.gov.au.
6
PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME
Any person or group wishing to make a 2-minute Public Statement to Council regarding
a matter concerning local government must first complete an application form. For more
information about Public Statement Time, or to obtain an application form, please
 9550 3706 or visit the City’s website www.mandurah.wa.gov.au.
7
LEAVE OF ABSENCE REQUESTS
8
PETITIONS
9
PRESENTATIONS
10
DEPUTATIONS
Any person or group wishing to make a 5-minute Deputation to Council regarding a
matter listed on this agenda for consideration must first complete an application
form. For more information about making a deputation, or to obtain an application
form, please  9550 3706 or visit the City’s website www.mandurah.wa.gov.au.
NB: Persons who have made a deputation at the preceding Planning, Community
Development and Sustainability Committee and/or Governance and Infrastructure
Committee will not be permitted to make a further deputation on the same matter to
this Council meeting, unless it is demonstrated there is new, relevant material
which may impact upon the Council’s understanding of the facts of the matter.
11
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES:
11.1
Ordinary Council Meeting: Tuesday 26 April 2016 (attached).
12
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER (WITHOUT DISCUSSION)
13
DECLARATIONS OF FINANCIAL, PROXIMITY AND IMPARTIALITY INTERESTS
14
Page 3
QUESTIONS FROM ELECTED MEMBERS (WITHOUT DISCUSSION)
14.1
Questions of which due notice has been given
14.2
Questions of which notice has not been given
15
BUSINESS LEFT OVER FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
16
RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES
17
REPORTS (Yellow Pages):
Item
Page
No
1–9
1
2016 Future of Local Government
National Summit – 17 and 18 May
2016
2
National General Assembly – 19 to 22
June 2016
10 - 27
3
Powers, Duties and Membership of
Planning Committee
28 – 30
4
Rates Exemption : 1-5 Hungerford
Avenue, Halls Head
31 – 33
5
R-Code Variation Application: 7
Captain Court, Wannanup
34 - 48
6
City of Mandurah Cycling Facilities:
On Road Cycle Lanes
49 -59
7
Tender 03-2016: Supplementary
Temporary Traffic Management
60 - 62
8
Tender 09-2013: Weed Control
Supply and Application of Herbicides
63 - 66
Page 4
18
ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS NOT WITHDRAWN FOR FURTHER
DISCUSSION
19
MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN
20
NOTICE OF MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING
21
LATE AND URGENT BUSINESS ITEMS
22
CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS
22.1
23
Project Update: Report to be circulated separately from the agenda.
CLOSE OF MEETING
Attachment 4.1
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON
TUESDAY 26 APRIL 2016
G.9/4/16
PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE: LOT 1 (NO 64)
INVERNESS DRIVE, MEADOW SPRINGS
‘
Deputy Mayor Councillor Lee asked if the residents living at the RSL Care facility had been
consulted with regarding the proposal, and how many residents were living at the facility.
Response:
The RSL care facility is a 24 hour a day seven day a week care facility which has 55 permanent
residents and during the course of the week, a rotation of 70 staff.
G.28/4/16
COUNCILLOR KNIGHT: MISSING LETTERING - MANDURAH WAR
MEMORIAL
Councillor Knight asked when the stolen lettering from Mandurah’s War Memorial would be
replaced.
Response:
Officers have been trying to find a better solution regarding the lettering on the war memorial,
so that individual letters can’t be so easily removed by vandals or thieves. The other issue is
the stone on the memorial (Kimberley stone – a sort of sandstone) is crumbling around the
letters, so it is not viewed as desirable to reaffix numerous individual letters.
A local contractor has been engaged to construct a discreet metal band recording the names
of the conflicts Australian soldiers have fought in, which will replace the individual lettering.
This will be affixed to the Memorial in a different way, so that it does not further impact
adversely on the stone. There have been some delays in the contractor prioritising this work.
G.32/4/16
USE OF CASH-IN-LIEU FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Councillor Schumacher requested that officers present to the next ordinary Council meeting on 10
May, information on the cost associated with increasing the sports floodlighting from 50 lux, to a
level that would enable night games / small ball match play.
Response:
Officers have sought costings and are currently waiting for this information to be provided.
MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING
HELD ON
Tuesday 26 April 2016
AT 5.30PM
IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CIVIC CENTRE
MANDURAH TERRACE MANDURAH
PRESENT:
MAYOR
COUNCILLOR
COUNCILLOR
COUNCILLOR
HON COUNCILLOR
COUNCILLOR
COUNCILLOR
COUNCILLOR
COUNCILLOR
COUNCILLOR
COUNCILLOR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MRS
M NEWMAN
A CLAYDON
T FREE
D PRATTENT
B INGLE
C JOHNSON
J S HUGHES
M HALL
L GREENE
M VERGONE
D LEE [DEPUTY MAYOR]
L RODGERS
S JONES
F RIEBELING
T JONES
R WORTLEY
C KNIGHT
P JACKSON
D SCHUMACHER
P ROGERS
EAST WARD
EAST WARD
EAST WARD
COASTAL WARD
COASTAL WARD
NORTH WARD
NORTH WARD
NORTH WARD
TOWN WARD
TOWN WARD
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
DIRECTOR WORKS & SERVICES
DIRECTOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
MANAGER FINANCIAL SERVICES
MANAGER STATUTORY SERVICES
MANAGER RECREATION CENTRES & SERVICES
MANAGER LIBRARIES, LEARNING, ARTS & CULTURE
MANAGER INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT
COORDINATOR ELECTED MEMBER SUPPORT
OPENING OF MEETING AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS [AGENDA ITEM 1]
The Mayor declared the meeting open at 5.31 pm. In doing so, she acknowledged that the meeting
was being held on the traditional land of the Bindjareb people, and paid her respects to their Elders
past and present.
MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday 26 April 2016
PAGE 2
APOLOGIES [AGENDA ITEM 2]
Councillors Field (one Leave of Absence) and Lawson.
DISCLAIMER [AGENDA ITEM 3]
G.22/4/16
DISCLAIMER
The Mayor advised that the purpose of this Council Meeting is to discuss and, where possible,
make resolutions about items appearing on the agenda. Whilst Council has the power to resolve
such items and may in fact, appear to have done so at the meeting, no person should rely on or act
on the basis of such decision or on any advice or information provided by a Member or Officer, or
on the content of any discussion occurring, during the course of the meeting. Persons should be
aware that the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 (Section 5.25(e)) and Council’s
Consolidated Local Laws (Section 4.86) establish procedures for revocation or recision of a
Council decision. No person should rely on the decisions made by Council until formal advice of
the Council decision is received by that person.
The City of Mandurah expressly disclaims liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person
as a result of relying on or acting on the basis of any resolution of Council, or any advice or
information provided by a Member or Officer, or the content of any discussion occurring, during the
course of the Council meeting.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE [AGENDA ITEM 4]
Officers provided responses to questions taken on notice at the Council meeting of Tuesday
12 April 2016.
G.23/4/16
MR W FAULKNER: MANDURAH VOLUNTEER FIRE BRIGADE TRAINING &
COMPETITION TRACK: PROPOSED RELOCATION (MINUTE G.2/4/16
REFERS)
Mr Faulkner asked:
Can Council provide a list of Reserves with in a 12km radius of the Mandurah GPO, that have
bookings for use, as Council quoted the usage of the Charlie & Dorothy Coote Reserve to
promote the destruction of this Reserve, and a check of bookings can be compared against
each other.
Response:
The Manager Recreation Centres and Services provided the information requested, set out in
the following Active Reserve utilisation summary for 2015/16.
PAGE 3
Active Reserve - Utilisation Summary 2015/16
Bortolo Reserve
Activity / Prime Usage
0
Sep15
0
Oct15
0
Nov15
7
Dec15
0
Jan16
0
Feb16
0
Mar16
7
Apr16
1.75
87
109
73
0
0
0
0
36.5
2
0
0
0
17
0
0
34
38
87
109
73
17
7
0
34
Jul-15
Aug-15
Oct15
0
Nov15
0
Dec15
0
Jul-15
Aug-15
Casual Hirer
0
Winter Sporting Group
Summer Sporting Group
Total Hours in Use
7
Jun16
13.75
44
67
67
12
0
0
0
74.5
21
45.75
74
80.75
Jan16
0
Feb16
2
Mar16
1.5
Apr16
0
May-16
Overall Usage
623
Coote Reserve
Casual Hirer
0
0
Sep15
0
4
Jun16
0
28
25
26.5
1
0
0
0
2
4
25
32.5
28
0
0
8
13
6
6
4.5
6
7.5
0
0
0
28
25
34.5
14
6
6
4.5
10
13
25
36.5
28
Jul-15
Aug-15
0
0
Sep15
8
Oct15
0
Nov15
0
Dec15
0
Jan16
0
Feb16
0
Mar16
0
Apr16
0
Total Hours in Use
May-16
230
Falcon Reserve
Regular Hirer
Casual Hirer
Total Hours in Use
May-16
0
Jun16
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
103
124
21
0
0
0
0
0
9
91.5
69
79.5
0
0
27
67.5
90.5
48.5
102.5
94
36
0
0
0
103
124
56
67.5
90.5
49.5
102.5
94
45
91.5
69
79.5
972
PAGE 4
John Tonkin Sports Facility
Jul-15
Aug-15
Sep15
Oct15
Nov15
Dec15
Jan16
Feb16
Mar16
Apr16
May-16
Jun16
Regular Hirer
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
Casual Hirer
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
103.25
107.75
100.5
0
0
0
48
63
69
163
164
151
103.25
107.75
100.5
0
0
0
48
63
104
163
164
151
143.25
157.75
100.5
0
0
0
36
51
57
153
156
143
143.25
157.75
100.5
0
0
0
36
51
57
153
156
143
Regular Hirer
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
Casual Hirer
0
0
0
34.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
33.5
18
0
7.5
7.5
48
64
60.25
13.5
12
13.5
Facility: Oval 1 (Park Rd)
Total Hours in Use
1,005
Facility: Oval 2 (Nth Mandurah PS)
Total Hours in Use
998
Facility: Oval 3 (Tindale St)
Total Hours in Use
0
0
12.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
10
0
49
33.5
30.5
34.5
7.5
7.5
48
64
89.25
21.5
22
13.5
Total Reserve Usage
421
2,423
Meadow Springs Sports Facility
Jul-15
Aug-15
Sep15
Oct15
Nov15
Dec15
Jan16
Feb16
Mar16
Apr16
May-16
Jun16
0
25.5
0
0
0
0
1.75
7
13.75
Facility: Meadow Springs Oval North
Casual Hirer
7
0
10
31
31.5
10.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
119
87
84.25
108
38
0
0
0
38
31.5
20.5
75
144.5
87
84.25
108
38
1.75
7
13.75
Total Hours in Use
649
PAGE 5
Facility: Meadow Springs Oval South
Regular Hirer
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
Casual Hirer
9
2
10
0
7
0
0
0
0
1.75
7
13.75
27
24
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
6.25
91.25
130
91
98.5
116
32
0
0
0
36
26
39.25
91.25
147
91
98.5
116
49
6.75
7
13.75
Total Hours in Use
722
Facility: Meadow Springs Oval Rugby Main
Regular Hirer
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
Casual Hirer
9
2
10
0
7
0
0
0
0
1.75
7
13.75
0
0
3
39
36
18.25
18
34
0
0
0
0
34
38.25
12
0
0
0
0
12
17
36
34
31
66
40.25
25
39
43
18.25
18
46
34
37.75
41
44.75
Total Hours in Use
Total Reserve Usage
453
1,824
Merlin Street Reserve
Casual Hirer
Total Hours in Use
0
Sep15
18.25
Oct15
0
Nov15
7
Dec15
0
Jan16
0
Feb16
3
Mar16
0
Apr16
0
84.5
120
77.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
42
160
174
123
180
84.5
120
123.75
42
167
174
123
183
Jul-15
Aug-15
0
0
Jun16
0
59.5
67
56.5
145
0
0
0
145
59.5
67
56.5
May-16
1,345
PAGE 6
Peelwood Sports Facility
Jul-15
Aug-15
Sep15
Oct15
Nov15
Dec15
Jan16
Feb16
Mar16
Apr16
May-16
Jun16
Regular Hirer
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
9
0
0
0
36
116.5
126.5
116.5
0
0
3
36
94
73
80.5
84
38.5
0
0
0
0
0
3
49
128.5
73
80.5
84
74.5
116.5
126.5
116.5
Facility: Oval 1 North TURF
Total Hours in Use
852
Facility: Oval 2 (Centre) Peelwood
Regular Hirer
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.5
0
Casual Hirer
4
0
0
8
7
0
9
0
0
11.5
20.75
22
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
50
40
0
0
0
36
68
53.5
74
77.5
31
0
0
0
16
0
3
44
75
53.5
83
77.5
31
51.5
79.25
62
0
Total Hours in Use
576
Facility: Oval 3 (South) Peelwood
Regular Hirer
0
4.5
2
Casual Hirer
0
0
0
23
33.5
11
0
0
23
38
Total Hours in Use
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.75
0
0
9.75
24.75
19.25
8
0
4
12
16
0
8
14.25
0
5
36
68
53.5
74
77.5
32
0
0
0
18
44
68
57.5
92.75
93.5
32
17.75
39
32.25
Total Reserve Usage
556
1,984
PAGE 7
Rushton Park Sports Facility
Jul-15
Aug-15
Sep15
Oct15
Nov15
Dec15
Jan16
Feb16
Mar16
Apr16
May-16
Jun16
Regular Hirer
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.5
0
0
0
0
Casual Hirer
0
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37.5
46
27
0
15.5
13.5
35
63.5
70.5
57
60
55.5
37.5
52
30
0
15.5
13.5
35
69
70.5
57
60
55.5
Casual Hirer
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
25
23.5
0
8
13.5
22
54
81.5
51.25
57.75
54
15
25
23.5
0
8
13.5
22
56
81.5
51.25
57.75
54
Facility: North Oval 1 (Dower)
Total Hours in Use
496
Facility: North Oval 2 (Thomson)
Total Hours in Use
408
Facility: Rushton Park Main Reserve
Regular Hirer
6.5
19.5
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Casual Hirer
21
0
21
2.5
0
0
1.5
58.5
13
6
6
8.5
96.5
108.5
101
110.5
98.5
90
30
42
89.5
79
70.5
60.5
135.5
128
136
113
98.5
90
31.5
100.5
102.5
85
76.5
69
Total Hours in Use
Total Reserve Usage
Notes:
* The Ocean Road Active Reserve (Dawesville) was only completed in November 2015. As a result, it has not been included in the data.
* Casual Hirer - 11 or less bookings per annum.
* Regular Hirer - 12 or more bookings per annum.
* Summer Sporting Clubs – 1 October to 31 March.
* Winter Sporting Clubs - 1 April to 30 September.
1,166
2,069
G.24/4/16
PAGE 8
PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE: LOT 1 (NO 64)
INVERNESS DRIVE, MEADOW SPRINGS (MINUTE G.9/4/16 REFERS)
Deputy Mayor Councillor Lee asked if the residents living at the RSL Care facility had been
consulted with regarding the proposal, and how many residents were living at the facility.
The Manager Planning and Land Management confirmed that the City had consulted with the
owners of the RSL Care Facility site, but he was unaware as to whether the responsible body had
consulted with the residents. With regard to the number of residents living at the facility, he asked
to take this question on notice.
Response:
Officers have contacted the Management Group for the RSL Care facility and are currently waiting
for this information to be provided.
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME [AGENDA ITEM 5]
Nil.
PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME [AGENDA ITEM 6]
Nil.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE REQUESTS [AGENDA ITEM 7]
G.25/4/16
LEAVE OF ABSENCE: COUNCILLOR LAWSON – 27 APRIL TO 13 MAY 2016
The Mayor advised the meeting that one request for leave of absence had been received by the
Chief Executive Officer, that being from Councillor Lawson, who was requesting a leave of
absence from 27 April to 13 May 2016 (inclusive).
Councillor Peter Rogers moved the Motion that the leave of absence request be granted, which
was seconded by Councillor Jackson. During the debate that ensued, and at the request of Elected
Members, the Chief Executive Officer provided information regarding Councillor Lawson’s
attendance at Council meetings since November 2015 and the reasons put forward verbally by
Councillor Lawson when making this application.
Elected Members asked that their concerns be raised with Councillor Lawson, as expressed at the
meeting.
MOTION:
Peter Rogers / P Jackson
That leave of absence be granted to Councillor Lawson from 27 April to 13 May 2016.
CARRIED:
FOR:
AGAINST:
9/2
Hon Councillor Riebeling and Councillors Lynn Rodgers, Peter Rogers, Lee,
Shane Jones, Tahlia Jones, Wortley, Knight and Jackson
Mayor Vergone and Councillor Schumacher.
PAGE 9
PETITIONS [AGENDA ITEM 8]
Nil.
PRESENTATIONS [AGENDA ITEM 9]
Nil.
DEPUTATIONS [AGENDA ITEM 10]
Nil.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES [AGENDA ITEM 11]
G.26/4/16
CONFIRMATION OF COUNCIL MINUTES: TUESDAY 12 APRIL 2016
MOTION:
D Lee / T Jones
That the Minutes of Council Meeting of Tuesday 12 April 2016 be confirmed.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: 11/0
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER [AGENDA ITEM 12]
G.27/4/16
ANNOUNCEMENTS

Councillor Schumacher and Hon Councillor Riebeling reported on the ANZAC Dawn Services
held at the Mandurah War Memorial and Dawesville War Memorial. On behalf of Council, they
congratulated all involved with the staging of these well organised and well attended events.

Mayor Vergone acknowledged the attendance of long standing employee Mr Phil Lord,
advising that he was celebrating 25-years’ service with the City. On behalf of Council, she
congratulated him on attaining this significant milestone, and presented him with a certificate
of achievement and gift of appreciation.

Mayor Vergone acknowledged the attendance of members of the City’s lifeguard team,
advising that they had recently won the 2016 Pool Lifeguard Challenge. On behalf of Council,
she congratulated them on their achievement, which reflected the high standards of City
lifeguards and the leadership and training programs currently in place.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS [AGENDA ITEM 13]

Councillor Knight declared a perceived impartiality interest in Minute G.35/4/16 - Peel Region
Scheme Amendment 040/57 Lot 9015 Marlee Road, Parklands because of her role as a
Bushcare Coordinator at Marlee Reserve. She declared that she would remain in the
Chamber, consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly.
PAGE 10
QUESTIONS FROM ELECTED MEMBERS [AGENDA ITEM 14]
Questions of which due notice has been given
Nil.
Questions of which notice has not been given
G.28/4/16
COUNCILLOR KNIGHT: MISSING LETTERING - MANDURAH WAR
MEMORIAL
Councillor Knight asked when the stolen lettering from Mandurah’s War Memorial would be
replaced.
The Director Works and Services asked to take this question on notice, with a response being
provided at the next ordinary Council meeting on 10 May 2016.
G.29/4/16
COUNCILLOR KNIGHT: LOCKER FACILITIES AT MANDURAH AQUATIC
AND RECREATION CENTRE
Councillor Knight asked if the locker facilities at the Mandurah Aquatic and Recreation Centre
(MARC) were operational, and if not, when it was anticipated that they would become so.
The Manager Recreation Centres and Services responded that the locker facilities were now
operational for Centre members.
As a supplementary question, Councillor Knight asked if locker facilities were also available for
non-member use?
The Manager Recreation Centres and Services responded that locker facilities were also available
for non-member use. In this regard, members of the public paid for the use of the locker facilities
when entering the premises, and then scanning their receipt in order to access a locker. A similar
locker system would also be available on the dry side of the Centre when redevelopment works
were completed.
G.30/4/16
COUNCILLOR KNIGHT: MANDURAH PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REVEGETATION
Councillor Knight asked if works would be carried out to revegetate the area near the Mandurah
Pedestrian Bridge.
The Director Works and Services responded that as construction works on the Mandurah
Pedestrian Bridge had now been completed, it was intended that the area between Kirkpatrick
Drive and Murdoch Drive would be revegetated and restored to its pre-construction work standard.
BUSINESS LEFT OVER FROM PREVIOUS MEETING [AGENDA ITEM 15]
Nil.
PAGE 11
RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES [AGENDA ITEM 16]
Nil.
REPORTS [AGENDA ITEM 17]
G.31/4/16
FINANCIAL REPORT: MARCH 2016 (DP / PB) (DOC NO 1969582)
REPORT 1)
Hon Councillor Riebeling moved the recommendation set out in the report, which was seconded by
Councillor Schumacher. At the request of Hon Councillor Riebeling, the Manager Financial
Services provided clarification regarding low revenues at the Halls Head Recreation Centre, and
the over budget estimates in respect of Building Services Revenue and the Festival and Events
Revenue. He advised that it was the intention of officers to present a detailed financial report on
the Crab Fest event to the next ordinary Council meeting on 10 May 2016.
MOTION:
F Riebeling / D Schumacher
That Council:
1
Receives the Financial Report for March 2016.
2
Receives the Schedule of Accounts for March 2016 for the following amounts:
Total Municipal Fund
Total Trust Fund
$ 9,472,800.96
$
84,722.28
$ 9,557,523.24
G.32/4/16
USE OF CASH-IN-LIEU FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
(CJ / DC) (DOC NO 1945628) (REPORT 2)
The City of Mandurah retained $1,296,000 cash-in-lieu contributions resulting from developments
in the Southport area. The contribution was the result of cash-in-lieu of public open space provided
by developers as part of the sub division process.
Officers had identified the need for community infrastructure within the Ocean Road Active
Reserve where cash in lieu would be an appropriate use of funds.

Southport: Ocean Road Active Reserve: Construction of a toilet and change room facility and
the installation of sports floodlighting.
The process for the use of cash-in-lieu funds required Council approval for the project and for the
City to then apply to the Department of Planning for permission to access the funds. Cash in lieu
funds were designed for the improvement or development of parks, recreation grounds or open
spaces on land vested or administered by the local government. Toilets, change rooms and sports
lighting were listed as an acceptable use for cash-in-lieu funds.
Council was asked to approve a request to the Minister for Planning to release these cash-in-lieu
funds for the purpose of constructing toilets, change rooms and lighting at Ocean Road Reserve.
PAGE 12
Hon Councillor Riebeling moved the recommendation set out in the report, which was seconded by
Councillor Tahlia Jones. During the debate that ensued and at the request of Elected Members,
the Chief Executive Officer, Manager Recreation Centres and Services and Manager Infrastructure
Management provided clarification regarding the standard of sports floodlighting to be installed, the
approximate costs of upgrading the lighting to enable night games, the envisaged purpose of the
Reserve and the building design.
Councillor Schumacher requested that officers present to the next ordinary Council meeting on 10
May, information on the cost associated with increasing the sports floodlighting from 50 lux, to a
level that would enable night games / small ball match play.
MOTION:
F Riebeling / Tahlia Jones
That Council:
1
Approves a request to the Minister for Planning to release cash-in-lieu funds of
$1,170,000 for the purpose of constructing toilets, change rooms and sports
floodlighting at Ocean Road Active Reserve.
2
Notes that the anticipated cost of the toilets, change rooms and sports lighting of
$1,170,000 and the cash-in-lieu funding will be listed for consideration in the 2016/17
budget.
G.33/4/16
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION 19-2015: LIBRARY SELF SERVICE SYSTEM
(JSH) (DOC NO 1953048) (REPORT 3)
On 20 January 2016, the City had invited quotations for the Library Self Service System.
The purpose of the system was to deliver a Library Self-Service Solution to the public capable of
managing circulation of library stock, including self-issuing of library stock to customers through the
use of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. The solution had to provide the Principal’s
employees and customers with a robust, easy to use system that improved customer service
delivery and provided efficient resource management.
The solution included the provisioning of self-service kiosks, detection gates, a smart book drop,
shelf management system, integration to the current library management system, hand held
readers and RFID tags.
The quotation assessment included qualitative and price criteria. The qualitative criteria covered
understanding of the implementation requirements, relevant experience, system suitability, and
ongoing support and maintenance. The price criteria required a whole of life investment
assessment over a five year term including project implementation costs and ongoing licence and
maintenance costs.
As a result, Council approval was sought to select Bibliotheca RFID Library Systems Australia Pty
Ltd as the successful supplier for the Library Self Service System.
Councillor Knight moved the recommendation set out in the report, which was seconded by
Councillor Shane Jones. At the request of Councillor Tahlia Jones, the Manager Libraries,
Learning, Arts and Culture provided clarification regarding provision in the contract for an
afterhours return facility.
MOTION:
PAGE 13
C Knight / Shanes Jones
That Council awards Bibliotheca RFID Library Systems Australia Pty Ltd the contract under
Quotation 19-2015 for the Library Self-Service system for a period of 5 years commencing
from 1 May, 2016 at the price of $240,382.29.
CARRIED WITH ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:
G.34/4/16
11/0
SIGNIFICANT TREE REGISTER: ADOPTION OF NOMINATED TREE
(BB / SG) (DOC NO 1959202) (REPORT 4)
Council was requested to endorse the inclusion of a Tuart tree at 13 Redbank Rise, Greenfields
onto the Significant Tree Register.
The intent of the register was to protect significant trees throughout the City of Mandurah in
accordance with the provisions set in the City’s Town Planning Scheme No 3.
It was recommended that Council include the nominated tree onto the City’s Significant Tree
Register.
Councillor Lynn Rodgers moved the recommendation set out in the report, which was seconded by
Councillor Peter Rogers. During the debate that ensued, and at the request of Councillors, the
Director Sustainable Development provided clarification regarding responsibility for the care and
upkeep of trees included onto the City’s Significant Tree Register, steps taken to monitor the health
of registered trees, and information provided to purchasers of property to make them aware of
registered significant tree(s) that maybe associated with that land.
Councillor Schumacher suggested that when trees were included onto the City of Mandurah’s
Significant Tree Register, such information should be included on the Certificate of Title for that
property.
MOTION:
Lynn Rodgers / Peter Rogers
That Council endorses the following tree for inclusion onto the City of Mandurah’s
Significant Tree Register:

STR 15/0150, a Tuart (Eucalyptus gomphocephala) at 13 Redbank Rise, Greenfields.
In view of her role as a Bushcare Coordinator at Marlee Reserve, Councillor Knight had disclosed
a perceived impartiality interest in the following item, declaring that she would consider this matter
on its merits and vote accordingly.
G.35/4/16
PEEL REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 040/57 LOT 9015 MARLEE ROAD,
PARKLANDS: PROPOSED RESERVATION AS REGIONAL OPEN SPACE - CITY
OF MANDURAH SUBMISSION (TF / NKD) (FILE PRS040/57) (REPORT 5)
The Western Australian Planning Commission had released Amendment 040/57 to the Peel
Region Scheme. One of the proposals impacted Lot 9015 Marlee Road, Parklands, which was
owned by the City of Mandurah in freehold
PAGE 14
The purpose of this amendment was to reserve sites that had been created and acquired for a
public purpose. In this respect, the proposals focused on four main areas:
(a)
reserving land acquired and required for the provision of necessary infrastructure, such as
substations required for providing electricity, pump stations required for supplying potable
water services and land required for high schools
recognising artificial waterways constructed within the Peel region
protecting the Peel region's environmental and landscape values
recognising the inclusion of land in state forests.
(b)
(c)
(d)
Five of the 34 amendment proposals involved the transfer of small areas of land to the Urban or
Rural zone. These proposals:
(a)
(b)
corrected minor anomalies in the Peel Region Scheme; or
give effect to an outcome negotiated between the Western Australian Planning Commission
and the landowner.
The report submitted dealt specifically with Proposal No 14 of the amendment, which proposed to
reserve Lot 9015 Marlee Road, Parklands from ‘Rural’ zone to ‘Regional Open Space’ reservation.
It was recommended that Council make a submission on the proposed amendment that advised
the Western Australian Planning Commission that the City objected to Proposal No 14 on the basis
that the lot was in freehold title and owned by the City, and had the potential to prejudice the
strategic planning for the Peel Region.
Councillor Knight moved the recommendation set out in the report, which was seconded by
Councillor Shane Jones, subject to the inclusion of the following additional clause:
2
Acknowledges that Lot 9015 Marlee Road, Parklands was purchased under the City’s
Bushland Protection Program to facilitate the long term protection of the reserve’s high
environmental and landscape values, It remains one of the City’s key natural assets.
MOTION:
C Knight / Shane Jones
That Council:
1
2
Advises the Western Australian Planning Commission that the City of Mandurah
objects to Proposal No 14 of Amendment 040/57 to the Peel Region Scheme in relation
to Lot 9015 Marlee Road, Parklands, on the following grounds:
a
It is considered a substantial change to the Peel Region Scheme given the City
purchased the site and the site remains in the City’s freehold ownership.
b
It has the potential to prejudice the strategic planning of the Peel Region, given the
potential use of the land as part of a land swap, which may arise from the proposed
Mandurah-Murray Growth Plan. Noting that the growth plans are to be in alignment
with the Regional Blueprints, which are now referenced in the State Planning
Strategy 2050.
Acknowledges that Lot 9015 Marlee Road, Parklands was purchased under the City’s
Bushland Protection Program to facilitate the long term protection of the reserve’s high
environmental and landscape values. It remains one of the City’s key natural assets.
G.36/4/16
PAGE 15
CHURCH STREET TRAFFIC STUDY (AC / TB) (DOC NO 1950112)
(REPORT 6)
Council was requested to consider the outcomes of the traffic study undertaken in Church Street,
Mandurah during the period of 19 January and 9 February 2016.
The traffic study was completed in response to a petition that had been presented at the Council
meeting held in November 2015. The focus of the petition had been on traffic volume and the
speed of vehicles in Church Street, and the potential safety of pedestrians crossing this street.
Once considered, Council was requested to authorise the Director Works and Services to advise
the petitioners of the outcome.
MOTION:
D Schumacher / Shane Jones
That Council:
1
Notes the outcomes of the recent traffic study in Church Street and will take no action
at this point in time.
2
Authorises the Director Works and Services to advise the petitioners of Council’s
resolution set out in Clause 1 above, including providing a copy of the report.
G.37/4/16
COUNCIL / COMMITTEE STRUCTURE: TRIAL PERIOD (WP / SL) (DOC NO
1965020) (REPORT 7)
In August 2015, Council resolved to commence a six-month trial period of a new meeting structure.
The new structure consisted of two council meetings per month and a reduction of committees
from four to two with the suspension of the Governance and Infrastructure Committee and the
Planning, Community Development and Sustainability Committee. The Audit and Risk Committee
had continued in its current format (meeting six times per year at preselected dates), along with the
Executive Committee that met as and when required.
As the trial period would conclude at the end of April, it was timely to bring this matter back to
Council for further consideration and determination of which format to adopt for future meetings.
Recommendations Options set out in report:
OPTION 1 - That Council:
1
Continue with the meeting structure of two Council meetings per month for a further period of
six months;
2
Request a community information campaign explaining the new structure be undertaken.
1
Permanently adopt the meeting structure of two Council meetings per month;
2
Request a community information campaign explaining the new structure be undertaken.
PAGE 16
1
Resumes the previous meeting structure of two Committee meetings and one Council meeting
per month as per the pre-November 2015 trial;
2
Implements the format from June 2016 to allow statutory and administrative functions of the
change to be completed;
3
Acknowledges that a further report will be presented amending the Terms of Reference and
appointments for Committees;
4
Approves a community information campaign explaining the new structure be undertaken.
1
Establish a new Planning Committee (with recommendations to Council powers only) to meet
once per month and continue with the two Council meeting cycle;
2
Continues with the two Council meeting format during May 2016 and implements the new
Planning Committee cycle from June 2016 to allow statutory and administrative functions of
the change to be completed;
3
Acknowledges that a further report will be presented amending the Terms of Reference and
appointments for the Committee;
4
Approves a community information campaign explaining the new structure be undertaken.
Councillor Knight moved the following Motion (Option 4), which was seconded by Councillor Lee.
In moving the Motion, Councillor Knight advised that she was supportive of this proposal because
of the increased opportunity it would provide for community engagement in the decision making
process. This was considered particularly important when considering planning related issues, as
generally they had the increased potential of causing public controversy.
During the debate that ensued, and at the request of Elected Members, the Chief Executive Officer
responded to questions regarding the operation of the four options put forward for consideration.
He clarified that should Option 4 be adopted, a report would be submitted to the next ordinary
Council meeting on 10 May 2016, setting out the proposed membership, terms of reference and
meeting arrangements for the newly established Planning Committee, which would apply until the
local government elections in October 2017 (unless otherwise determined by Council).
Councillor Jackson foreshadowed his intention to move an alternative Motion, that Council
continue with the meeting structure of two Council meetings per month for a further period of six
months (Option 1), should the Motion put by Councillor Knight not be carried.
MOTION:
C Knight / D Lee
That Council:
1
Establish a new Planning Committee (with recommendations to Council powers only) to
meet once per month and continue with the two Council meeting cycle.
2
Continues with the two Council meeting format during May 2016 and implements the
new Planning Committee cycle from June 2016 to allow statutory and administrative
functions of the change to be completed.
PAGE 17
3
Acknowledges that a further report will be presented amending the Terms of Reference
and appointments for the Committee.
4
Approves a community information campaign explaining the new structure be
undertaken.
CARRIED WITH ABSOLUTE MAJORITY: 9/2
FOR:
Mayor Vergone and Councillors Knight, Schumacher, Shane Jones, Peter
Rogers, Tahlia Jones, Lee, Wortley and Lynn Rodgers
AGAINST:
Hon Councillor Riebeling and Councillor Jackson.
MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN [AGENDA ITEM 19]
G.38/4/16
HON COUNCILLOR RIEBELING: REGIONAL COUNCIL
Hon Councillor Riebeling moved the following amended Notice of Motion, as set out below, which
was seconded by Councillor Schumacher.
MOTION:
F Riebeling / D Schumacher
That officers prepare a report to Council on the method to and merits of creating a Regional
Council as a governance model for the Peel Harvey Estuary Waterway and its tributaries.
NOTICE OF MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING [AGENDA
ITEM 20]
Nil.
Councillor Lynn Rodgers left the Chamber at 6.50 pm.
LATE AND URGENT BUSINESS ITEMS [AGENDA ITEM 21]
Nil
CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS [AGENDA ITEM 22]
RESOLVED:
Peter Rogers / D Lee
That the meeting proceeds with closed doors at 6.50 pm in accordance with Section 5.23(2)
(e) and (d) of the Local Government Act 1995, in order to allow for the confidential
discussion of items containing information relating to the personal affairs of a person and
legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government.
PAGE 18
Members of the media, non-senior employees and persons in the public gallery left the meeting at
this point. The Manager Financial Services, Manager Statutory Services and Coordinator Elected
Member Support remained with Senior Officers.
THE MEETING PROCEEDED WITH CLOSED DOORS AT 6.50 PM
At this juncture of the meeting, and with the consensus of Councillors, Mayor Vergone suggested
that the order of the agenda be changed, with Confidential Report 2 being considered next.
Councillor Peter Rogers left the Chamber at 6.50 pm, returning at 6.52 pm. Councillor Lynn
Rodgers returned to the Chamber at 6.54 pm.
G.39/4/16
CONFIDENTIAL ITEM: DERELICT HOUSE (CONFIDENTIAL REPORT 2)
Confidential discussion ensued regarding this issue.
MOTION:
F Riebeling / C Knight
That Council:
1
Adopts the course of action agreed.
2
Approves for the report and resolution to be made public upon the matter being listed
for a court hearing or when the dwelling is demolished, whichever occurs first.
The Manager Statutory Services retired from the Chamber at 6.55 pm.
G.40/4/16
CONFIDENTIAL ITEM: OFFER OF SETTLEMENT (CONFIDENTIAL REPORT 1)
Confidential discussion ensued regarding this issue.
MOTION:
S Jones / D Schumacher
That Council:
1
Adopts the course of action agreed.
2
Keeps this report confidential and that in accordance with the terms of any Deed of
Settlement, the City observe confidentiality obligations in relation to the terms of
the settlement.
CARRIED WITH ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:
11/0
MOTION:
D Schumacher / C Knight
That the meeting proceeds with open doors.
THE MEETING PROCEEDED WITH OPEN DOORS AT 6.58 PM
MOTION:
R Wortley / Tahlia Jones
That Council endorses the resolution made behind closed doors.
CLOSE OF MEETING [AGENDA ITEM 23]
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting closed at 6.58 pm.
CONFIRMED ……………………………………………….. (MAYOR)
PAGE 19
Report from Chief Executive Officer
to Council Meeting of 10 May 2016
1
SUBJECT:
2016 Future of Local Government National Summit There must be
a better way! 17-18 May, 2016
Mark Newman
Mark Newman
1971427
CONTACT OFFICER/S:
AUTHOR:
FILE NO:
Summary
Council is asked to consider the attendance of an Elected Member at the 2016 Future of Local
Government National Summit: There must be a better way!, in Melbourne on Tuesday 17 and
Wednesday 18 May 2016. The National Summit is being convened by the Municipal Association of
Victoria (MAV) on behalf of local government nationally.
The Summit has been designed to provide Elected Members and Council officers with an interest in
influencing the future of Local Government who wants to make a difference and add value to their
communities and to the sector generally now and in the future.
Disclosure of Interest
Nil
Previous Relevant Documentation

G.24/4/15
28 April 2015
No nominations were received from an Elected Member to attend the
2015 Summit.

G.44/3/13
26 March 2013
Council approves the attendance of Councillors Schumacher and
Brown at the 2013 Future of Local Government National Summit A
tsunami of change is imminent, Melbourne to be held in Melbourne on
Wednesday 22 and Thursday 23 May 2013.

G.42/4/12
24 April 2012
Council approves the attendance of Hon Councillor Riebeling at the
2012 Future of Local Government National Summit Local
Government Leading Change to be held in Melbourne on Wednesday
27 and Thursday 28 June 2012.
Background
Council has attended the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) Future of Local Government National
Summit since 2008 ranging in discussion topics as The Opportunity for Leadership in a Re-Localised
Future and Leading Strategic Change to tackling climate change.
The future of Local Government (FOLG) process began in 2005, with the first Summit bringing together a
panel of experts from around the world to share their views on the influences shaping local government,
and what opportunities this opened up for Councils and the communities they serve.
An era of fundamental change is here and local governments need to identify new solutions for emerging
issues.
Comment
The 2016 Summit features an array of Australian and international speakers providing thought
leadership for those who want to design a better future for local government. The new game plan There
must be a better way! needs to be agreed but could include:

Rewiring public services via principles of devolution, subsidiarity and localism
Report 1
Page 1


Flexible, place based funding arrangements that deliver on local priorities
Developing a local government transformation strategy to slash transaction costs, build non-rate
revenue and renegotiate its relation with the community.
Highlights of the 2016 Summit include





Surviving the post normal
Reform of the Federation
Sharing the Altered State: Rebooting Democracy in an Age of Dislocation
Reimagining local government for the 21st century
Time for a game-changer in Local Authority leadership: adaptive leadership in complex and
change
Localism is booming: people want to be involved in decision-making on individual local issues. Bringing
people back into decision-making has the potential to shift the balance of democratic power from nation
to local. In the next decade new digital technologies will reshape the way government delivers service
but most government organisations lack strategy to achieve digital transformation.
Consultation
Nil
Statutory Environment
Nil
Policy Implications
The formal approval of Council is appropriate for attendance at any interstate seminar or conference that
requires air travel. The cost of attending this conference is within the maximum annual amount of $4,000
per Elected Member for attendance at conferences, seminars and training programs.
Economic Implications
The cost of the attendance of a Councillor is $583 for the conference fee and approximately $2,000 for
travel and accommodations costs.
Strategic Implications
The following strategies from the City of Mandurah Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2033 are relevant
to this report:
Leadership:
 Develop and empower our community leaders to determine, guide and advocate for the City’s future.
 Demonstrate leadership on major regional, state and national issues.
Organisational Excellence:
 Develop a strong brand of leading local government that meets community expectations.
Conclusion
The Summit is an opportunity to understand the wider issues that local government face now and in the
future asking the question if local governments can innovate and collaborate, grasp the opportunity to
play a leadership role in transforming government whilst maintaining the relationship between community
and local government. Digital is disrupting: citizens want it ‘now’ and are demanding to be involved in
decision –making as democratisation of knowledge and access occurs.
Report 1
Page 2
The Summit is also important in understanding initiatives being implemented across Australia and all
levels of government in dealing with these challenges. The networking opportunities and panel sessions
will also enable the City to understand best practice, changes and challenges across a wide range of
activities. The key outcomes of the conference will be factored into our strategic thinking and the
development of our long term strategic plan
NOTE:
 Refer
Attachment 1
2016 Future of Local Government National Summit There must be a
better way
RECOMMENDATION
That Council consider the attendance of ____________________ at the 2016 Future of Local
Government National Summit: There must be a better way!, to be held in Melbourne on Tuesday
17 and Wednesday 19 May 2016.
Report 1
Page 3
Repport 1
Attachment 1
Page 4
Repport 1
Attachment 1
Page 5
Repport 1
Attachment 1
Page 6
Repport 1
Attachment 1
Page 7
Repport 1
Attachment 1
Page 8
Repport 1
Attachment 1
Page 9
2
SUBJECT:
National General Assembly of Local Government NGA16 Partners
in an Innovative and Prosperous Australia 19-22 June 2016*
Mark Newman
Mark Newman
1971428
CONTACT OFFICER/S:
AUTHOR:
FILE NO:
Summary
Council is asked to consider the attendance of the Mayor and a Councillor at the 2016 National General
Assembly (NGA) of Local Government NGA16 Partners in an Innovative and Prosperous Australia. The
conference will be held at the National Convention Centre, Canberra 19 – 22 June and is the annual
Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) conference
Nil
 G.23/4/15
28 April 2016
That Council considers the attendance of the Mayor and Councillor
Shane Jones at the 2015 National General Assembly of Local
Government NGA15 Closest to the Community: Local Government in
Federation in Canberra 14 - 17 June 2015.
 G/36/3/14
25 March 2014
That Council approves the attendance of Mayor Vergone at the 2014
National General Assembly of Local Government ‘Getting Down to
Business’ Conference being held in Canberra on 15 to 18 June, 2014.
 G.45/3/13 26 March 2013
Council approved the attendance of Councillor Vergone at the
National General Assembly of Local Government Foundations for the
Future Twenty13 conference in Canberra 16-19 June 2013.
Background
Council has been attending the National General Assembly of Local Government conferences since
2007.
Council’s involvement in the NGA is important in assisting ALGA to maintain the Government’s
engagement with local government and to drive improved outcomes for the local government sector at
the national level.
A number of crucial policy motions will be debated at the NGA with the program covering a wide range of
issues, reflecting the diversity of local government and interests. Today’s elected members must be
open to new ideas, innovative ways of engaging citizens and making interactions with councils simpler,
faster and easier.
Comment
The theme for this year’s NGA is Partners in an Innovative and Prosperous Australia looking at the many
ways local government is being innovative both here and overseas. As a responsive, pragmatic and
dynamic level of government, councils innovate with technology, with their resources and in practical
ways within their organisations and communities.
The NGA program features a number of preeminent speakers who will share their views on the two key
themes of innovation and prosperity
Report 2
Page 10
Consultation
Nil
Nil
Policy Implications
The formal approval of Council is required for attendance at any interstate seminar of conference that
requires air travel and is within the maximum amount of $4,000 per elected member for attendance at
conference, seminars and training programs.
The cost of the attendance is $1,029 for the conference fee and approximately $2,000 for travel and
accommodation.
to this report:
Leadership:
 Demonstrate leadership on major regional, state and national issues.
 Ensure the City has the capacity and capability to deliver services and facilities that meet community
expectations.
Conclusion
Local government contributes to national economic prosperity and productivity, a contribution which
often goes unacknowledged. They play a significant role in the national economy and councils play
critical roles in their local economies. The influence of local government is reflected in the ongoing high
level political engagement the NGA receives. The conference is an opportunity to be an important
partner and stakeholder in the advocacy program to ensure that the promises made by the major political
parties address the needs of councils and communities.
The networking opportunities and working sessions will also enable the City of Mandurah to understand
best practice across a wide range of activities. The key learnings from the conference will be factored
into our strategic thinking and the development of our long term strategic plan.
NOTE:
 Refer
Attachment 1
2016 National General Assembly of Local Government NGA16:
Partners in an Innovative and Prosperous Australia
RECOMMENDATION
That Council consider the attendance of the Mayor and Councillor
at the
2016 National General Assembly of Local Government NGA16 Partners in an Innovative and
Prosperous Australia in Canberra 19-22 June 2016.
Report 2
Page 11
Partners in
an Innovative
and Prosperous
Australia
NGA16
Program &
Registration
National General Assembly
Canberra 19-22 June 2016
REgister online
www.alga.asn.au
Report 2
Attachment 1
Page 12
President’s
welcome
Key drivers of success for the councils
of the future will include the ability to
innovate and adapt to change. Today’s
councillors must be open to new ideas,
innovative ways of engaging citizens
and making interactions with councils
simpler, faster and easier.
Under the theme Partners in an
Innovative and Prosperous Australia,
delegates at this year’s National
General Assembly of Local Government
(NGA) will look at the many ways local
government is being innovative both
here and overseas. As a responsive,
pragmatic and dynamic level of
government, councils innovate with
technology, with their resources and in
practical ways within their organisations
and communities. Through the NGA,
delegates will be able to learn from the
ideas and experiences of other councils
and gain valuable ideas for their own
councils.
Our theme also underlines the
contribution local government makes
to national economic prosperity and
productivity, a contribution which
often goes unacknowledged. We have
a significant role to play in fostering
and enhancing the prosperity of
our communities. Nationally, local
government:
•• employs 189,000 Australians (around
10 per cent of the total public sector);
•• owns and manages non-financial
assets with a replacement value of
$437 million;
•• raises around 3.4 per cent of Australia’s
total taxation revenue per annum; and
•• has annual operational expenditure of
around $33 billion, or just under 6 per
cent of total public sector spending.
Local government plays a significant
role in the national economy and
councils play critical roles in their local
economies. I encourage you to attend the
NGA, and to work with myself and the
ALGA Board, as we explore opportunities
to strengthen the contribution that local
government makes.
With a Federal election due this year, the
NGA offers an opportunity to elevate local
government issues to the Federal level.
In the lead up to this election, ALGA,
in conjunction with State and Territory
Associations, will undertake a significant
advocacy program to ensure that the
promises made by the major political
parties address the needs of our councils
and our communities. The influence
of local government is reflected in the
ongoing high level political engagement
the NGA receives, and this year will be
no different. I have invited the Prime
Minister, Leader of the Opposition,
Leader of the Australian Greens, Minister
for Local Government and Shadow
Minister for Local Government to address
the NGA and to give you the opportunity
to hear directly from them in the lead up
to the election.
The NGA program this year features a
number of preeminent speakers who
will share their views and encourage
our thinking on the two key areas of
our theme: innovation and prosperity.
We have panel sessions that allow for
interaction with these presenters and
other thought leaders, as well as breakout
sessions to give you the maximum
opportunity to gain insights which you
can take back to your council.
I invite you to join me and your colleagues
at this year’s NGA held from 19-22 June
in Canberra.
Mayor Troy Pickard
P r e si d e nt
Contents
2
President’s welcome . . . . . . . . 2
Social functions. . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Provisional program. . . . . . . . . . 3
Regional Cooperation &
Development Forum 2016. . . 8
Panel sessions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Key dates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Accommodation. . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Concurrent sessions. . . . . . . . . 4
Motions for debate. . . . . . . . . . . 9
Coach transfers. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Associated events . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Voting procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Car parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Speaker profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Registration details . . . . . . . . . 10
Registration form . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Report 2
Partner tours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Attachment 1
Page 13
NGA16
National General Assembly
Canberra 19-22 June 2016
Provisional program
Partners in an Innovative
and Prosperous Australia
S u n d ay 1 9 J u n e
T u e s d ay 2 1 J u n e
W e d n e s d ay 2 2 J u n e
5.007.00pm
9.00 am
Minister for Major Projects,
Territories and Local
Government, the Hon Paul
Fletcher MP (invited)
9.00 am
9.30 am
Keynote Speaker
Welcome Reception
M o n d ay 2 0 J u n e
9.00 am
Opening Ceremony
9.20 am
Prime Minister, the Hon
Malcolm Turnbull MP (invited)
10.00 am
Keynote Speaker
George Megalogenis
10.30 am
Morning Tea
11.00 am
Panel Session The future
of Local Government
12.30 pm
Lunch
1.30 pm
Surfing the
wave of disruption
2.30 pm
Leader of the Australian
Greens, Senator Dr Richard
Di Natale
3.00 pm
Afternoon Tea
3.30 pm
Debate on Motions
5.00 pm
Cl o s e
Shadow Minister for
Regional Development
and Local Government,
the Hon Julie Collins MP
(invited)
Pip Marlow, Managing
Director, Microsoft
9.30 am
Debate on Motions
10.30 am
Morning Tea
10.00 am
Speaker Q&A
11.00 am
10.30 am
Morning Tea
11.00 am
Panel Session Digital
transformation at the Local
Government level
Panel Session Local
Government’s role in
facilitating prosperity
12.30 pm
12.30 pm
Lunch
1.00 pm
1.30 pm
Concurrent Sessions
Keynote Speaker
Robert de Castella AO MBE
L u n c h / Cl o s e
•• New approaches to
improve your business
•• The infrastructure
challenge
•• Innovative approaches
to the environment
•• Northern Australia
Panel Session
3.00 pm
Afternoon Tea
3.30 pm
Leader of the Opposition,
the Hon Bill Shorten MP
(invited)
4.00 pm
Debate on Motions
5.00 pm
Cl o s e
Sponsors
3
Report 2
Attachment 1
Page 14
T u e s day 1 .30-3.00 pm
Panel
sessions
Concurrent
Sessions
M on day 11 .0 0 -1 2 .30pm
T u e s day 11.00-12.30pm
The future of Local
Government
Digital transformation at the
Local Government level
As the role of local government continues
to change, anticipating the challenges
of the next 20 years and determining
how councils are best placed to respond
is critical. As the level of government
closest to Australians, local government
must continue to provide high quality
services and respond to the myriad of
challenges faced by local communities.
External factors such as rate capping,
amalgamation processes, reductions in
grant funding and changing expectations
of local government’s role are placing
increasing pressure on councils’ ability
to perform. However, it is often under
these conditions that innovation thrives
as councils look to deliver more with less.
How are councils responding to these
challenges?
Local government has a long history
of being an early-adopter of new
technologies and of using its own
resources to drive innovation based
on local knowledge and expertise.
Technology can improve collaboration
between the public, private and the
not-for profit sectors to drive innovation,
solve complex problems, and enhance
community engagement. How can
technology be used to transform council
businesses and enable innovation in your
community?
M on day 1 .30 -2 .30pm
Surfing the wave of Disruption
Traditional service delivery and business
models are changing – recently we’ve
seen the rapid growth of AirBnB and
Uber which are challenging how the
hotel and the taxi industries operate.
The capacity for organisations to
accommodate change is increasingly
becoming an important determinant of
their success. As the pace of change
increases and the length of time strategic
planning activities can cover reduces,
councils are being forced re-examine
their planning processes, regulatory
frameworks and their basic assumptions
as well as their ability to respond to
changes within the community.
W e d n e s day 11.00-12.30pm
Local Government’s role in
facilitating prosperity
Strong leadership and the ability to
access social and economic capital are
crucial preconditions for prosperity. Local
government strives, wherever possible,
to assist communities to enhance their
capacity to respond to challenges and
identify opportunities to build resilience
and increase overall prosperity. Being
able to grow social capital, support
entrepreneurs and attract investment are
fundamental to the growth in local and
regional productivity. What strategies can
councils employ to foster prosperity in
their community and region?
New approaches to improve
your business
Smart councils are required to use
information and communication
technologies to enhance quality services
and infrastructure. The application of
new information, data and knowledge
generated through the application of new
technologies will improve performance,
interactivity with community and reduce
costs. As our cities become smarter,
councils need more careful consideration
of three main areas: technologies;
infrastructure and planning; and
regulation and markets. In this session
delegates will have the opportunity to
explore the content covered in the Digital
Transformation at the Local Government
Level panel session and interact further
with our highly experienced international
colleagues from Boston.
The infrastructure challenge
Local government community
infrastructure underpins and binds many
communities. For many Australians,
council managed facilities are where
their club meets, their kids play and their
families learn to swim. In addition to this
it is well recognised that every journey
starts and ends on a local road. In February
Infrastructure Australia published the
Australian Infrastructure Plan which
sets out a blueprint for infrastructure
development and priorities for the next
15 years. This session will provide the
opportunity for delegates to explore
the role of community infrastructure
in supporting productivity, community
development and in enhancing social
cohesion. It will also examine the challenge
we face in maintaining infrastructure at
the local and national level.
4
Report 2
Attachment 1
Page 15
Associated
events
Innovative approaches to the
environment
Managing climate change and the
environment are some of the most significant
issues many councils are facing. Developing
appropriate strategies to reduce emissions
at a local government level will be critical if
Australia is to meet the global commitments
reached in Paris in 2015. Reduction of
emissions from council and community
activities, improved design of cities and
towns, buildings and facilities, transport
systems, and the management of water
resources and municipal waste are important
considerations in reducing carbon emissions.
In this session delegates will have access to
key leaders in the field to explore innovative
approaches to addressing climate change and
improving environmental management.
Australian Local Government
Women’s Association Breakfast
M o n day 20 J u n e 2016
7:30am-8:30am
The ALGWA National President is pleased to invite members, friends and
colleagues to the 5th Annual Networking Breakfast as part of the National
General Assembly.
The Breakfast will be held in the Murray Room on Monday 20 June from
7:30‑8:30 am.
Seating is strictly limited, so book early. More details on www.algwa.net.au
Northern Australia
Advancing sustainable economic outcomes
for communities in Northern Australia through
existing programs and services, knowledge
sharing and new business development
opportunities is important not only for
Northern Australia but for all of Australia.
The session will address some of the many
issues regarding economic development
and opportunity in Northern Australia. It will
also draw on the recent report of the Council
of Australian Government’s investigation
into issues of importance to Indigenous
communities, especially land administration.
The report, among other things, addresses
how the Indigenous land administration
systems could effectively support Indigenous
land owners and native title holders to
leverage their land assets for economic
development. This session will provide
delegates with the opportunity to discuss and
explore key issues facing Northern Australian
and Indigenous communities.
Regional Capitals Australia
Networking Breakfast
W e d n es day 22 J u n e 2016
7:00 am-8:45 am
Regional Capitals Australia (RCA) is an alliance of local government
associations and councils from around Australia. The alliance is working
to create a strong network of regional capitals that are at the forefront of
federal policy and the national identity.
RCA will be holding a networking breakfast on Wednesday 22 June at
the National Convention Centre during the ALGA conference. RCA’s
annual networking breakfast is a chance for attendees to hear directly
from government and engage with their regional capitals colleagues
from across Australia.
To register for the event and for enquiries about RCA, please contact:
Email [email protected]
Phone (03) 9614 7302
Visit our website at www.regionalcapitalsaustralia.org
5
Report 2
Attachment 1
Page 16
Speaker
profiles
George Megalogenis
George Megalogenis is an author and
journalist with three decades’ experience
in the media. His books include The
Australian Moment, which won the
2013 Prime Minister’s Literary Award for
Non-fiction and the 2012 Walkley Award
for Non-fiction, and formed the basis
for the ABC documentary series Making
Australia Great.
Annabel Crabb said “George Megalogenis
is Australia’s best explainer”, David Marr
posits “this man is perhaps the sanest
journalist in Australia. He believes in facts
and figures. He has a unique grasp of
politics in all its messy detail. The result
is this splendid account of the great
reforms of the last 40 years that have
made Australia”.
George is also the author of Faultlines,
The Longest Decade and Quarterly Essay
40: Trivial Pursuit – Leadership and the
End of the Reform Era. His most recent
book Australia’s Second Chance was
launched by Prime Minister Malcolm
Turnbull.
This year George will publish Quarterly
Essay 61: Balancing Act: Australia
Between Recession and Renewal.
Pip Marlow
Managing Director, Microsoft Australia
As Managing Director, Pip Marlow
is responsible for Microsoft’s overall
business in Australia. She ensures
the company meets the needs of
its customers and more than 11,000
partners and independent software
vendors that sell or build on the Microsoft
platform.
Pip began her 18-year career with
Microsoft in 1995, working in the
Australian Partner team on anti-piracy
efforts, and the system builder channel
and distribution strategy. She then moved
to Microsoft’s head office in Seattle, US,
where she held a succession of senior
roles, including General Manager for
US channel sales.
After eight years in the US, Pip returned
to Microsoft Australia. She worked in
various positions across the business,
including as Director of Small and
Medium Business Solutions, and
Partners. Before being appointed
Managing Director in January 2011, Pip
held the joint role of Enterprise and
Partner Group Director and Public Sector
Director.
Robert de Castella AO MBE
Robert de Castella is recognised as one
of Australia’s greatest athletes after
dominating the world in the gruelling
event of the marathon. He was the first
person to win the Commonwealth Games
marathon twice and set the course
record at the Boston Marathon.
Robert started running aged eleven at
Xavier College in Melbourne, where one
of his teachers was 1962 Commonwealth
Games athlete Pat Clohessy. Pat
continued as his coach throughout
his career. Robert won the Canberra
Pan Pacific Conference Games in 1977
over 10,000m and the 1978 Australian
Cross-Country title. He finished 10th
at the Moscow Olympics in 1980, then
won Gold at the 1982 Commonwealth
Games in a tight battle with Juma
Ikangaa from Tanzania. He soon won the
Rotterdam marathon and the IAAF World
Championships in Holland but finished
in fifth place in the 1984 Olympics. In the
1988 Olympics he finished fourth, then at
the 1992 Olympics finished in 26th place.
Robert became Director of the Australian
Institute of Sport from 1990 to 1995,
and has since continued his advocacy
and support for athletics and marathon
running in particular. He was awarded the
Australian Sports Medal in 2000.
The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP
Prime Minister
Malcolm Turnbull was sworn in as the
29th Prime Minister of Australia on
15 September 2015.
Malcolm was a Cabinet Minister in
the Howard and Abbott Governments.
He served as Minister for the
Environment and Water Resources in
the Howard Government and Minister
for Communications in the Abbott
Government.
Malcolm also served as Leader of
the Opposition from 2008 to 2009.
Malcolm was educated at Vaucluse
Public School and Sydney Grammar
School. Malcolm’s high school education
at Sydney Grammar was assisted by
a scholarship. In later life Malcolm
arranged for an additional meanstested scholarship to be established at
Sydney Grammar in memory of his late
father. Malcolm graduated from Sydney
University with a BA LLB. He won a
Rhodes Scholarship and completed a
further law degree at Oxford.
After a successful career in journalism
Malcolm began practicing law in 1980.
He quickly established a reputation as an
effective advocate, most notably when
he successfully defended former MI5
agent Peter Wright against the British
Government in the “Spycatcher” trial.
Malcolm left law for business in 1987
where he has since been responsible
for the establishment and success of
many Australian businesses. In particular
he has been a determined supporter of
Australian technology. He co-founded
OzEmail in 1994. His software companies
have won many awards for exporting
Australian technology.
6
Report 2
Attachment 1
Page 17
The Hon Bill Shorten MP
Leader of the Opposition
Bill Shorten is the Federal Member for
Maribyrnong and was elected leader of
the Australian Labor Party and Leader of
the Opposition on 13 October 2013.
Mr Shorten completed a Bachelors
degree in Arts and Law from Monash
University, as well as an MBA from the
Melbourne Business School.
Bill has since worked as a union
organiser, union secretary, as a member
of the ACTU executive, as a Member of
Parliament and as a Minister in a Labor
Government.
As a senior member of the Rudd/Gillard
Labor Governments, Bill played a key
role in securing a number of historic
reforms including establishing the
National Disability Insurance Scheme
and increasing universal superannuation
to 12 per cent.
As Minister for Workplace Relations,
Bill continued the Labor Government’s
ongoing commitment to a fair and
productive workplace relations system
and during his time as Minister for
Education helped secure the Better
Schools reforms.
Prior to entering Parliament, Bill worked
at the Australian Workers Union, holding
key leadership positions including State
Secretary of the AWU Victoria Branch
from 1998 to 2006 and the National
Secretary from 2001 to 2007.
Senator Dr Richard Di Natale
Leader of the Australian Greens
Dr Richard Di Natale is the leader
of the Australian Greens. He was
elected to the Federal Parliament in
2010 and is the Greens’ first Victorian
senator. His portfolios include health,
multiculturalism, youth, gambling
and sport.
Prior to entering parliament, Richard
was a general practitioner and public
health specialist. He worked in Aboriginal
health in the Northern Territory, on HIV
prevention in India and in the drug and
alcohol sector. His key health priorities
include preventative health, public
dental care and responding to the health
impacts of climate change.
He has dual first class honours degrees
in law and economics from The
University of Sydney and an MBA from
Columbia University in New York where
he was a Fulbright Scholar.
Richard’s achievements in parliament
so far include securing almost $5 billion
towards Medicare-funded dentistry,
winning a campaign to divest $250
million worth of tobacco stocks from the
Future Fund, and spearheading senate
inquiries into many issues of public
significance such as dying with dignity,
superbugs, hospital funding, budget
cuts, medicinal cannabis, air pollution,
pharmaceutical transparency, sports
science and gambling reform.
Julie Collins was born in Hobart. She was
State Secretary of the Tasmanian Labor
Party between 2006 and 2007.
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP
Minister for Major Projects, Territories
and Local Government
Paul Fletcher is the Minister for
Territories, Local Government and Major
Projects.
He entered parliament in December
2009 as the Member for Bradfield, was
appointed Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister for Communications in
September 2013, and was appointed
to his present role in September 2015.
The Hon Julie Collins MP
Shadow Minister for Regional Development
and Local Government
Ms Collins was first elected the Member
for Franklin in 2007. She successfully
held her seat in the 2010 federal election
and was sworn in as Parliamentary
Secretary for Community Services
on 14 September 2010 in the first Gillard
Ministry. In 2011, Ms Collins became
Minister for Community Services,
Minister for Indigenous Employment
and Economic Development, and
Minister for the Status of Women in the
second Gillard Ministry. In 2013, she
gained additional responsibilities as the
Minister for Housing and Homelessness
and promoted to the Cabinet in the
second Rudd Ministry.
Ms Collins now serves as Shadow
Minister for Regional Development and
Local Government and Shadow Minister
for Employment Services.
Before entering parliament, Paul was
Director, Corporate and Regulatory
Affairs at Optus for eight years;
established a consulting firm serving the
communications sector; and in 2009
his book about broadband, Wired Brown
Land was published by UNSW Press.
Earlier in his career Paul was Chief of
Staff to the Minister for Communications
in the Howard Government, Senator
Richard Alston.
7
Report 2
Attachment 1
Page 18
Regional
Cooperation
& Development
Forum 2016
Supporting a prosperous
visitor economy
RCDF Program • Sunday 19 June 2016
9:30 am Welcome and Introduction: ALGA President, Mayor Troy Pickard
The 2016 Regional Forum is a vital
opportunity for mayors, councillors
and other decision-makers from
regional councils to share their ideas,
knowledge and experience and to
work to further develop the capacity
of regional Australia to adapt to the
pressures of a rapidly changing
global economy.
9:45 am Keynote Address
10:15 Am Launch of the State of the Regions Report
10:45 am
Morning Tea
This year’s State of the Regions
Report investigates two critical
yet interrelated issues relevant to
all local governments around the
country. One is the importance of
ongoing financial commitment
to local government through the
Commonwealth Financial Assistance
Grants and how the diverse
investments by local government
support the growing and increasingly
important visitor economy. The Forum will see the launch of the
2016-17 State of the Regions Report.
The State of the Regions Report is
commissioned by ALGA, prepared by
National Economics and published
with the support of Jardine Lloyd
Thompson.
11:15 am Department of Infrastructure and Regional Australia - Policy and
Programme Update
11:45 Am The Hon Julie Collins MP Shadow Minister for Regional Development
and Local Government (invited)
12:15 pm Capacity Building Insights Project - Regional Australia Institute
12:45 pmLunch
1:30 pm Importance of Local Government - Australian Regional Tourism
Network
2:00 pm Workshop Discussion: Leveraging the Visitor Economy - Challenges
and Opportunities
2:45 pm
Afternoon Tea
3:15 pm Panel Session: Tourism in my region
4:00 pm The Hon Barnaby Joyce MP Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
for Agriculture and Water Resources (invited)
4:30 pmClose
8
Report 2
Attachment 1
Page 19
Key
Dates
Submission of Motions for Debate 22 April 2016
Early bird registration on or before 6 May 2016
Standard registration on or before 3 June 2016
Late registration after 3 June 2016
Motions
for Debate
The NGA is your opportunity to
contribute to the development of national
local government policy.
The ALGA Board is calling for motions
for the 2016 NGA under the theme
Partners in an Innovative and Prosperous
Australia. To assist Councils in preparing
motions a Discussion Paper has been
prepared and is available via www.alga.
asn.au.
To be eligible for inclusion in the NGA
Business Papers motions must follow the
principles:
1. be relevant to the work of local
government nationally;
2. be consistent with the themes of the
Assembly;
3. complement or build on the policy
objectives of your state and territory
local government association;
4. propose a clear action and outcome;
and
5. not be advanced on behalf of external
third parties which may seek to use
the NGA to apply pressure to Board
members, to gain national political
exposure for positions that are not
directly relevant to the work of, or
in the national interests of, local
government.
Voting
Procedures
Motions should be submitted
electronically through the online form
via www.alga.asn.au and should be
received by ALGA no later than 11:59pm
AEST, Friday 22 April 2016.
Motions submitted will be reviewed
by a committee of the ALGA Board as
well as by State and Territory Local
Government Associations, to determine
their eligibility for inclusion in the NGA
Business Papers. When reviewing
motions, the Committee considers the
importance and relevance of the issue
to local government.
Each council is entitled to one voting
delegate in the debating session.
Councils will need to determine who their
voting delegate will be. Voting cards can
be collected at the Assembly. Councils
do not need to advise ALGA of the name
of the voting delegate prior to collecting
voting cards.
Please note that motions should not be
prescriptive in directing how the matter
should be pursued. Any motion deemed
to be primarily concerned with local
or state issues will be referred to the
relevant state/territory local government
association, and will not be included in
the Business Papers.
Motions that are agreed to at the
National General Assembly become
Resolutions. These Resolutions
are then considered by the ALGA
Board when setting national local
government policy and when the
Board is making representations to
the Federal Government at Ministerial
Councils, during meetings and in ALGA
publications. The ALGA Board is not
bound by any resolutions passed at
the NGA.
9
Report 2
Attachment 1
Page 20
Registration
details
General Assembly
registration fees
Early bird r egistrati o n
$929
Payment received by Friday 6 May 2016
S tandard r egistrati o n
$1,029
Payment received on or before Friday 3 June 2016
L at e r egistrati o n
$1,250
Payment received on or after Friday 3 June 2016
General Assembly registration includes:
•• Attendance at all General Assembly
sessions
•• Morning tea, lunch and afternoon tea
as per the General Assembly program
•• One ticket to the Welcome Drinks,
Sunday
•• General Assembly satchel and
materials.
Day registration fees
Payment procedures
M o nday 2 0 J u n e 2 0 16
Payment can be made by:
$489
•• Credit card – MasterCard, Visa
•• Cheque made payable to ALGA
•• Electronic funds transfer:
Bank: Commonwealth
Branch: Curtin BSB No: 062905
Account No: 10097760.
T u e sday 2 1 J u n e 2 0 16
$489
W e dn e sday 2 2 J u n e 2 0 16
$280
NOTE: If paying via EFT you must quote
your transaction reference number on the
registration form.
Day registration includes:
•• Attendance at all General Assembly
sessions on the day of registration
•• Morning tea, lunch and afternoon
tea as per the General Assembly
program on that day
•• General Assembly satchel and
materials.
Regional Development Forum
S u n day 19 J u n e 2 016
All alterations or cancellations to your
registration must be made in writing and will
be acknowledged by post, facsimile or email.
Notification should be sent to:
Conference Co-ordinators
PO Box 4994, Chisholm ACT 2905
Fax (02) 6292 9002
An administration charge of $110 will be
made to any participant cancelling before
Friday 6 May 2016.
Fo r u m Only
$425
Cancellations received after Friday 6 May
2016 will be required to pay full registration
fees. However, if you are unable to attend,
substitutes are welcome at no additional cost.
N G A D e l egat e
$225
By submitting your registration you agree to
the terms of the cancellation policy.
Accompanying partners
registration fees
Privacy disclosure
Acc o mpan y ing partn e rs
r egistrati o n F e e
$260
Accompanying partners registration
includes:
10
Cancellation policy
•• 1 ticket to the Welcome Reception,
Sunday 19 June
•• Day tour Monday 20 June
•• Day tour Tuesday 21 June
•• Lunch with General Assembly
delegates on Wednesday 22 June.
Report 2
ALGA collects your personal contact
information in its role as a peak body for
local government. ALGA may disclose
your personal contact information to the
sponsors of the event for the purposes
of commercial business opportunities. If
you consent to ALGA using and disclosing
your personal contact information in this
way, please tick the appropriate box on
the registration form. Importantly, your
name may also be included in the General
Assembly List of Participants. You must tick
the appropriate box on the registration form
if you wish your name to appear in this list.
Attachment 1
Page 21
Social
functions
Photographs
General Assembly dinner
Venue and dress code
During the National General Assembly
there will be a contracted photographer,
the photographer will take images during
the sessions and social functions. If you
have your picture taken it is assumed
that you are giving consent for ALGA
to use the image.
T u es day 21 J u n e 2 016
E x h i b iti o n Op e n i n g a n d
W e lc o m e R ec e pti o n
Images may be used for print and
electronic publications.
The Great Hall, Parliament House
7:00–11:00 pm
$130 per person.
Lounge suit/collar and tie
for men and cocktail style for women.
Dress code
5:00–7:00 pm
Tickets to the prestigious General
Assembly Annual Dinner at Parliament
House are always highly sought after.
Due to the size of the Great Hall, places
are limited and therefore booking early
is highly recommended to ensure your
place. Coaches will depart all Assembly
hotels at approximately 6:45pm with
return shuttles commencing from
10:15 pm.
$50 per person for day delegates
and guests.
Note: Bookings are accepted in
order of receipt.
Welcome reception and
exhibition opening
S u n day 19 J u n e 2016
National Convention Centre
Dress code Smart
casual.
Buffet dinner
M o n day 2 0 J u n e 2016
The Ballroom, National Convention
Centre
7:00–11:00 pm
Dress code Smart
casual.
G e n e r al Ass e m b ly b u si n ess
s essi o n s
Venue National Convention
Centre, Constitution Ave,
Canberra City.
All plenary sessions will be
held in the Royal Theatre
at the National Convention
Centre.
casual.
E x h i b iti o n
Canberra weather in June
Winter days in Canberra are
characterised by clear sunny skies but
the days are cool at around 12-15˚C and
temperatures do drop to 1˚C on average
in the evenings, so be sure to bring a
warm jacket. Mornings can be foggy so
keep this in mind when booking flights.
It is best to avoid early arrivals or
departures in case of delays due to fog.
Venue National Convention
Canberra City.
The exhibition is being held
in the Exhibition Hall of the
National Convention Centre.
Dress code Smart
casual.
Venue The dinner is being held in
the Ballroom at the National
Convention Centre.
Dress code Smart
Coaches will depart Assembly hotels
(except Crowne Plaza) at approximately
6:45 pm with return shuttles
commencing from 10:15 pm.
casual.
Buffet dinner
$100 per person.
Dress code Smart
National Convention
Canberra City.
Dress code Smart
No charge for full registered delegates.
No charge for registered accompanying
partners.
Venue casual.
G e n e r al Ass e m b ly d i n n e r
Venue Parliament House.
The General Assembly Dinner
is being held in the Great Hall.
Dress code Lounge
suit/collar and tie
for men and cocktail style
for women.
11
Report 2
Attachment 1
Page 22
Partner
tours
Accommodation
M o n day 2 0 J u n e
To book your accommodation at the rates
listed below complete the appropriate
section of the registration form. Bookings
are subject to availability and should
be made prior to Friday 6 May 2016.
All cancellations or amendments must
be made in writing to Conference
Co‑ordinators and will be acknowledged
by email. Please note your credit card
details are required to guarantee your
room. Neither Conference Co-ordinators
nor the hotel will make any charges
against your credit card unless you
fail to give 21 days notice in writing of
your cancellation. Full payment of your
account will be required at the time of
your departure.
Av e n u e H ot e l
Note: All Canberrra hotels have a
complete non-smoking policy.
Hotel Room: $230 per night
single/twin/double
Canberra Celebrates 2016
To commemorate the 50th anniversary
of decimal currency in Australia we will
visit the Royal Australian Mint. A guided
tour will be offered and the opportunity to
make your own $1 coin.
A visit and lunch will be at Old Parliament
House in anticipation of the upcoming
Federal Election prior to visiting the
National Portrait Gallery. At the Gallery
guests will be able to see the 2016
National Photographic Portrait Prize
Exhibition which features a large range of
talented Australian photography.
T u es day 2 1 J u n e
The group will then venture to
Bungendore for lunch with time to visit
the well known Bungendore Wood Works.
A brand new property which recently
opened in November 2014, the Avenue
Hotel is Canberra’s newest and only
5-star hotel in the CBD. The hotel has
an onsite restaurant and bar, 24‑hour
reception and room service, gymnasium,
undercover parking (charges apply per
night) and guest lounge with free wifi.
Offering hotel rooms, 1 and 2 bedroom
apartments, all rooms have king size
beds, rainfall showers, balconies and
mini bar. The apartments also have full
kitchen facilities, the Avenue is a 15‑20
minute walk from the Convention Centre.
1 Bedroom Apartment: $280 per night
single/double
Canberra Truffle Farm
Canberra is celebrating its annual eightweek truffle festival. Today you will travel
to The Canberra Truffle Farm and enjoy
a truffle cleaning demonstration, a short
walk through some of the farm areas
(weather permitting) and a truffle tasting.
Produce from the farm will be available
for purchase prior to departing.
80 Northbourne Avenue, Canberra
C r ow n e P laza
1 Binara Street, Canberra
The Crowne Plaza is adjacent to the
Convention Centre and only a short
walk from restaurants, bars and the
main shopping district. Featuring a
contemporary design, the Crowne Plaza
provides guests with an outdoor pool,
sauna, health/fitness centre, 24‑hour
reception, concierge, undercover
parking and onsite dining at the RedSalt
Restaurant. All rooms are non-smoking
and include iron/ironing board, tea/coffee
making facilities, hairdryer and room
service is available.
Superior Room: $295 per night
single/twin/double
Deluxe Room: $345 per night
single/twin/double
Mantra
Mantra on Northbourne is centrally
located and approximately a 15‑20
minute walk from the National
Convention Centre. The hotel features
a heated indoor pool, sauna, fullyequipped gymnasium and the Zipp
restaurant bar onsite. All rooms offer
voice mail, individually controlled
air-conditioning, pay per view movies,
mini bar, tea/coffee making facilities,
hairdryer and complimentary toiletries.
One and two bedroom apartments also
offer a separate lounge and dining area,
fully-equipped kitchen and a laundry
with washing machine, dryer, iron and
ironing board.
Hotel Room: $219 per night
single/twin/double
single/twin/double
12
Report 2
Attachment 1
Page 23
M e d i n a A pa r tm e n t H ot e l
Jam es C o u r t
The Medina Apartments Hotel James
Court is approximately a 15‑20 minute
walk from the National Convention
Centre and is close to cafes, restaurants,
gyms and shopping. The hotel offers
reception, undercover parking,
outdoor heated swimming pool,
sauna, gymnasium and a restaurant
delivery service. All rooms feature
private balconies, climate controlled air
conditioning, separate lounge/dining
areas, broadband access (for a fee), spa
bath, mini bar, fully equipped kitchen
facilities and an in-room safe.
P e pp e r s Gall e ry H ot e l
Wal d o r f
15 Edinburgh Place, Canberra
2 Akuna Street, Canberra
Peppers Gallery Hotel (formally Diamant
Hotel, re-branded in 2014) is a boutique
80 room hotel located at the intersection
of Marcus Clarke St and Edinburgh Ave,
15 minutes walk from the Convention
Centre. Peppers Gallery Hotel features
24‑hour reception, a restaurant and a bar.
The rooms have a mini-bar, tea/coffee
making facilities, plasma TVs, CD and
DVD players, broadband (for a fee), and
in-room safe.
Located in the heart of Canberra’s CBD,
the Waldorf is only a couple minutes walk
from the National Convention Centre.
This hotel has 24‑hour reception and
provides guests with a gymnasium,
indoor heated lap pool and onsite dining
at the Waldorf London Restaurant.
Standard Room: $264 per night
single/twin/double
Studio Room: $200 per night
single/twin/double
Note: Reception operates between the
hours of 6.30am and 11.30pm.
Qt H ot e l
single/twin/double
Qt Hotel Canberra (formally Rydges
Lakeside) has recently been renovated
throughout the foyer and restaurants.
The rooms have been updated and offer
balconies and high speed internet (for
a fee), pay per view movies, mini bar,
hairdryer, iron and ironing board. The
hotel is a 15 minute walk to the National
Convention Centre and has 24-hour
reception, room service, onsite restaurant
and bar.
single/twin/double
N ovot e l
Located on Northbourne Avenue, one
of Canberra’s main thoroughfares, the
Novotel is a 15 minute walk from the
National Convention Centre. The hotel
offers 24-hour reception and room
service, an onsite restaurant and bar,
gymnasium and undercover parking
(charges apply per night). In‑room
facilities include mini bar, tea/coffee
making facilities, broadband (for a fee),
Fox Sports and News, pay per view
movies, climate control airconditioning,
hairdryer, iron and ironing board.
Executive rooms have a king size bed.
All rooms have kitchen and laundry
facilities, in room safe, dining table and
chairs, complimentary cable TV, pay per
view movies, high speed internet service
(for a fee) and room service is available.
One bedroom apartments also offer a
separate lounge/dining area.
1 London Circuit, Canberra
single twin/double
single/twin/double
single/twin/double
Executive Room: $295 per night
single/twin/double
13
Report 2
Attachment 1
Page 24
Coach
transfers
Car
parking
Welcome Reception and
Exhibition Opening
Buffet Dinner National
Convention Centre
S u n day 19 J u n e 2016
M o n day 2 0 J u n e 2 016
Coaches will collect delegates from
all General Assembly hotels (except
Crowne Plaza Canberra) at approximately
4:45 pm. The return coaches will depart
at 7:00 pm.
all General Assembly hotels (except
6:45 pm. A return shuttle service will
commence at 10:15 pm.
Daily Shuttles to and from the
National Convention Centre
General Assembly Annual
Dinner Parliament House
A shuttle service between all General
Assembly hotels (except Crowne Plaza
Canberra) and the National Convention
Centre will operate between 8:00 am and
8:30 am. Return shuttles will depart the
National Convention Centre at 5:00 pm.
T u es day 21 J u n e 2 016
Parking for delegates is available
underneath the National Convention
Centre for a cost of approximately $18.00
per day. Alternative parking is available
to the rear of Civic Pool at a cost of
approximately $14.90 per day. It is a
seven minute walk from this location.
all General Assembly hotels (including
6:45 pm. A return shuttle service will
operate between 10:15 pm and 11:15 pm.
14
Report 2
Attachment 1
Page 25
Registration
form
NGA16
REgister online
www.alga.asn.au
Multiple delegates > photocopy form
Register online, download PDF or return
this form to:
Conference Co-ordinators
PO Box 4994 Chisholm ACT 2905
Phone (02) 6292 9000 Fax (02) 6292 9002
By submitting your registration you agree to the
terms and conditions of the cancellation policy
N ational G e n e r al Ass e mbly of Local G ov e r nm e nt 19 –2 2 jun e 2 016
Australian Local Government Association ABN 31 008 613 876
P e rs o nal D e tails
T itl e N am e S u r nam e
(Cr/Ald/Mayor/Other)
P osition
C ouncil / O r ganisation
A d d r e ss
S ubu r b S tat e P hon e mobil e F ax
P ostco d e
Email
N am e fo r ba d g e
How did you find out about the General Assembly?
ALGA
State/Territory Association
Council Other:
d is c l o s u r e P R I VA CY I do
consent to my name appearing in the 2016 General Assembly List of Participants booklet (name,
organisation and state only disclosed) as outlined in the privacy disclosure on page 10.
I do
consent to ALGA disclosing my personal contact information as outlined in the privacy disclosure on page 10.
R e gistrati o n F e e s
G E N E R A L A S S E M B LY R E G I S T R A T I O N F EE S
Please note registration does NOT include attendance at the Regional Cooperation and Development Forum
(payment received on or before 6 May 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $929.00
Stan da r d R egist r ation F e e s (payment received on or before 3 June 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$1,029.00
L at e R egist r ation F e es (payment received after 3 June 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,250.00
Day R egist r ation F e e s
Monday 20 June $489.00
Tuesday 21 June $489.00
Wednesday 22 June $280.00
Ea r ly bi r d R egist r ation F e e s
R E G I O N A L C O - O P E R A T I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T F O R U M R E G I S T R A T I O N F EE S
Registration fee . . . .
Registration fee . . . . . . . .
Stat e of th e R egions R e po rt 2 016–17 (Single licence) . . . .
Stat e of th e R egions R e po rt 2 016–17 (Organisational licence)
R egional D e v e lopm e nt Fo r um only
G e n e r al Ass e mbly D e l egat e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
$425.00
$225.00
$240.00
$700.00
.
$260.00
A C C O M P A N Y I N G P A R T N E R S R E G I S T R A T I O N F EE S R egist e r e d accompan y ing pa r tn e r
Name for lapel badge:
S o cial F u ncti o ns I ncl u d e d in F e e s
One ticket to each of the following functions is included in the full General Assembly registration and/or accompanying partners registration fee. Please confirm if you will be
attending by placing a tick in the appropriate boxes. To purchase additional tickets to any of the following functions please indicate the number required and complete the total
amount payable.
R e gist e r e d D e l e gat e s and P artn e rs
W e lc o m e R e c e pti o n and E x hibiti o n Op e ning ( S u nda y 1 9 J u n e 2 0 1 6 )
I/we will attend:
Delegate
Partner
Number of additional tickets
@ $50.00 each . . . . Total $
R e gist e r e d P artn e rs
Day 1 • Canberra Celebrates 2016 (Monday 20 June 2016)
I will attend:
Partner
@ $110.00 each . . . Total $
Day 2 • Canberra Truffle Farm (Tuesday 21 June 2016)
I will attend:
Partner
@ $110.00 each . . .
Total $
Registration form continues over the page
Report 2
Attachment 1
Page 26
15
NGA16
N ational G e n e r al Ass e mbly of Local G ov e r nm e nt 19 –22 jun e 2016
Australian Local Government Association ABN 31 008 613 876
Opti o nal S o cial F u ncti o ns
Tickets to these functions are not included in the General Assembly registration fee or accompanying partners registration fee. To purchase tickets to any of the following
functions please indicate the number required and the total amount payable.
B uff e t d inn e r
(Monday 20 June 2016)
Number of tickets
@ $100.00 each . . . . . . . . . . Total $
General Assembly Dinner , Great Hall, Parliament House (Tuesday 21 June 2016) **NUMBERS STRICTLY LIMITED**
Number of tickets
@ $130.00 each . . . . . . . . . Total $
S p e cial R e q u ir e m e nts
( e . g . d i e ta r y )
R e gistrati o n and S o cial F u ncti o n P a y m e nt D e tails
Enclosed is my cheque made payable to ALGA Conference Account
I’m faxing my requirements, payment follows by mail
I have paid via an Electronic Funds Transfer to the ‘ALGA Conference Account’. Transaction reference number
A LG A Ac c o u n t: Bank: Commonwealth B r a n c h : Curtin B S B N o : 062905 Ac c o u n t N o : 10097760
Please charge my credit card:
MasterCard
Visa
Grand total $
C r e d it C a r d numb e r
C a r d H ol d e r ’ s N am e S ignatu r e
/
Expi r y Dat e
I s this a co r po r at e ca r d ?
YE S
NO
A cc o mm o dati o n D e tails
A cc o mm o dati o n G u arant e e
P l e as e indicate your preference from 1 to 5
Please note your credit card details are required to guarantee your room. Neither
Conference Co-ordinators nor the hotel will make any charges against your credit
card unless you fail to give a minimum of twenty one (21) days notice in writing of
your cancellation. All cancellations will be acknowledged in writing by Conference
Co‑ordinators. Full payment of your account will be required at the time of your
departure. The rates quoted are per room per night.
C r o wn e P la z a
S up e r io r r oom
$295
S ingl e T win
Doubl e
d e lux e r oom
$345
S ingl e T win
Doubl e
hot e l Room
$230
S ingl e T win
Doubl e
1 b e d r oom apa r tm e nt
$280
S ingl e T win
Doubl e
hot e l Room
$219
S ingl e T win
Doubl e
$259
S ingl e T win
Doubl e
Av e n u e H o t e l
Dat e of a r r ival
Dat e of d e pa r tu r e
mantra
S ha r ing with
Estimat e d tim e of a r r ival
M e dina apartm e nt h o t e l canb e rra jam e s c o u rt
$210
S ingl e T win
Doubl e
2 B e d r oom apa r tm e nt $ 2 6 0 S ingl e T win
Doubl e
Novotel
stan d a r d Room
$265
S ingl e T win
Doubl e
Ex e cutiv e Room
$295
S ingl e T win
Doubl e
S ingl e Doubl e
I understand my credit card details are given as a guarantee
of my arrival and to ensure my room will be held until my
nominated arrival time. No charge for accommodation will
be made against this card unless I fail to give a minimum
of twenty one (21) days notice of cancellation in writing to
Conference Co-ordinators.
Please use the credit card details provided below to guarantee
my accommodation booking.
Mastercard
Visa
Amex
P e pp e rs G all e r y H o t e l
stan d a r d r oom
$264
C r e d it C a r d numb e r
Qt H o t e l
stan d a r d Room
$249
S ingl e T win
Doubl e
S tu d io r oom
$200 S ingl e T win
Doubl e
$220 S ingl e T win
Doubl e
wald o rf
R e t u rn F O R M to
C a r d H ol d e r ’ s N am e
S ignatu r e
Expi r y Dat e
Conference Co-ordinators, PO Box 4994 Chisholm ACT 2905
/
I s this a co r po r at e ca r d ?
Fax (02) 6292 9002
Report 2
YE S
Attachment 1
Page 27
NO
3
SUBJECT:
CONTACT OFFICER:
AUTHOR:
Membership, Powers and Duties of Planning Committee 2016
Mark R Newman
Mark R Newman
Summary
Following a six month trial period of two Council meetings per month, Council at its meeting of 26 April
2016 resolved to maintain the structure of two Council meetings per month with the inclusion of a
Planning Committee for the period 1 June 2016 to 21 October 2017.
The Local Government Act 1995 provides for the establishment of various types of committees to assist
the Council in the exercise of its powers and the discharge of its duties.
Council is requested to consider and adopt the powers and duties of the Council's Planning Committee
as set out below and consider the appointment of Elected Members to the Planning Committee.

G.37/4/16 26 April 2016

G.71/11/15 24 November 2015

G.27/8/15 25 August 2015

G.27/5/07 15 May 2007
Council adopted the format of two Council meetings per month
plus the inclusion of a Planning Committee.
Council elected two additional members to its Executive
Committee.
Council adopted six month trial period of two Council meetings per
month.
Council assessed proposed modifications to the existing
Committee and Council Meeting structure, and opted to retain the
status quo.
Background
At the June 2014 Councillors’ Forum a request was made that consideration be given to a review of the
Council/Committee meeting structure. The reason for undertaking the review was to determine whether
amendment to the structure in place at that time would result in a more efficient decision making process
whilst maintaining the transparency and level of public consultation that members of the public had come
to expect.
In August 2015 Elected Members attended a briefing to consider options for Council’s meeting structure.
Officers put forward three recommendations for discussion, and outlined the advantages and
disadvantages of each option. A comparison of meeting structures across all metropolitan WA local
governments was provided.
Council, at its meeting of August 2015 resolved to conduct a trial period of two Council meetings per
month commencing in November 2015. Membership to the Executive Committee was amended to
include the election of a further two Elected Members.
Comment
Following Council’s adoption of two Council meetings per month with the inclusion of a Planning
Committee membership and terms of reference for the newly created Committee need to be established.
Council may elect to make the size of the Planning Committee from three members to all members of
Council (13). The quorum will be at least 50% of the number on the committee i.e. for 6 quorum 3, for 7
quorum 4, for 13 quorum 7.
Membership to the Executive Committee was previously resolved by Council in November 2015 and no
change to that membership is required with the implementation of the Planning Committee at this time.
Report 3
Page 28
Recommendations from the Planning Committee will be considered by Council at its ordinary Council
meeting held on the second Tuesday of each month. It should be noted that this format poses
challenges to the City‘s administration officers. Minutes from the Planning Committee meeting and any
requested additional information will require inclusion in the agenda produced the day following the
Planning Committee’s meeting. It is proposed that to counter any possible delays the agenda for the first
Council meeting of each month be distributed to Elected Members on a Thursday rather than the current
Wednesday. Agendas for public viewing would still be available at the City’s facilities and online by the
Friday prior to each meeting. Where additional information is requested that is detailed and requires
considerable research, the item may require deferral to the second Council Meeting for the month.
The terms of reference proposed are more detailed than usually provided, in an effort to detail the types
of planning issues that will be presented to the Committee. It should be noted that reports required to be
presented to the Committee in relation to DAPs may occasionally need to be presented directly to a
Council meeting.
Consultation
As part of the Council meeting structure review, research into 33 local government meeting structures
was conducted. The local governments considered were based throughout the Western Australian
metropolitan area and Victoria.
Council undertook a trial period of two Council meetings per month during November 2015 – April 2016.
Regulation 12 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 requires that local public
notice is given prior to any change to the date, time or location of any scheduled Council or Committee
meeting.
City of Mandurah Standing Orders Local Law 2009 will require amendment to accommodate the
changes to Council’s meeting structure.
Local Government Act 1995
City of Mandurah Standing Orders Local Law 2009.
Policy Implications
Nil.
Nil.
The following strategy from the City of Mandurah Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2033 is relevant to
this report:
Leadership:
 Deliver excellent governance and financial management.
Report 3
Page 29
Conclusion
Following the conclusion of the trial period of changes to the City of Mandurah’s Council meeting
structure it has been resolved to maintain two Council meetings per month and implement a Planning
Committee. This format will enhance the community’s opportunity to participate in the Committee /
Council meeting process particularly in relation to sometimes sensitive planning matters.
Council is requested to consider the size of the committee before determining its membership, powers
and duties.
Elected Members are requested to establish the membership, powers and duties of the newly created
Planning Committee.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
That the membership, powers and duties of Council's Planning Committee be as
follows:
Planning Committee
The membership of the Planning Committee shall comprise
Elected Members.
Powers and Duties: All matters dealing with:
 Subdivisions within the District
 Development Applications and R-Code approvals
 Structure Plan approvals
 Scheme amendments
 Reports for the Development Assessment Panel (if time permissible)
 Planning policies and strategies
 Comment on Regional planning strategies
 Planning related compliance matters
2.
That Council appoints the following Elected Members to the Planning Committee for a
term expiring 21 October 2017:
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
3.
That (if required) Council appoints Councillor _______________ and Councillor
________________ to act as deputy members on the Planning Committee for a term
expiring 21 October 2017.
**ABSOLUTE MAJORITY REQUIRED**
Report 3
Page 30
4
SUBJECT:
CONTACT OFFICER/S:
AUTHOR:
FILE NO:
Rates Exemption : 1-5 Hungerford Avenue, Halls Head
David Prattent
David Prattent
1973857
Summary
Mercy Health Care, through an incorporated not-for-profit organisation, Marianella Nursing Home Pty Ltd
(Marianella) has acquired 1-5 Hungerford Avenue which was previously a privately-owner aged care
facility.
Marianella has contacted the City and requested that consideration be given to an exemption from rates.
Council is requested to approve this application.
None
Location
None
Background
The Local Government Act 1995 Section 6.26 (g) provides that land which is exclusively used for
charitable purposes in not rateable.
Mercy Health operates through incorporated entities to conduct its operations. The entities are registered
non-profit companies, are limited by guarantee, and have specific rules governing such things as the
need not to make a profit, barring the distribution of dividends and prevention of shareholders receiving
any benefit.
Although fees are charged to residents, these cover only the cost of care. However, the facility, known
as Mercy Place, also provides care and accommodation to people regardless of their financial situation.
Report 4
Page 31
Comment
This application is consistent with the granting of exemptions to other similar organisations. In judging
whether or not Marianella can be considered to be non-rateable, consideration is given to two key
issues:


Can the use of the land, as opposed to the status of the owner, be considered to be exclusively
charitable?
Is tangible charity provided by way of some form of transfer such as a subsidy or other benefit?
Charitable use of land
“Charitable” when used in a statute should be understood in its technical legal sense, namely by
reference to the spirit and intent of the preamble to the Charitable Uses Act 1601 (the Statute of
Elizabeth I) or the categories of charity set out in Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax
v Pemsel [1891] AC 531. The preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth I sets out a long list of charities,
including, relevantly for present purposes, 'the relief of aged, impotent and poor people'1:
In addition to the requirement that the purpose for which the Land is used be within the spirit and
intent of the Statute of Elizabeth I, it is also necessary that that purpose must be for the public benefit
in order that the Land may be said to be used for charitable purposes2.
The word 'relief implies that the persons to whom the charity is directed 'have a need attributable to
their condition (in the present case, poverty or social need), that that need requires alleviating, and
that those persons could not alleviate, or would find difficulty in alleviating, that need themselves,
from their own resources'3.
Provision of charity
A transfer of some identifiable benefit is necessary to establish this. This may be in the form of some
type of subsidy such as rental costs below market value provided they are made available to people
who can demonstrate that they cannot afford payments at the level required by the market.
Marianella is considered to be using the land exclusively for charitable purposes for the following
reasons:

Its residents are generally financially disadvantaged and could not, from their own resources
find like (or perhaps, ‘any’) comparable accommodation. Marianella charge only the
government fixed rate for accommodation and care.

It charges less than this fee schedule where residents are unable to afford it.

An accommodation bond (based on the value of the property in question) is paid by tenants
but is returned in full at the end of the residency.
On this basis, Marianella satisfies the charitable tests.
Consultation
Mercy Health WA State Office
1
2
3
Retirees WA (Inc) and City of Belmont (WA State Administrative Tribunal 2010)
Royal National Agricultural and industrial Association v Chester (1974)
Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust Housing Association Ltd v Attorney General [1983]
Report 4
Page 32
Local Government Act 1995 Section 6.26 (g)
Policy Implications
Nil
The approximate value of rates foregone is $29,000 per annum. Marianella remain responsible for the
payment of Emergency Services Levy and other charges such as rubbish collection.
this report:
Conclusion
Marianella Nursing Home Pty Ltd is a not-for-profit company a range of aged care services both to those
who can afford to pay the government guideline schedule of fees and those who cannot. Although the
value of the rates exemption is reasonably significant, analysis has shown that the company is providing
charitable services and is entitled to claim exemption from rates.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council approves non-rateable status for Marianella Nursing Home Pty Ltd for 1-5
Hungerford Avenue, Halls Head.
Report 4
Page 33
Report from Director Sustainable Development to
5
SUBJECT:
CONTACT OFFICER/S:
AUTHOR:
FILE NO:
R-Code Variation Application: 7 Captain Court Wannanup
Gavin Worth, Tony Free
Gavin Worth
R-Code App 3642
Summary
Council is requested to consider for approval an R-Code Variation Application that proposes the
following:

An existing 10m x 4m ‘colorbond’ shed with a wall height of 3m setback approximately 700mm from
the eastern boundary.

A 10.05m long flat roofed patio with the roof sheeting setback 500mm from the eastern boundary.
The patio is to be constructed between the existing brick garage and existing steel shed at a roof
height on the boundary side at a maximum of 2.7m. The patio is to incorporate a single mid span
supporting post built up to the common boundary.
The combined length of the three structures (i.e. existing garage, proposed patio and existing steel
shed), is 26.16m.
Nil
Location
Report 5
Page 34
Property Details:
Applicant:
Owner:
P Andrews
P Andrews
Scheme No 3 Zoning:
Peel Region Scheme Zoning:
Lot Size:
Topography:
Land Use:
Residential R20
Urban
817sqm
Level blocks supported by subdivisional retaining walls
Residential

Nil
Background
City Officers have been working through a situation that is causing concern for the adjoining owners of
No 7 Captain Court, Wannanup who reside at Non 9 Captain Court. There are two matters that is having
to consider:
1)
The construction of a shed that has been positioned on the property not in accordance with the
approved Building Permit; and
2)
An application by the owner of 7 Captain Court (‘the owner’) seeking retrospective approval for a
variation of the R Codes and approval for a setback variation to the roof and post of a proposed
patio to the same side boundary as the shed.
City Officers became aware in January 2016 that a shed was being built closer to the eastern side
boundary of the subject lot than was indicated on the approved plan issued with the building permit. The
following is a brief summary of events:

Peel Sheds submitted an application on 3 September 2015, for a proposed shed to be built on the
property. The shed measures 10m in length and 4m in the width and a wall height of 2.7m.

The plans submitted with the application indicated that the shed was to be setback 700mm from the
side boundary.

On 15 September City Officers emailed Peel Sheds a request for further information advising that an
R-Code variation application would need to be submitted in order for the City to consider a setback
less than 1.5m.

On 15 September 2015, City Officers received an email from Peel Sheds requesting the side setback
be amended to comply with the 1.5m setback permitted by the Deemed to Comply requirements of
the R-Codes.

The building permit was issued to Peel Sheds on 15 September 2015 including the requirement to
set the shed back 1.5m from the south eastern side boundary of the property;

On 5 January 2016, City Officers were made aware that the shed was being erected at a setback of
700mm from the side boundary.
Given the builder had been given very clear instructions in respect to this application, the City intends to
take action against the builder under s29 of the Building Act 2011 to ensure that a clear message is
given to building applicants that they must comply with the building permit issued. It is considered
practical to not take this action until such time as the planning considerations have been determined.
Report 5
Page 35
The has subsequently lodged a retrospective R-Code Variation application for the City to consider
approval of the shed to be left in its currently unauthorised location in addition to a proposed patio that
will include a post, up to the same boundary.
City Officers wrote to the owner and builder of the shed on the subject lot on 7 January 2016 advising
them of the non-compliance with the setback of the shed, and required removal of the shed or to lodge
an application seeking retrospective planning and building approval. The following is a summary of the
significant events that followed:










The owner of No 7 lodged an application on 1 February 2016 for retrospective planning approval for
the incorrect placement of the shed and also for a proposed patio that also sought variations to the
deemed to comply setback provisions of the R Codes to the eastern boundary of the property.
Because both the setback of the shed and patio involve variations to the Deemed to Comply
requirements of the Residential Design Codes, (R-Codes), on 2 February 2016, City Officers wrote to
the adjoining owners seeking their comment on the variations.
On 8 February 2016, Officers received an email from by the adjoining owners objecting to the
variations for which they had been consulted.
It is the City’s practice where objections are received, to meet with the owners of the adjoining
property and on 9 February 2016, 3 senior officers of the City undertook this meeting to listen and
view their concerns from their property.
After internal discussion and review between the appropriate officers of the City, a letter was sent to
the adjoining owners on 4 March 2016 advising them of the City’s detailed assessment of the
proposal against the R-Codes providing the relevant Design Principles and reasons why City Officers
believed that the proposed and existing structures complied with those requirements. This letter also
gave them a further 7 days to comment on the City’s assessment after which time if the City was not
convinced that the proposal did not comply, the application would be approved.
The adjoining owners provided a written response on 5 March 2016 reiterating their objections to the
structures in question.
On 18 March, City Officers wrote to the owner advising them of the adjoining owners concerns
seeking their consideration of the issues raised and amendments suggested by the owners of No 9.
The Coordinator of Planning Services and Coordinator of Building Services met with the owner of No
7 at their property on 30 March 2016 to view and discuss the issues.
The owner was not prepared to agree to the suggestions made by the adjoining owners however did
agree to providing some form of vegetation along the length of the shed to reduce the impact of the
‘colorbond’ wall of the shed.
City Officers then wrote to the adjoining owner on 7 April advising that the City had reviewed all of
the comments and the requirements of the R-Codes and Planning Policies and had determined to
support the application.
Comment
As mentioned previously, there are 2 distinct matters that need to be considered which are;
1. The placement of the shed on the property that clearly does not comply with the setback specified on
the building permit, and
2. Assessment of the variations to the Residential Design Codes in respect to the shed and the
proposed patio.
It is important that both of these matters are considered separately and on their individual merits in
respect to the legislation that applies.
1. Non-compliance with the Building Permit.
As noted in the background, the builder of the shed, Peel Sheds, was clearly advised of the setback
requirements of the shed through the assessment time of the building application and made a conscious
decision to amend the setback of the shed in order to avoid having to make an R-Code variation
Report 5
Page 36
application. The builder then proceeded to build the shed at the setback that required the R-Code
application.
If a person who is named as the builder undertakes building work that is not in compliance with the
Building Permit, they are in breach of Section 29 of the Building Act 2011. A penalty for a first offence of
up to $50,000 applies.
The City recommends that the builder be prosecuted for a clear and conscious decision to build the shed
in a location that did not comply with the building permit.
2. Assessment of the R-code Variation application.
Both the Building Act 2011 and Planning and Development Act 2005 enable a person to seek
retrospective approval for development work that has been carried out without approval or not in
accordance with an approval.
The owner of No. 7 Captain Court has submitted an application and paid the relevant fees to have the
existing shed and proposed patio assessed to determine if the shed could be located in its current
location and to permit the placement of the proposed patio.
The City’s Town Planning Scheme requires that buildings on residential properties comply with State
Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes and any Local Planning Policy.
There a 2 methods of complying with the R- Codes. If an application complies with the “deemed to
comply” criteria, the City is obligated to approve the application without any consultation. If a
development does not comply with the deemed to comply requirements, an applicant can seek to have
the proposal approved against specific “design principles”. For applications that do not comply with the
deemed to comply provisions, consultation with affected adjoining owners is generally required by the RCodes.
An assessment of the application for R-Code Variation was undertaken in respect to the Design
Principles of the Residential Design Codes and the City’s “Local Planning Policy 10 – Residential Design
Codes provisions”. Consultation with the owners of No 9 Captain Court was carried out and comments
were received.
The relevant “Design Principles” specified by the R-Codes that needs to be considered are as follows,
5.1.3 Lot Boundary Setback
P3.1
Buildings setback from Lot boundaries so as to:
 reduce the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties;
 provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and
adjoining properties; and
 minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.
P3.2
Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this:





Makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living
areas;
Does not compromise the design principle contained in 5.1.3, P3.1;
Does not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property;
Ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for
adjoining properties is not restricted; and
Positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.
Report 5
Page 37
5.4.3 Outbuildings
P3
Outbuildings that do not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or
neighbouring properties.
The relevant “Deemed to Comply” provisions of the R-Codes require that:
5.1.3 Lot boundary Setback
C3.1
Buildings which are setback in accordance with the following provisions, subject to any additional
measures in other elements of the R-Codes:
(i)
buildings setback from lot boundaries in accordance with Tables 1, Tables 2(a) and 2(b).
Table 2(b) generally requires a wall that is more than 9 metres long with a height less than
3.5 metres and that does not have a window from a habitable room to be setback 1.5
metres from the side boundary.
(iv) minor projections such as a chimney, other architectural features or an eaves overhang not
projecting more than 0.75m into a setback area.
C3.2
Walls may be built up to a lot boundary behind the street setback and in accordance with
Clauses 5.1.2, 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 within the following limits:
(ii) in areas coded R20 and R25, walls not higher than 3.5m with an average of 3m or less, up
to a maximum length of the greater of 9m or one third of the length of the balance of the lot
boundary behind the front setback, to one side boundary only.
5.4.3 Outbuildings
The City’s Local Planning Policy overrides the R-Code provisions and permits an outbuilding located
within a R20 Zone to have a maximum floor area of 65.5 sqm based on the lot area of the property and a
maximum wall height of 3 metres and maximum height to the ridge of 4.2 metres.
Local Planning Policy LPP10 provisions include:
2.4B – Aggregate length of wall
Walls on a property zoned Residential R12.5/20 and higher may be considered with an aggregate wall
length not greater than 12 metres providing that no single section of wall is greater than 10 metres in
length and where two or more walls are proposed up to a side boundary the walls must be horizontally
separated by at least 4 metres.
2.4B – Open Structures
For properties zoned R20, open structures that include a wall or posts up to a side boundary may extend
for a maximum length of 18 metres including any existing building that is up to the same boundary. The
maximum height at the boundary of the open sided structure must not exceed 2.7 metres in height at the
boundary.
Having noted the above provisions of the R-Codes and Local Planning Policy the following notes are
made:
Report 5
Page 38
Specific details of the application
1. The existing ‘colorbond’ shed wall has a length of 10m, a wall height of 3.0m and is setback
approximately 700mm from the south eastern side boundary. The maximum height of the existing
shed is 3.8m to the top of the ridge and has a floor area of 40 square metres.
2. The existing dwelling incorporates a garage that has a wall that is 6.1m in length and approximately
2.7m in height built up to the south eastern side boundary.
3. The proposed patio is to extend for a length of 10.05m from the rear of the existing garage through to
the existing ‘colorbond’ metal shed. The roof of the patio is proposed to be setback 500mm from the
side boundary and be at a height of 2.7m on the side that is adjacent to the eastern boundary. It is
also proposed that only one post to help support the patio will be placed up to the south eastern side
boundary half way down the length of the patio.
4. The combined length of the proposed and existing building that is to be within 1.0m of the side
boundary is approximately 26.6m.
5. There is an existing 1.8m high brick dividing fence between the 2 properties.
Comparison of the proposal with the Deemed to Comply requirements of the R-Codes and Local
Planning Policy
1. Under clause 5.1.3, C3.1 the wall of the shed would generally require a 1.5m setback based on the
shed dimensions above.
2. Under Clause 5.1.3, C3.1 if the shed was setback 1 metre from the boundary the wall length could
be 9 metres long and 3.0 metres in wall height with a maximum ridge height of 4.2m without the need
to consult neighbours.
3. Under 5.1.3 C3.2(ii) a property that has a common side boundary length of 34.26m, a shed with a
‘colorbond’ metal wall constructed up to the side boundary is permitted to have a length of 9.42m
(I.e. 34.26m – 6m / 3) and a wall height of 3m.
4. The LPP permits walls up to a side boundary with an aggregate length of 12m provided the walls do
not have any single length greater than 10m.
5. Eaves of a dwelling, patio or carport may be a minimum of 750mm from the side boundary and this
may continue for the full length of the boundary at a height of 3.5m. The proposed patio is to include
a single post that has a maximum height of 2.7m up to the eastern side boundary.
Assessment against the Design Principles of the R-Codes
1. Notes considered on 5.1.3, P3.1 - Lot boundary setback:



When comparing the wall heights and lengths of the existing and proposed with all of the
alternative designs that would comply with the Deemed to Comply requirements of the R-Codes
and LPP’s, the proposal will reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining properties based
on what could have been designed as of right.
The proposed and existing structures comply with the Solar Access requirements provided in Part
5.4.2 of the R-Codes and as such the impact of direct sun and ventilation to the property and
adjoining property is considered to have minimal impact.
The proposal has no impact on overlooking onto the adjoining property at No 9 as it is all at
ground level. No 9 has upper floor habitable rooms setback approximately 3 metres from the side
boundary which were likely permitted under the previous planning requirements. These windows
look directly over and into both outdoor and indoor living areas of No 7 and as such the proposal
will assist in providing some privacy for No. 7 from overlooking from No 9.
Report 5
Page 39
2. Notes considered on 5.1.3 P3.2 – Lot Boundary setback:




The proposal does make more effective use of space for the enhanced privacy of the occupants
of No 7 as described above.
The shed is located in full view of occupants of No 9 from both their ground and upper floor levels
which look across and down to the shed. If the shed was to be moved to the setback permitted by
the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes of 1.5 metres from the side boundary, it is
perceived that the occupants of No 9 would actually see more of the shed and the view angle
over the top of the shed would be marginally reduced. So while the proximity of the shed to the
boundary has been reduced, the impact of the shed at a greater setback could also be increased
and potentially have a greater impact when viewed by the occupants from No 9.
The addition of a single supporting column up to the boundary for the proposed patio is
considered to have minimal impact and a condition that this post being coloured to match the wall
of the dwelling on No 7 would be applied.
All materials that have been used and proposed to be used are consistent with a residential area
and are and would be conditioned to have colours that are consistent with what has been used
on the dwelling.
3. Notes considered on 5.4.3 Outbuildings.

The size of the outbuilding in terms of its area and height is consistent with the Cities Local
Planning Policy. (i.e. No 7 has a lot area of 817 square metres and the LPP permits a property of
this size to have a shed of an area of 65.425 square metres. The LPP also permits a shed to
have a wall height of 3 metres and a maximum height to the ridge of 4.2m. The shed has an area
of 40 square metres, a wall height of 3m and a maximum height to the ridge of 3.8m.

The Materials are considered suitable for a residential area. The City has no limitation on the use
of ‘Colorbond’ sheet metal. If there are covenants that restrict the use of sheet metal, the City is
not a party to such covenants and as such would be unable to enforce them, this would be up to
any other party named on the covenant to take their own civil action.
Additional comments on some of the further questions that were raised through the consultation process.



Noise emissions from a private property is covered under the Environmental Protections (Noise
Regulations administered by the City’s Health Services.
The size of the shed complies with the City’s LPP and as a class 10 building, it is not permitted to be
used for commercial purposes or habitation without further approval. It is however designed to store
the occupants personal belongings there is no evidence to suggest that the shed will be used for
commercial purposes or habitation.
The City has no policy that enables it to control glare from external materials irrespective of its colour.
New materials do have higher reflectiveness and it is expected the glare will reduce in the near
future. The roof colour facing the neighbours property is consistent with the walls and colours that
are consistent with the dwelling on the property and as previously mentioned, the City has no policy
restricting colour.
Having considered all of the above, City Officers consider that the retrospective and proposed variations
to the Residential Design Codes that are sought in respect to the proposal satisfies the Design Principles
of the R-Codes, however the following conditions would be applied:




The roof and gutter of the patio being setback 700mm from the side boundary, in line with the
existing shed;
The post of the patio and any roof and gutters being coloured to match the dwelling and shed;
The shed is not to be used for commercial purposes or habitation.
That dense screening vegetation such as a hedge plant or creeping vine or the like, be installed
between the shed and boundary fence on the eastern side of the property for the full length of the
shed. The plants must be regularly spaced and be of a mature size that will provide an immediate
Report 5
Page 40
level of screening to reduce the impact of the shed wall. Plants must be of a variety that will have
minimal spread or be capable of being trimmed back so as not to overhang the boundary line and
must also not have invasive roots that may cause damage to the dividing fence or shed.
As discussed in the consultation section as the owners of No 9 object to this item and as such it is
considered that this condition not be applied.
Consultation
Owner / Address
1.
Wellman
No 9 Captain Court,
Wannanup.
Submission
(Summarised comments)
Submission dated 2/2/2016 and received by
City 8/2/2016
a. Detrimental impact on our ability to enjoy
and live peacefully in our own home.
b. Owners of No 7 have flagrantly
disregarded the building permit and
continued to disregard the permit by
completing the shed after being notified of
the non-compliance with the setback.
c. The placement of the shed and patio does
not reduce the impact of building bulk on
our property
d. The shed does not respect our existing
property and preferred neighbourhood
character. The materials used for the shed
are not in conformity with the general
standards for the area
e. The shed is imposing and unacceptable
visually combined with a roofline having a
length of 26.16m along our boundary is
very imposing from both levels of their
home.
f. Sheds proximity close to the boundary
lends itself to safety issues such as
excessive noise, fire safety, air pollution
water and waste.
g. Concerned that the shed and patio will be
used to house the owners excavator and
boats and the entire area is intended to be
used for potential work or storage.
h. The shed and patio are too close to
habitable rooms in our home and the
boundary and the glare from the shed is
unacceptable
2.
No 9 Captain Court,
Wannanup
Comment
Refer to the comment section of
this report
Submission dated 5/3/16
a. Conciliatory and neighbourly consideration
has not been given in the planning of No 7
and is detrimental to the privacy and
amenity of our home.
b. The direct vision from our entrance,
lounge and stairs in our home is through
the door of the shed and the view from
these areas would not be alleviated by a
patio.
c. We should not be forced to accept
building bulk along our boundary without
our consent or consideration for our visual
Report 5
Page 41
amenity.
d. The storage of personal belongings in the
shed is of greater concern with regard to
visual aesthetics from within our home.
Any shed risks becoming cluttered and
unsightly and it is an unavoidable eyesore
from our formal lounge, entrance and
staircase.
e. The impact of the shed would be improved
at a setback of 1.5 metres. The shed is
only 700mm from our boundary and also
impacts us from our back garden. The
length and height of the shed is very
imposing from this area. The shed
overshadows our yard.
f. A greater setback would also ensure the
shed is used for its intended purpose and
not for commercial purposes. It would also
ensure better safety.
g. The
visual
aesthetics
of
the
neighbourhood and amenity is not
improved from our property by allowing
building bulk along our boundary.
h. It is our contention and compromise that
either extending the fence or an
appropriate parapet wall at 3m in height
and the full length of the shed and patio
with a flat roofline matching the garage
and patio, bringing the shed into line with
the original building permit, or removal of
the shed are fair and equitable choices in
this planning application.
In an email response on 7 April 2016 to the
City’s letter advising its intention to approve
the application, The Wellman’s also advised:
i.
We strongly object to screening plants.
Planting is very inappropriate given the
length and height of the shed, close
proximity to the boundary, our swimming
pool, private entertaining area and access
for next door to complete maintenance.
If a person who is named as the builder undertakes building work that is not in compliance with the
Building Permit they are in breach of Section 29 of the Building Act 2011. A penalty for a first offence of
up to $50,000 applies. The City recommends that the builder be prosecuted for a clear and conscious
decision to build the shed in a location that did not comply with the building permit.
The City’s Town Planning Scheme requires that buildings on residential properties comply with State
Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes and any Local Planning Policy. There a 2 methods of
complying with the R-codes. If an application complies with the “deemed to comply” criteria, the City is
obligated to approve the application without any consultation. If a development does not comply with the
deemed to comply requirements, an applicant can seek to have the proposal approved against specific
“design principles”. For applications that do not comply with the deemed to comply provisions,
Report 5
Page 42
consultation with affected adjoining owners is generally required by the R-Codes. Refer to the comment
section for further details.
Policy Implications
The City’s Local Planning Policy 10 includes item 2.11 that specifies incidental development
requirements including outbuildings on residential property. This overrides the R-Codes provisions
specified in R-Codes part 5.4.3 - Outbuildings.
The size of the outbuilding in terms of its area and height is consistent with the Cities Local Planning
Policy. I.e. No 7 has a lot area of 817 square metres and the LPP permits a property of this size to have
an area of 65.425 square metres. The LPP also permits a shed to have a wall height of 3m and a
maximum height to the ridge of 4.2m. The shed has an area of 40 square metres, a wall height of 3m
and a maximum height to the ridge of 3.8m.
Should the City take further legal action, staff hours as well as legal expenses may apply. Penalties may
apply from any legal action that may assist with any action taken by the City.
to this report:
Leadership:
 Ensure that the City as an organisation behaves as a model corporate citizen.
expectations.
 Develop a strong brand of leading local government that meets community expectations.
Conclusion
The City has undertaken a detailed consultation and assessment process in respect to this application
and is of the opinion that the placement of the shed and proposed patio does satisfy the relevant Design
Criteria of the Residential Design Codes.
NOTE:
 Refer Attachment 1:
Attachment 2
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:

Site Plan (combined house, shed and patio).
View from No 9 over shed on No 7 Captain Court
View from upper floor of No 9 over area of proposed patio.
View from upper floor of No 7 towards pool area of No 9
Subject to Council’s consent, officers will make a short presentation on this item at the meeting.
Report 5
Page 43
RECOMMENDATION
That Council supports the City’s intention to:
1. Take legal action against the builder of the shed under the appropriate provisions of the
Building Act 2011 for installing the building not in accordance with the Building Permit,
and
2. Approve the retrospective R-Code application for the shed and the R-Code application for
the proposed patio at No 9 (Lot 211) Captain Court, Wannanup subject to the following
conditions:




The roof and gutter of the patio being setback 700mm from the side boundary, in line
with the existing shed;
That only one post be constructed up to the side boundary for the intermediate
support of the proposed patio and that being finished in a colour that matches the
existing dwelling on No 7.
That the post of the patio and any roof and gutters being coloured to match the
existing dwelling and shed;
The shed is not to be used for commercial purposes or be used for habitable
purposes.
Report 5
Page 44
Report 5
Attachment 1
Page 45
Report from Directo
or Sustainab
ble Develop
pment to
to Council M
Meeting of 10
1 May 2016
6
Atttachmentt 2
Vie
ew from No
o 9 over shed
s
on No
o 7 Captain
n Court. Black line also shows w
where a rid
dge would be
ap
pproximatelyy be if the shed was to be move
ed over to 1.5m setba
ack or increeased to co
ompliant rid
dge
he
eight of 4.2 m
metres.
Repo
ort 5
Page
e 46
Report from Directo
or Sustainab
ble Develop
pment to
to Council M
Meeting of 10
1 May 2016
6
Atttachmentt 3
Vie
ew from up
pper floor of No 9 Captain
C
cou
urt over are
ea of proposed patioo. Black lines also sh
how
ap
pproximate llocation of proposed
p
pa
atio.
Repo
ort 5
Page
e 47
Report from Directo
or Sustainab
ble Develop
pment to
to Council M
Meeting of 10
1 May 2016
6
Atttachmentt 4
Vie
ew from upp
per floor of No 7 Capta
ain Court tow
wards pool area of No 9
Repo
ort 5
Page
e 48
Report from Director Works and Services
6
SUBJECT:
CONTACT OFFICER/S:
AUTHOR:
FILE NO:
City of Mandurah Cycling Facilities – On Road Cycle Lanes
Allan Claydon/Terry Blanchard
Terry Blanchard
1972993
Summary
Council is requested to receive the City of London Report ‘International Cycling Infrastructure Best
Practice Study’ as a guide for assessing cycling facilities with the City and endorse the formation of a key
stakeholder group for cycling.
City officers recognise cycling as a key component of the transport network and acknowledges that it is
also an alternative means of travel thus reducing car dependence.
Cycling is included in the development of the City’s integrated transport strategy. Part of the cycling
facilities programme will not only be the network of cycle lanes but the development of facilities that
enhance existing on road cycle lanes but also protect vulnerable cyclists from intrusion by the motor
vehicle.
To date the City has applied tried and tested techniques to enhance cycling as a transport option and
officers have tried to innovate where appropriate. This innovation extended to the installation of cycle
lane delineators in McLarty Road as a trial.
Officers continue to research with the aim to better understand what makes for success in relation to
cycle infrastructure, safety and culture.
What has been unearthed is the publication ‘International Cycling Infrastructure Best Practice Study’
which was published in December 2014 for the City of London. Copies of which have been placed in the
Councillors Lounge for information.
Nil
Location
Municipal wide

G.29/8/15
25 August 2015
Notice of Motion. Cycle lane delineators McLarty Road,
Halls Head. Cycle lane delineators to be removed from
McLarty Road and a report on options to address safety for
on road cycle use be presented to Council.
Background
In developing the City’s road hierarchy, provision has been made to include the delivery of cycling
infrastructure where appropriate and where possible.
A shared vision is to provide streets where cyclists feel they belong and are safe.
As part of this commitment, cycle lane delineators were installed in McLarty Road in mid-2015. These
were removed in September 2015 due to mixed responses from the road users including cyclists.
When Council adopted its road hierarchy the cross sections of several of the road hierarchies contained
on road cycling lanes and they are as follows:
Report 6
Page 49


Integrator Road A and B
Neighbourhood Connector Roads A and B
For several years now the City has been slowly upgrading these roads to incorporate the on road cycle
lanes.
The provision of hard infrastructure is widely accepted however, it is acknowledged that officers need to
embrace more subjective considerations like perceptions of safety and street use culture. In researching
cycling infrastructure provision, it reinforced what we do know in that there are many and varied
differences between cities and towns, and indeed between individual streets in the same city and /or
town. This means that the best design solution in any location will arise from the context – appropriate
application of sound principles and good standards and not from the cut and pasting of rigid design
templates.
Comment
Since the City removed the delineators from McLarty Road details from overseas areas on cycling safety
has been sought and authorities such as Main Roads Western Australia have also been contacted.
The information gathered to date indicates that many overseas countries address cycling very different
to Australia. Their cultures are very cycling focussed and the motor vehicle fraternity treat cyclists with a
high regard as a viable member of the travelling community. In some cases the cyclist is not protected
from traffic and this has worked well. However, it could be construed, in Western Australia, the cyclist is
at risk when travelling on the major road networks.
The Department of Transport has carried out a desk top survey of cycling facilities and have gained
access to a document produced by a private consultant for the Transport Authorities in London. This
document is titled ‘International Cycling Infrastructure Best Practice Study’ and contains examples of
cycling facilities from many of the major countries in the world where cycling is considered a viable form
of transport.
Whilst it would be easy to implement many of the examples from the best practice study it is
recommended that dialogue with interested user groups within the City of Mandurah be held prior to any
initiative being implemented.
The best practice guide will allow officers and user groups to consider the options available for cycle
safety for each area under consideration and thus become a valuable information tool.
Safety Options
1. Options to enhance the safety of cyclists include:
Construct cycle ways away from traffic - This is the construction of cycle ways offset from the
road carriageway. Where space is available this option is most preferred by cyclists. The City
constructs its main recreational shared path network away from roads where practicable to do so.
2. Separation of cycles and motor traffic by:
a) Stepped cycle tracks
b) Vertical features that are difficult/impossible for motor vehicles to overrun
c) Intermittent vertical features that motor vehicles can overrun relatively easily
d) Painted lines
e) Offside car parking, trees and street furniture
The above options vary greatly in respect of cost, engineering complexity and affectedness in delivering
both objective and subjective safety for cyclists.
Report 6
Page 50
Photographs and additional text is included as Attachment 1
The City is developing a new Bike Plan and it is intended to embrace the vision contained within the best
practice guide.
The Ongoing Challenge
Cycling and cyclist safety continues to be a constant in our daily lives. Officers are nearing the
completion of its Bike Plan and seek to be innovative in finding solutions to address cyclist safety. Many
challenges do lie ahead and include but are not limited to:





Maintaining and growing cycle mode share as cities grow, both in land area and density.
Tackling pedestrian/cycle and cycle/cycle conflicts and related congestion, especially at certain
locations, such as at the ‘corners’ of signalised junctions.
Finding, or creating space and infrastructure for cycle parking, the demand for which is almost
always where the amount of space is at a premium.
Enhancing bike-rail interchange in order to increase the length of journeys for which cycling can
play a role in reducing the demand for car travel.
Developing electric bicycle use – to enable longer journeys and cycling by more people on
steeper gradients.
Consultation
The consultation to date has been a fact finding exercise and involved the Department of Transport,
Main Roads Western Australia and Cycling West.
Some initial contact with the cycling bodies in Mandurah was made when the complaints came after the
installation of the delineators in McLarty Road. At this stage no formal consultation has been instigated.
The cycling bodies in Mandurah that are known to the City are:
 Silver Wheels Cycle Club
 Mandurah Over 55’s Cycling Club
 Peel Districts Cycling Club
 Mandurah Triathlon Club
It is proposed to engage with members of the community and cycling bodies with the view to gaining
input into the provision of cycling facilities within the City of Mandurah.
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Initiatives are incorporated in the project work.
to this report:
Report 6
Page 51
Social:
 Help build the community’s confidence in Mandurah as a safe and secure City.
Infrastructure:
 Facilitate the provision of multi-purpose facilities and infrastructure that meets the needs of a growing
population.
 Facilitate the provision of an integrated and expanded public transport network.
expectations.
Conclusion
From basic data on cycling accidents involving motor vehicles, there is a need to assess how cyclists
can be protected. The focus should not be just on the commuter cyclist who generally likes to ride in the
traffic stream but also on the recreational rider. For example, a mother with two primary school children
riding to the shop or a playground. These riders are in need of protection from vehicles. In some cases
this might not suit the commuter cyclist.
By forming a working party and involving the cycling bodies in Mandurah a cross section of opinion can
be gained. Also the dissemination of information and material may change the views of the City’s cycling
fraternity. The best practice study can be distributed to the cycling bodies for comment and hopefully
agreement on some of the infrastructure options contained within.
It is recommended that Council receives the best practice study report as an informing document. As
part of the program to continue to support cycling and its associated infrastructure it is also
recommended to invite key stakeholders to review cycling options and make comment on future
proposals.
NOTE:
 Refer
Attachment 1 – Cyclist Safety Options
Copies of the ‘International Cycling Infrastructure Best Practice Study’ – Report for Transport for London
are available in the Councillors Lounge for information.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Receives the report ‘International Cycling Infrastructure best Practice Study’ as a guide
for assessing cycling facilities within the City of Mandurah.
2. Endorses the formation of a key stakeholder group with those residents who have an
interest in cycling and the provision of cycling infrastructure within the City of Mandurah.
Report 6
Page 52
Attachment 1
L2 - Separating cycles & motor traffic options
a. Stepped cycle tracks
b. Vertical features that are difficult/ impossible
for motor vehicles to overrun
c. Intermittent vertical features that motor
vehicles can overrun relatively easily
d. Painted lines
e. Offside car parking, trees and street furniture
This section covers a range of techniques used
to separate cycle lanes/tracks from the adjacent
general carriageway. These vary greatly in
respect of cost, engineering complexity and
effectiveness in delivering both objective and
subjective safety for cyclists.
a. Stepped cycle tracks
Cycle tracks that are separated by a kerb
step from both footway to one side and main
carriageway to the other (hence sometimes
called ‘half height’ tracks) are used extensively
in Copenhagen and other Danish cities, and are
also becoming more commonplace elsewhere.
They are typically uni- directional, with cyclists
travelling in the same direction as motor traffic.
Sometimes also known as ‘hybrid’ tracks or lanes,
because they’re spatially in the same location as
carriageway-level lanes but are raised above the
level of the carriageway (say at +75mm) and thus
offer a degree of segregation similar to a wholly
separate track. The cycle track slopes back from
the carriageway so that it is then possible to have
a second kerb, typically around 25-50mm high,
up to the footway.
The approach taken in Copenhagen over many
years has been to initially provide space for
cycling in the form of a painted lane, which is
converted to a stepped track as funds become
available.
The main advantages of stepped tracks are:
•• They take no more space than a simple traffic
lane
•• Cyclists are in the same location as in a lane,
which means that cyclists are in a consistent
position in the cross-section and their presence
can easily be anticipated by drivers and
pedestrians.
•• Because of their constant position, it is very
easy for a lane to change to a track, and vice
versa. This is often done on the approach to
both major and minor junctions, so that cyclists
can be placed in a more visible position from
which they can assert their right of way
•• Having a full kerb at the carriageway edge
helps to prevent vehicles from parking on the
track; in some cases designated parking spaces
are situated along the track.
•• They are better than ‘lightly-segregated’ tracks
in visual terms, requiring very little in the way of
signs and markings to form an effective space
for cycling that is clearly separate from both
pedestrian and motor traffic space.
Stepped tracks are much more costly to
construct than ‘lightly-segregated’ tracks,
however, normally requiring additional drainage
infrastructure.
New York has implemented a number of stepped
tracks and, like Copenhagen, has done this after
initially taking the space using low cost ‘light
segregation’.
There are few stepped tracks in the UK
presently, but probably the best example is
in Brighton & Hove, on Old Shoreham Road.
This was constructed in 2012 by narrowing the
carriageway from 2 very wide lanes to a total
of 6.1m over a length of around 1.5km. The
one-way tracks on each side are 1.5-2.6m wide.
Cycling on Old Shoreham Road is given a strong
sense of priority over side streets by simply
continuing the cycle track treatment across the
minor arm, giving no indication that cyclists
should give way, and setting back the give
way marking on the minor arm. Reducing the
corner radii has also helped to prioritise cycle
movements by slowing the speed of turning
vehicles.
b. Vertical features that are difficult/impossible
for motor vehicles to overrun
Several cities separate their carriageway-level
cycle lanes from the adjacent main carriageway
using more or less intermittent features that
make it very difficult, if not impossible, for motor
vehicles to encroach. We observed a number of
different features on our city visits, and are aware
that others have been employed in other cities.
Such features include:
TFL INTERNATIONAL CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE BENCHMARKING STUDY FINAL REPORT
Report 6
Attachment 1
Page 53
28
•• Slender plastic bollards (which can be springmounted), sometimes referred to as ‘wands’
•• Relatively high-profile concrete blocks, such as
the semi-circular ‘Lacasitos’ used in Seville
•• Linear sections of concrete kerb with a
significant upstand (e.g. 125mm), broken
occasionally
•• Continuous, high-profile barriers (e.g. railings or
concrete panels)
•• Planters (such as used in Vancouver)
These types of designs yield comparatively
high degrees of subjective and actual safety
to cyclists, but have a number of drawbacks
compared to the ‘lighter’ techniques covered in
section (c) below. These drawbacks include:
•• Higher costs both in relation to basic
construction (these vary according to type
of feature) and to any future widening/
modifications
•• Continuous systems interrupt road drainage
so that additional gullies are needed, further
adding to construction cost.
•• The features are usually difficult to remove for
general maintenance tasks
•• It can be difficult, and sometimes impossible,
for cyclists to enter or leave the track to access
a local destination or to overtake slower
moving cyclists
•• Typically negative impact on visual amenity/
streetscape quality
•• It is relatively difficult (at best) or impossible (at
worst) for pedestrians to cross the street.
c. Intermittent vertical features that motor
vehicles can overrun relatively easily
Often referred to as ‘light segregation’, in view
of the relative simplicity of implementation and
physical properties of the features used, this
technique is commonly expressed in the form of
the following:
•• Raised thermoplastic road markings
•• Specially-formed rubber/PVC devices (e.g.
‘Armadillos’)
•• Short lengths of low-profile concrete kerb
Sometimes, car parking has been located on
the offside of the separation features, between
cyclists and moving motor traffic (see also L7).
This appears to work well, although we were told
that there was some initial confusion over this
in Minneapolis, with drivers apparently being
unclear as to where they should park (as not
against a conventional kerb).
Based on our conversations with practitioners
in the relevant study cities, there is a general
consensus that this type of facility gives cyclists
a much improved sense of subjective safety, and
they are therefore very popular. Such schemes
can be built quickly and cheaply since they do
not interfere with buried services and drainage.
‘Light segregation’ allows cyclists to enter and
leave the track easily (if no car parking is located
alongside) and features can usually, if necessary,
be easily removed for maintenance or modified
as cycle flows increase.
Cambridge is planning to use ‘light segregation’
on a number of routes, and sees such provision
on busy highways as critical to taking its cycle
mode share (already the highest in the UK) to the
next level.
d. Painted lines
Simple painted features, including solid and
broken lines and wider hatched strips, are very
widely used to define space for cycling. Such
markings generally deliver limited subjective
cyclist safety, relative to the features covered
in (a) to (c) above. Nevertheless, practitioners
in several study cities consider them effective
on certain conditions: that the cycle lanes are
themselves are adequately wide; that they’re
well enforced; and that the adjacent traffic lane
is appropriately wide. In addition, it seems
that marking the cycle lane on the offside of
permitted kerbside parking, with a ‘dooring zone’
buffer, helps to discourage ‘double parking’ in
the cycle lane itself. Officers in both Berlin and
Munich also expressed the view that objective
safety for cyclists in well-specified lanes is
enhanced by drivers having an uninterrupted
view of them.
TFL INTERNATIONAL CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE BENCHMARKING STUDY DRAFT REPORT
Report 6
Attachment 1
Page 54
29
e. Offside car parking, trees and street furniture
Application in London + the UK
Several cities deploy typical street features
on the offside of cycle lanes/tracks to provide
additional protection for cyclists from general
traffic. These include on-street parking, trees,
verges, and street furniture like cycle racks, lamp
columns and seating. The basic idea is simple:
if these features are to be in the street anyway,
then they may as well also be used for this
additional purpose.
Although comparatively rare in London until
recently, stepped tracks provide a good level
of service and are likely to be appropriate in
a range of circumstances. These situations
include high quality streetscape schemes where
carriageways are being narrowed but defined
and protected space needs to be maintained for
cycling.
Placing kerbside parking on the offside of cycle
tracks/lanes, rather than the nearside, has no
impact on the amount of parking provided. Yet
it gives cyclists protection from moving vehicles
and means drivers do not have to cross the cycle
lane to access the parking bays.
As regards concerns about possible ‘dooring’,
where cars are parked facing the direction of
travel on that side of the street, it is only the
passenger doors that would open into a nearside
cycle lane/track. Passenger doors usually open
less often than the driver’s door, because every
car has a driver. Additionally, if a dooring does
occur, cyclists would be thrown into the adjacent
footway, not the carriageway.
Where loading across the cycle track takes
place, this may cause an occasional obstruction
of the cycle lane/track; but in most study cities
this is considered preferable to the alternative
of placing cycling between parked and moving
vehicles. Report 6 Attachment 1 Page 55
When considering more permanent, ‘heavier’
segregation - i.e. types (a) or (b) - it will be
important to provide a track width at the outset
that is likely to accommodate significant future
growth in cycling.
The impact on pedestrian crossing movements,
in the local context, should also be an important
factor in selecting the preferred form of
separation. With simple stepped tracks, any
pedestrians tripping on the upstand would
typically fall into the cycle track itself or footway.
With other forms of physical separation (e.g.
kerbed strips, Seville-style ‘Lacasitos’, and
thermoplastic humps), any pedestrians tripping
might also fall into the main carriageway.
Based on our visits to New York and Seville, in
particular, we consider ‘light segregation’ likely
to be an effective means of quickly securing
safer space for cycling. The option to move to a
‘heavier’ form of segregation, if later considered
desirable or necessary, will always remain.
To date, ‘light segregation’ has not been widely
used greatly in London, other than temporarily
in relation to roadworks. PVC ‘armadillos’ (and
also some planters) have been used as a form
of on Royal College Street in Camden, and the
experience with this scheme has indicated that
there are unlikely to be significant regulatory
obstacles to installing these kinds of measures
elsewhere in London and the UK. (Their use is
now currently also being trialled in Manchester.)
30
Utrecht - stepped separation provides good protection, but
is not an uncrossable barrier to vehicles
The stepped Old Shoreham Road track between Brighton
and Hove
Typical stepped cycle track profile in Munich
New York - stepped track as part of public realm scheme
Barrier-separated cycle track in Stockholm...
...and in Seville
Report 6
Attachment 1
Page 56
32
New York - where simple painted lanes become...
...stepped tracks when funds allow.
Flexible wands, with extra-wide painted buffer strip: New
York
Flexible wands, with painted buffer strip: Minneapolis
Seville - robust concrete ‘Lacasitos’
Seville - non-flexible wand-like bollards
Report 6
Attachment 1
Page 57
33
Of these three separation techniques recently trialled at the
TRL, only wands were observed in study cities
Raised thermoplastic markings: Nantes
Wide buffer strip with offside parking: Nantes
Extra-wide buffer markings on rural dual carriageway:
Nantes
Painted lanes are used in most study cities. In Amsterdam,
such lanes are operational 24/7 and usually found only in...
...streets with low traffic flows/speeds. The broken line
indicates that vehicles can cross to park on the nearside.
Report 6
Attachment 1
Page 58
34
Berlin: this cycle track is separated from the main carriageway by parking, a kerb and a tree-planted strip
Berlin: transition from an on-carriageway lane to a stepped
track on the approach to a signalised junction
Seville - the offside parking here is also step-separated from
the cycle track
Copenhagen - the offside parking here separated from the
cycle lane by a painted line
Amsterdam - this track is both step-separated and protected
by parking, street furniture and trees
In Houten, near Utrecht, this cycle track is separated from
the carriageway by a generous verge and trees
Report 6
Attachment 1
Page 59
35
7
SUBJECT:
CONTACT OFFICER/S:
AUTHOR:
FILE NO:
T03-2016 – Supplementary Temporary Traffic Management
Keith Box
Keith Box
1972524
Summary
The City of Mandurah invited tenders for the supplementary temporary traffic management on Saturday,
13 February 2016.
This tender is for the supply of traffic management within the City of Mandurah to supplement our inhouse traffic management for construction and maintenance works. In-house traffic management has
increased over the previous tender and expected to continue.
Council approval is sought to select Clune Group Pty Ltd trading as Peak Traffic Management
(Greenfields, WA) as the successful tenderer for supplementary temporary traffic management for a
period of five years.
Nil
 G.32/7/12
24 July 2012
Council awarded WARP Group the contract under Tender 052012: Separable Portion One for the Traffic Management and
awarded Webset Traffic Management the contract under Tender
05-2012: Separable Portion Two for the Traffic Management –
Events.
Background
The current contract for Traffic Management was awarded to Warp Pty Ltd and Webset Traffic
Management for a period of three years and commenced on 24 July 2012.
To provide continuation of the service a tender for the supplementary temporary traffic management was
advertised in the 13 February 2016 edition of the ‘West Australian’ newspaper and advertised in the 18
February edition of the ‘Mandurah Mail’ newspaper.
The RFT seeks the provision of the required services for a period of five years, commencing on 1 June
2016.
Supplementary temporary traffic management is required to support and top up the personnel the city
has in place for traffic management of its works.
Comment
The tender closed at 2:00pm on Thursday, 10 March 2016. Tenders were received from the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Quality Traffic Management Pty Ltd
Advanced Traffic Management WA Pty Ltd
Altus Traffic Pty Ltd
Beaver Tree Services Pty Ltd
Clune Group Pty Ltd
LGC Group Pty Ltd
Nolan Bay Pty Ltd
Beckenham, WA
Bellevue, WA
Port Melbourne, VIC
Forrestdale, WA
Mandurah, WA
Midvale, WA
Rockingham, WA
Report 7
Page 60
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Roadline Contracting Pty Ltd
RTSM Pty Ltd
Joynson Enterprises Pty Ltd
Contraflow Pty Ltd
Evolution Group
Bibra Lake, WA
Bibra Lake, WA
Boyanup, WA
Maddington, WA
Joondalup, WA
Nolan Bay Pty Ltd and Evolution Group were deemed non-compliant and therefore were not assessed
by the evaluation panel.
The following weighted qualitative criteria, approved under delegated authority, DA – CPM 02 Tenders,
were used to assess and rank each tender submission:
Safety Record
Resources and Equipment
Skills and Experience
30%
20%
20%
An evaluation panel, comprising of officers from Cityparks and Cityworks, individually assessed each
tender against the weighted qualitative criteria submitted by each tenderer.
To ensure that pricing did not influence the assessment of the qualitative criteria, the pricing was not
provided to the evaluation panel until the assessment of the qualitative criteria was completed.
The weighting criteria was adjusted from 50% price to 30% price thus resulting in the qualitative criteria
being 70%.
This was nominated as there needed to be an emphasis on procuring a contractor who had a strong
safety record, committed resources and the skills/experience to operate in an urban environment.
A member of the City’s Purchasing and Tendering Services section conducted the tender evaluation
process and can confirm that the procedural aspects relating to the evaluation of the tender were
compliant.
Pricing
On completion of the assessment of the qualitative criteria, a member of the City’s Purchasing and
Tendering Services section then carried out a cost analysis, taking into account qualitative ranking and
risk of each tender, in order to determine the tender which is the most advantageous to the City.
All prices submitted were then entered into the Evaluation Matrix as shown in the Confidential
Attachment.
Based on the panel’s evaluation, the submission from Clune Group Pty Ltd trading as Peak Traffic
Management is considered to be the most advantageous tender based on their performance in both
qualitative criteria and price and is therefore recommended as the preferred tenderer.
This contractor is based in Mandurah, WA and is therefore in a position to respond to requests for
assistance in a timely manner. Peak Traffic Management is known to the City. They have previously
been engaged to provide traffic management for events and roadworks where additional resources have
been required. As a local contractor, they are able to respond quickly to provide assistance as and
when required.
Consultation
A reference check has been undertaken with nominated referees and the preferred tenderer is
considered to be capable of carrying out the Contract. Peak Traffic Management have assisted the City
with traffic management in recent years and supply a quality service.
Report 7
Page 61
The requirements of Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations 1996 have been
complied with.
Policy Implications
Policy POL-CPM 02 – Purchasing of Goods or Services has been complied with.
Policy POL-CPM 01 – “Buy Local” Regional Price Preference policy has been complied with.
The schedule of rates contract has a price basis that is variable in accordance with the special conditions
of contract, allowing CPI increases at each twelve (12) month contract anniversary date.
Provision has been made in various cost codes across the City’s current financial budget for the traffic
management.
The expenditure estimate for the contact is approximately $200,000 per year. The total contract value
over 5 years is approximately $1,000,000.
The proposed contract rates represent a reduction of approximately 2.8% from rates currently offered
with the existing contract.
It should be noted that the annual expenditure is estimated to be approximately $200,000 per annum.
For tender assessment purposes, a base set of hours was used for the comparison exercise which has
resulted in a lower figure in the assessment schedule.
this report:
Conclusion
Tenders for the supplementary temporary traffic management were recently invited. Twelve (12) were
received and ten (10) were assessed by an evaluation panel against qualitative criteria. The evaluation
panel recommends that Council selects Clune Group Pty Ltd trading as Peak Traffic Management as the
preferred tenderer at the schedule of rates offered for a period of five years subject to satisfactory
performance.
NOTE:
 Refer Confidential Attachment
RECOMMENDATION
That Council awards Clune Group Pty Ltd trading as Peak Traffic Management the
contract under Tender 03-2016 for supplementary temporary traffic management for a
period of five years, commencing on 1 June 2016 and expiring on 31 May 2021 (subject to
satisfactory performance), at the schedule of rates offered with CPI increases at each
twelve (12) month contract anniversary date.
Report 7
Page 62
8
SUBJECT:
CONTACT OFFICER/S:
AUTHOR:
FILE NO:
Tender Number 09-2013 – Weed Control – Supply and Application
of Herbicides
Keith Box
Keith Box
1972672
Summary
The City of Mandurah invited tenders for Weed Control – Supply and Application of Herbicide on
Saturday 13 July 2013.
The tender was advertised as three (3) separable portions, these were as follows:
-
Separable Portion One – General, which includes the spraying of kerbs, traffic islands and
footpaths.
Separable Portion Two – Turf Surfaces, which includes broadleaf spraying for turf maintenance
such as sports reserves.
Separable Portion Three – Environmental, which includes bushland or conservation areas.
Council awarded Website Weed and Pest WA Pty Ltd the tenderer for Weed Control – Supply and
Application of Herbicide for separable portions, One Two and Three for a period of three (3) years with
one (1) option to extend for a further two (2) years at the Council meeting of 27 August 2013.
Website Weed and Pest WA Pty Ltd have struggled to supply and comply with the Separable Portion
Three - Environmental, which includes bushland or conservation areas. They lack the resources and
expertise to fully comply to the specification requirements.
Council is requested to approve a deed of variation to the contract to remove Separable Portion Three.
N/A
G.26/9/12
Tender 09-2011: Weed Control – Supply and Application of Herbicides Extension of
Contract (KB) (File No 189715) (Report 9) (GI.12/9/12)
G.43/8/13
Tender 09-2013: Weed Control – Supply and Application of Herbicides (KB) (File No
542612) (Report 6) (GI.8/813)
Background
The tender for the Weed Control – Supply and Application of Herbicide is utilised by the Cityparks team
for weed control on road verges and medians, turfed areas throughout the City and weed control in
bushland and conservation areas.
Website Weed and Pest WA Pty Ltd specialise in the road verge and median works and the turf areas as
detailed in Separable Portions One and Two. The Bushland and Conservation areas Separable Portion
Three requires more specialist personnel and equipment than Website Weed and Pest WA Pty Ltd can
deliver. Early in the contract, Website Weed and Pest WA Pty Ltd struggled to perform adequately in this
section of the contract. The Cityparks team worked closely with Website and it became clear Website
Weed and Pest WA Pty Ltd could not provide a satisfactory service.
By mutual agreement, the City has sourced the required environmental treatments from elsewhere.
Martins Environmental Services have successfully undertaken the weed control as detailed in Separable
Portion Three which includes bushland or conservation areas under quotations for the past 18 months.
Report 8
Page 63
Officers are seeking to remove Separable Portion Three from the existing contract with the aim of:
a) Preparing a separate tender for bushland weed control, and
b) Considering the extension of the current contract for Separable Portions One and Two in
June/July as per the original terms of the contract.
This action will provide clarity to the existing contractor and City officers when assessing the contractors
performance against the tender requirements ahead of preparing a report for Council consideration.
Comment
Pricing
Operation of Weed Spraying Activities
The tender documents and the intended contract does not give a guarantee that all services, and in fact
any services will be requested of the successful tenderer. Clause 1.11 of the General Conditions of
Contract supplied to all prospective tenderers reads as follows:
1.11
Supply of Services by Order
The Contractor shall fulfil all orders for Services placed by the Principal during the term or
currency of the Contract.
Where the Contract is for the supply of Services by reference to a list of Services and prices in a
Schedule to the Specification, the Principal shall not be required to take or accept all or any of the
Services listed EXCEPT such of the Services as may be ordered by the Principal from time to
time during the period of the Contract.
Where the quantity or value set out in any Schedule to the Specification is described as
‘approximate’ it shall be regarded only as an estimate of the quantity or value which may be
required under the Contract and the Principal shall not be required to take or accept the said
nominated approximate quantity or value of Services.
The right is reserved for the Principal to order its requirements of any one type or item of the
Services either at one time or in instalments or in such quantities as may be required from time to
time.
Nothing herein contained shall oblige the Principal to take or accept all its needs or requirements
of the Services solely from the Contractor nor shall be taken to confer any exclusive right upon
the Contractor to provide the Services to the Principal. The Principal shall be free at all times to
obtain the Services or any part of them from any other source provider or supplier thereof except
Services the subject of an existing order to the Contractor.
The last paragraph allows the City to go seek an alternate source for weed spraying and this will allow
operational staff to use City of Mandurah staff for some generic spraying.
The City’s spraying activities can involve large quantities of work. There may be a need to spray items
such as paths using the City’s resources where the herbicides used are generic.
It is intended that broad acre spraying of reserves and major turf areas and items such as kerbing will
remain under contract.
Some herbicides require major training, registration and licensing under the Health Act and it is not
intended that the City would enter into spraying these herbicides.
Report 8
Page 64
City of Mandurah Weed Control
The City authorises the use of two principal chemicals for the purpose of weed control. They are:


Roundup Biactive
Metsulfuron – Methyl WG
Roundup Biactive is a Group M herbicide and is used for general weed control in all Australian states. It
is used for general weed control in domestic areas (home gardens), commercial, industrial and public
service areas, agriculture buildings and other farm situations.
Metsulfuron – Methyl WG is a Group B herbicide which is used for the control of brush and broadleaf
weeds in native pastures, rights of way, commercial and industrial areas.
Weed control is undertaken by Operations Services staff and contractors on the City’s behalf. There are
strict guidelines on how to use the products and well established practices to ensure public and animal
safety.
In bushland the majority of weed spraying is spot spraying to localise the impact and thus avoid
indiscriminate broad spraying of vegetation.
Consultation
By way of mutual agreement between City of Mandurah and Website Weed and Pest WA Pty Ltd that
the works under Separable Portion Three be sourced elsewhere.
The requirements of Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations 1996 have been
complied with.
Policy Implications
Policy POL-CPM 02 – Purchasing of Goods or Services has been complied with.
Policy POL-CPM 01 – “Buy Local” Regional Price Preference policy has been complied with.
The price basis for the contract is a schedule of rates fixed price tender for each twelve (12) month
period. The three (3) separable portions represent a cost to Council of $105,368.00 per annum.
Separable portion 3 represents a tender cost reduction of $56,870.00 per annum.
The cost of works under this contract has been considered in the operational budget for each year.
to this report:
Environment:
 Encourage and enable the community to take ownership of natural assets, and to adopt behaviours
that assist in achieving the City’s environmental targets.
 Become a leader in proactive and innovative environmental management.
Report 8
Page 65
expectations.
Conclusion
Tenders for Weed Control – Supply and Application of Herbicide awarded to Website Weed and Pest
WA Pty Ltd represented the most advantageous tender to the City of Mandurah for all three (3)
separable portions. By mutual agreement and due to contract performance management it was agreed
the Separable Portion Three be withdrawn from the contract and sourced elsewhere by way of tender.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council
1. Approves a Deed of Variation for the contract in respect of Tender 09-2013 to
remove Separable Portion Three.
2. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer (Corporate Lawyer) to finalise the Deed of
Variation.
Report 8
Page 66

Council Meeting Agenda May 10

Transcription

Similar documents

I`m helping to end MS by participating in the 2016 Jayman BUILT MS

The Board of Directors of Qatar Fuel (WOQOD) is pleased to invite

5 `S` Training Program at ABV-IIITM, Gwalior on 21.07.2016

4 star ALOE HOTEL, PAPHOS

loyola institute for ministry on-campus open house thursday, may 12

The Magic Wizard

KMEA Standards Handout

2016 MW Alliance Raffle - Manitowish Waters Alliance LTD

HERE - Perfect Shots Photography

2016 Sponsorship Prospectus