CITY OF BAYSWATER MINUTES FOR THE

Transcription

CITY OF BAYSWATER
MINUTES
FOR THE
ORDINARY MEETING
OF COUNCIL
26 May 2009
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
26 MAY 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM
SUBJECT
PAGE NO
1
OFFICIAL OPENING ......................................................................................... 2
2
RECORD OF ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES, LEAVE OF ABSENCE
(PREVIOUSLY APPROVED)............................................................................. 2
2.1
Attendance and Apologies
2
2.2
Leave of Absence (Previously Approved)
2
3
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME................................................................................ 2
4
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE................................................. 2
4.1
5
7
Ordinary Meeting : 12 May 2009
2
DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INTEREST SUMMARY............................... 2
6.1
Disclosures at Briefing Session
2
6.2
Disclosures at Council Meetings
2
URGENT BUSINESS........................................................................................... 2
7.1
8
2
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ...................................................................... 2
5.1
6
Applicant: Cr Sally Palmer
Donation – “Il Globo” – “La Fiamma” – “Rete Italia” - Italian
Earthquake Appeal
2
PETITIONS.......................................................................................................... 2
8.1
Cr Marlene Robinson tabled an email from Mr Richard Foulds
and Ms Paule Scantlebury of Kichener Avenue, Bayswater re:
Laneway.
2
9
MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN................ 2
10
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE
FOLLOWING MEETING IF GIVEN DURING THE MEETING ................... 2
11
BUSINESS – ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ............. 2
Page i
26 MAY 2009
11.1
Aquatic Facilities Report- April 2009
2
11.2
Ranger Services Management Report – April 2009
2
11.3
Registration of Voting Delegates and Attendance - WALGA
2009 Annual General Meeting / Convention & Call for
Submission of Motions
ABSOLUTE MAJORITY REQUIRED.
11.4
2
2009 National General Assembly of Local Government
2
11.5
Essential Ingredients Catering - Extension of Contract
Confidential Attachments
2
11.6
11.7
11.8
Review of City of Bayswater Policies - Library Policies LB-P04
& LB-P06
2
Review of Policies – Bayswater Waves - BW-P02; BW-P03;
BW-P06
2
Review of Policy - Community Services – CS-P01
Ref No:
OMC – 29.01.08
2
12
BUSINESS – TECHNICAL SERVICES............................................................. 2
13
BUSINESS – PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ....................... 2
13.1
Town Planning Scheme No. 24 Amendment No. 43
Location:
Lot 26, No. 465-469 Guildford Road, Bayswater
Lot 101, No. 497 Guildford Road, Bayswater
2
13.2
Town Planning Scheme No. 24 - Amendment No. 1
2
CR TERRY KENYON, JP DECLARED AN IMPARTIAL INTEREST
13.3
13.4
13.5
Council Ratification of Building Licences under Council's
Policy for Single Residential Development
2
Council Ratification of Planning Determinations under
Delegated Authority
2
Proposed Partial Demolition of and Additions to Chisholm
College
Location:
Lot 129, No. 1104 Beaufort Street, Bedford
CR BARRY MCKENNA DECLARED A FINANCIAL INTEREST
Page ii
2
13.6
26 MAY 2009
Proposed Partial Demolition of and Additions to Chisholm
College – Block K, Library and Administration
Location:
Lot 129, No.1104 Beaufort Street, Bedford
2
13.7
Proposed Liquor Licence Application
Location:
2
Confidential Item
13.8
Change of Use to Community Activities
2
Location:
Lot 2, Unit 2, No. 222-230 Walter Road West, Morley
13.9
Proposed Extensions and Alterations to Factory and Office
Building
Location:
Lot 480, No. 46 Clavering Road, Bayswater
2
Status of Application for Appeal/Review - Proposed Six (6)
Multiple Dwellings
Location:
Lot 383, No.6 Riverslea Avenue, Maylands
2
13.10
13.11
Proposed Two Storey Single House
Location:
Lot 11, Unit 1, No. 5 Elizabeth Street, Maylands
2
13.12
Location:
Lot 87, No. 29 Hampton Square West, Morley
2
13.13
Proposed Patio Addition to Grouped Dwelling
Location:
Lot 97, No. 12 Tillingdon Way, Morley
2
13.14
Council Ratification of Subdivisions & Amalgamations under
Delegated Authority
2
Status Report - Planning Complaints/Zoning Breaches
2
13.16
PAW - Kirkpatrick Crescent and Widgee Road, Noranda
Location:
PAW between Kirkpatrick Crescent and Widgee
Road, Noranda
2
13.17
Proposed Policy Modification - Alfresco Dining
2
13.15
Confidential Item
14
BUSINESS – FINANCE AND PERSONNEL ..................................................... 2
14.1
Financial Reports for Period Ending 30 April 2009
2
14.2
Accounts Payable as at 26 May 2009
2
14.3
Investment Portfolio as at 30 April 2009
2
14.4
Bayswater Village Retail Traders Association
2
Page iii
14.5
Donation - Fresh Start
2
14.6
Donation - WA Police Legacy Child Safety Handbook
2
14.7
Computer Monitors in Council Chambers
2
14.8
Local Government Reform
2
14.9
Local Government Reform Funding Program
2
Further Legal Action - Property No.10516
2
14.10
Confidential Item
15
26 MAY 2009
REPORTS OF MANAGEMENT/ADVISORY COMMITTEES....................... 2
15.1
15.2
15.3
Minutes of the Security Watch Advisory Committee – April
2009
2
Minutes of the Meeting of the YMCA Management Advisory
Committee
2
Minutes of the Security Watch Advisory Committee – 11 May
2009
2
16
MAYOR’S REPORT ........................................................................................... 2
17
AFFIXING OF COMMON SEAL....................................................................... 2
17.1
18
Authorisation for Affixing of the Common Seal
2
DISCUSSION OF MATTERS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS ............................. 2
18.1
Location:
2
19
ORDER OF BUSINESS ....................................................................................... 2
20
CLOSURE ............................................................................................................ 2
Page iv
26 MAY 2009
CITY OF BAYSWATER
Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Bayswater City Council which took place in the
Council Chambers, City of Bayswater Civic Centre, 61 Broun Avenue, Morley on Tuesday,
26 May 2009.
MINUTES
1
OFFICIAL OPENING
The Acting Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Michael Sabatino, welcomed those in
attendance and declared the meeting open for the ordinary business of Council at 6:04pm.
2
RECORD OF ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES, LEAVE OF ABSENCE
(PREVIOUSLY APPROVED)
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR TERRY BLANCHARD MOVED, CR MIKE ANDERTON, JP SECONDED that
the following Attendance and Apologies and Leave of Absence (Previously Approved) be
accepted:
2.1
Attendance and Apologies
Members
Central Ward
Cr Michael Sabatino, Deputy Mayor
Cr Barry McKenna
Cr Sally Palmer
Acting Chairperson
North Ward
Cr Ian McClelland, JP
Cr Mike Anderton, JP
West Ward
Cr Terry Kenyon, JP
Cr Terry Blanchard
South Ward
Cr Sylvan Albert
Page 1
26 MAY 2009
Officers
Mr Ted Budzinski
Mr Des Abel
Mr Andrew Ward
Mr Doug Pearson
Mr Peter Grocott
Mr Martyn Boyle
Ms Debbie Todorovich
Mrs Nola Patricia
Ms Carol Newport
A/Chief Executive Officer
Director of Planning and Development Services
A/Director of Administration and Community Services
Director of Technical Services
A/Director of Finance
Public Relations Officer
Executive Assistant
Mintes & Agenda Coordinator
PA – Director of Finance
Apologies
Ms Francesca Lefante
Chief Executive Officer
Observers
3 Press
16 Public
2.2
Leave of Absence (Previously Approved)
Cr Lou Magro
Cr Sonia Turkington
Cr Terry Blanchard
24 May 2009
24 May 2009
28 May 2009
to
to
to
27 May 2009 inclusive
28 May 2009 inclusive
7 June 2009 inclusive
CARRIED
Page 2
3
26 MAY 2009
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
In accordance with Section 5.24 of the Local Government Act 1995, time is allocated for
questions to be raised by members of the public.
Preamble and personal statements are placed on file, but do not form part of the minutes.
Only public questions are included.
Public Question Time commenced at 6:05pm.
The following questions were submitted both in writing and verbally:
1.
Mr Alan Radford, 30 Holden Drive, Noranda
Question 1: (Item 11.7)
(Verbal)
I refer to Attachment 1, page 7 of 9. The highlighted section reads ‘the authorised use of any
camera device in change room areas is prohibited.’ Could you please explain to me about
that, because to me that reads that unauthorised ones are allowed?
The Acting Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Michael Sabatino advised that this error had
been rectified.
The Acting Chief Executive Officer advised that there will be an amendment put forward on
this item. The Acting Director of Administration and Community Services advised that the
word ‘authorised’ will be removed and that further in the paragraph the words ‘excluding the
change rooms’ will be added.
At 6:11pm, Cr Barry McKenna withdrew from the meeting.
2.
Mr Bill Vos, 6 Young Street, Bayswater
Point 2 in the Officer’s recommendation states that an ‘as constructed’ plan be submitted prior
to occupation. Does this mean they can go over the planned height and get post approval?
The Director of Planning and Development Services advised that under Town Planning
Scheme No. 24 an applicant can apply for retrospective planning approval, and that if they
went over height that they do have the right of appeal through the State Administrative
Tribunal.
Question 2:
Will there be any consequences if over height when building is completed? I guess you’ve
just answered this.
The Director of Planning and Development Services advised that if there is unauthorised
works, Council can take action to issue fines, they can prosecute where particular penalties
apply. Council can also issue notices in order for the applicant/developer to comply with the
required height. However, this notice can be appealed to the State Administrative Tribunal
and they can also serve a notice to comply with the required height.
Page 3
26 MAY 2009
Question 3:
Will there be any compensation for residents if the height exceeds 9 metres, if not why not?
The Director of Planning and Development Services advised that this matter would be up to
the State Administrative Tribunal, although the City can request costs against the applicant.
Question 4:
Who will do the height checking, will it be an independent authority?
The Director of Planning and Development Services advised that the height will be submitted
by the applicant, however the City’s Officer’s will check this and if they think that it is
submitted incorrectly then they will request it be rectified.
Question 5:
Will the heights be taken from the spot heights on the Bayswater City Council cadastral maps
as found on the City’s website?
The Director of Planning and Development Services advised that the height measurements
will be taken from the natural ground level as it exists now.
Mr Vos went to ask what are the cadastral spot heights used for then?
The Director of Planning and Development Services advised that this information would be
provided in writing.
A copy of Council’s written response can be located at Appendix 1.
Mr Vos went on to say that he hoped Council understood his concerns, as for a number of
months the Catholic Arch Diacis has not quite done what it had originally proposed and what
residents had seen dreawings for and that they have actually changed things subsequently
without the approval or consultation with residents.
Question 6:
How long after the development is occupied will it take to complete all aspects of the
development, ie; landscaping and the cooking class delivery area, can buildings be occupied
before all works are complete?
The Director of Planning and Development Services advised that all of the building works
will have to be complete prior to occupation. In terms of the landscaping works, there will
have to be some agreement with the owner/applicant to make sure that they do comply within
a certain period of time.
Page 4
26 MAY 2009
Question 7:
The proposed new grounds management building seems to block delivery access to the
cooking rooms, is this why deliveries are now made by illegally parking at the bottom of
Young Street? If the school had complied with a 13.5 metre setback as required by the
scheme, deliveries could be made within the school grounds and not sue our street as the
loading zone. This part of the building proposal is obviously going to impact on residents in
Young Street. As the school did not consult on this building and its impact on residents, I
request that the Council should delay this aspect of the development and seek and impact
statement from the school on how deliveries will be made and how this impacts on the
amenity of the area?
The Director of Planning and Development Services advised that is up to Council to include
this aspect as a condition of the approval.
The Acting Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Michael Sabatino advised that these
comments have been acknowledged and this particular matter will be further investigated and
a response provided in writing.
At 6:16pm, Cr Barry McKenna returned to the meeting.
3.
Mr Glenn Cookson, 60 Slade Street, Bayswater
What possible rationale could any Councillor advance for the recommendation of another
liquor license? Considering the obvious overwhelming opposition for another liquor outlet,
when there are so many other nearby outlets ie; Guildford Road & King William Street,
Bayswater. The adverse impact on safe traffic flow pertaining to Slade Street. “Shops” such
as restaurants, sit down continental, Asian grocery stores are not opposed.
The Acting Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Michael Sabatino advised that this matter is
on the Agenda for discussion this evening and that this was not the forum to answer questions
of other Councillors. He further mentioned that the traffic management is separate to the
development application and is currently being dealt with and that these comments have been
acknowledged.
4.
Mrs Pat Lim, 1 Johnson Road, Maylands
At the last Ordinary meeting 2 weeks ago, I brought to Council notice that for some
2.5 months ago there has been a banner in 8th Avenue, that has broken its mooring and was
told it would be attended to and nothing has been done to fix the problem. Can this problem
be fixed as soon as possible so I don’t have to come to every meeting with the same
complaint?
The Acting Chief Executive Officer advised that he spoken to Mrs Lim regarding this matter
and that the City has a regular inspection program and the City relies upon contractors to
carry out maintenance works on these banners. He further advised that the contractor has
been advised regarding this particular banner, normally they do react quite promptly and that
each time the banner issue has been brought up by Mrs Lim the City has reacted
appropriately.
Page 5
26 MAY 2009
5.
Mr Alan Radford, 30 Holden Drive, Noranda
Question 1:
It was reported that Cr McClelland called some ratepayers ‘Ratbags’, will you please ask the
Councillor to prove it or apologise?
The Acting Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Michael Sabatino advised that these type of
issues are between individual Councillors and members of the public and should be dealt with
through those people. He further advised that there are particular avenues when making
complaints of this nature, however that he would endeavour to look into the matter further.
Question 2:
This Council has put on a special function and restricted it to Italian Politicians only, now the
Mayor has put an advertisement in the local paper on behalf of the Council congratulating the
Italians for enriching the lives of all the people who live in Bayswater. My question is, will
this Council spend the same money and praise on other groups like Vietnamese, English, New
Zealanders, Chinese etc?
The Acting Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Michael Sabatino advised that this has
occurred in the past and that this Council will support people of all cultures living within the
City of Bayswater.
6.
Question 1:
Regarding the certain Councillors that promised free underground power, what progress has
been made towards fulfilling this election promise? When can ratepayers expect this promise
to be fulfilled?
The Acting Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Michael Sabatino advised that this process
takes time and that we are working as a Council and the matter is proceeding. He further
advised that a committee has been formed and although slow progress has been made.
7.
Mr Patrick Moran, 20 Slade Street, Bayswater
Question 1: (Verbal)
I have been liaising with the Council since the 5th of January this year, specifically in regards
to a Child Care Centre that is being operated out of number 7 Slade Street. I know that the
Council is well aware of it, I am just interested as to the benchmarks or timeliness in regards
to dealing with these issues. I first raised in on the 5th January via email, the business was
requested to cease operations on the 16th April, but even to this day they’re still operating and
I’m wondering how the Council feels about that and I suppose we’re knocking on the door of
six months and it seems that its not being addressed properly and I would be interested to hear
your comments.
The Director of Planning and Development advised that the Officer’s are currently
addressing the issue, and the City has written to the owner/occupier of the premises and as a
result the City has received an application, however it was incomplete and further
correspondence was sent seeking further clarification, these details have since been received
and the application is currently being assessed and advertising will take place in the near
future.
Page 6
26 MAY 2009
Mr Moran went on to say that as Council had requested them to cease operations as of the 16th
April 2009 and he was lead to believe that was regardless of them submitting an application,
yet they are still operating so what has changed that allows them to continue a commercial
operation without approval. He would of thought that they would be required to cease
operations, seek approval and then continue their commercial activity.
The Director of Planning and Development advised that through past experience, when
Council serves a notice and an application has been lodged in the interim that a magistrate
will not make a decision on any illegal use of a premises until the planning application has
been determined by the Council. He further advised that once an application is received that
the use can continue and that if the application is refused that Council can prosecute for the
length of time the occupant has illegally used the premises.
8.
Mr Harvey Tonkin, 31 Deschamp Road, Noranda (14.7)
(Verbal)
There are four options given, I was hoping that in the current economic climate that the
Councillors would consider using their laptops/notebooks instead of these monitors and I was
just wondering what your views were on that?
The Acting Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Michael Sabatino advised that this has yet to
be decided and that is up for discussion on tonight’s Agenda.
At the last meeting I asked two questions, one question was responded to in writing and I
noted it on the internet today and the letter was dated the 19th, the person who signed it I think
finished work here on the 20th as I think they leave from the 21st. And I was wondering why
the letter was postmarked yesterday and delivered today and this has happened before, all the
letters seem to sit around somewhere for a week and I just thought in a business environment
things would be prompt, once you’ve signed the letter its off and gone or is there a purpose
behind the Council in delaying these things.
The Acting Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Michael Sabatino advised that this matter will
be further investigated.
The Council provides information to the ratepayers through the internet. I am finding over the
last month and a half that information is not prompt and I’m having to ring the Council and
say where is the meeting Agenda and where are the minutes, why aren’t the attachments on,
there is a whole stream of things. So again, is this a delaying tactic, is there a purpose, is there
a method in this or is it just something wrong? I’m not trying to pinpoint any one person.
The Acting Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Michael Sabatino advised that the City is a
large organisation and the staff do a fantastic job and they do their best.
Page 7
26 MAY 2009
Mr Tonkin went on to say that the information he was referring to is created in a word
document, converted to a pdf and given to the Councillors by Friday and the Council will not
provide information after is passed off to the Councillors, so the information is already
prepared, ok its an electronic document. Now there no research needed, on the first minute
that you start work on Monday if it took them more than a minute to upload they’ve got a
problem, ok they’re in the wrong job. Ok, so what you’ve just told me does not fit in with
what I’m asking.
The Acting Chief Executive Officer advised that sometimes the City runs into technical
problems, and that last Friday the City experienced such problems. I was advised at 8:00pm
last Friday that there was problem loading the files from one system to another. However, the
City does endeavour to achieve it’s KPI’s with regards to this matter.
Mr Tonkin further added. No. No. Obviously nobody is listening to what I’m saying so I
must be speaking a different language. It’s been happening for a quite a few weeks until I
rang up to say where is the Agenda, ok I said how long will it be before it gets up. I said not a
problem and it was there, it should have been up yesterday. The problem wasn’t Friday, I’m
talking about an ongoing thing. You can find out what’s wrong, I just want it fixed. I want to
get on Monday morning and the Agenda is there, the attachments are there and I can find
them. At the moment it is a maze and I have a hassle trying to find out what attachments
relate to what and it should be some better system. It is easy, it’s a pdf electronic document.
The Acting Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Michael Sabatino advised that this will be
further investigated and response provided in writing.
9.
Mr Harry Bouzidis, 21 Parkinson Street, Noranda
Mr Deputy Mayor, just to clarify things in my mind you mentioned about the Italian
Politicians a while ago. Are you attributing the $10M grant that the Council received from the
Federal Government to Council’s interaction with these politicians?
The Acting Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Michael Sabatino advised that he did not say
that at all and that he simply said that the Council liaises with politicians from varying
backgrounds at various times and the outcome has always been a positive one.
10.
Mrs Branka Radanovich, 11 Slade Street, Bayswater
This question is a follow on from the previous gentleman and it’s to do with the Agenda. I
look at the Agenda on your website Monday morning and a few times I’ve had to phone up
and they’ve haven’t put it on yet. Nine o’clock, nine thirty and they say ‘oh yes we’re just
putting it on’. So nine thirty quite often you’ll get to see the full Agenda. I’m just trying to
find out if the Council would be able to make an alteration as to when they put the Agenda on
the website for the public to view, as I do believe the Councillors have the Agenda available
to them Friday evening if that is correct. I do know that by law the Local Government Act
states that the public have got access to the Agenda at the same time as Councillors, but it
means that we have to get into our car and drive to the Council building and get the physical
document. I’m trying to find out whether you’re able to change that and allow the public to
have access to this Agenda on the website at the same time as the Councillors do actually get
their Agenda.
Page 8
26 MAY 2009
The Acting Chief Executive Officer advised that this matter will be considered and a response
will be provided in writing.
11.
Mr Ray Newton, 5 May Street, Bayswater
I want to know what gives Ian McClelland the right to call me a ‘Ratbag’? Two meetings
ago, what’s he got the right to call the cops on me and tonight walking direct up to me and
asking if I’m going to behave myself tonight.
The Acting Chief Executive Officer advised that this is an issue between Mr Newton and one
of the Councillors and it was not for him to comment on.
What gives Ian McClelland the right to have two votes on voting when half the time he is
asleep?
The Acting Chief Executive Officer advised that this comment was very detrimental and he
asked that Mr Newton refrain from making these type of comments in the public gallery.
I want Ian McClelland to stand up and apologise for calling me a ‘Ratbag’ and in writing to
the paper and everything else. I wonder if he’s going to forge the voting in October.
The Acting Chief Executive Officer advised that this is not a forum to be asking questions
directly to Councillors and those personal issues should be dealt with outside of this meeting.
12.
Question 1:
What are the Councils KPI’s in relation to achieving the objective of underground power? I
commend the Council for trying, however as a large professional organisation KPI’s are
required along with ‘effort’.
The Acting Chief Executive Officer advised that a response will be provided in writing in
relation to this question.
Public Question Time was closed at 6:40pm.
Page 9
26 MAY 2009
4
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE
4.1
Applicant:
Cr Sally Palmer
Cr Sally Palmer requested leave of absence from 11 June 2009 through to 18 June 2009
inclusive.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR TERRY BLANCHARD MOVED, CR SYLVAN ALBERT SECONDED that Leave
of Absences be granted as follows:
Cr Sally Palmer
11 June 2009
-
18 June 2009 inclusive.
CARRIED
Page 10
5
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
5.1
Ordinary Meeting : 12 May 2009
26 MAY 2009
CR IAN MCCLELLAND, JP MOVED, CR SYLVAN ALBERT SECONDED that the
Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 which have
been distributed, are to be presented for confirmation as a true and correct record.
CARRIED
Page 11
26 MAY 2009
6
DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INTEREST SUMMARY
6.1
Disclosures at Briefing Session
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR TERRY BLANCHARD MOVED, CR IAN MCCLELLAND, JP SECONDED that
the following disclosures at Council Briefing Sessions be accepted:
In accordance with Section 5.60A and 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995 the following
disclosures of financial interest were made at the meeting:Date
Name
Item No.
19 May 2009
Cr Lou Magro
Item 13.1 – TPS24 – Amendment No 43
19 May 2009
Cr Lou Magro
Item 13.7 – Proposed Liquor Licence Application
In accordance with Section 5.60B and 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995 the following
disclosures of proximity interest were made at the meeting:Nil.
In accordance with Clause 34C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996
the following disclosure of interests affecting impartiality were made at the meeting:Nil.
CARRIED
Page 12
6.2
26 MAY 2009
Disclosures at Council Meetings
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR SALLY PALMER MOVED, CR SYLVAN ALBERT SECONDED that the
following disclosures at Ordinary Council Meetings be accepted:
In accordance with Section 5.60A and 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995 the following
disclosures of financial interest were made at the meeting:Date
Name
Item No.
26 May 09
Cr Barry McKenna
Item 13.5 – Proposed Partial Demolition of and
Additions to Chisholm College
26 May 09
Cr Barry McKenna
Item 13.6 - Proposed Partial Demolition of and
Additions to Chisholm College – Block K, Library
and Administration
In accordance with Section 5.60B and 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995 the following
disclosures of proximity interest were made at the meeting:Nil.
In accordance with Clause 34C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996
the following disclosure of interests affecting impartiality were made at the meeting:Date
Name
Item No.
26 May 09
Cr Terry Kenyon, JP
Item 13.2 - Town Planning Scheme No. 24 Amendment No. 1
26 May 09
Cr Terry Kenyon, JP
Item 13.5 – Proposed Partial Demolition of and
Additions to Chisholm College
26 May 09
Cr Terry Kenyon, JP
Item 13.6 - Proposed Partial Demolition of and
Additions to Chisholm College – Block K, Library
and Administration
CARRIED
Page 13
7
26 MAY 2009
URGENT BUSINESS
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR IAN MCCLELLAND, JP MOVED, CR SALLY PALMER SECONDED that
Item 7.1 be dealt with as Urgent Business.
CARRIED
7.1
Donation – “Il Globo” – “La Fiamma” – “Rete Italia” - Italian Earthquake
Appeal
Applicant:
Officer:
Carlo Pennone JP, Secretary, Earthquake Appeal
Director of Finance
Application
To consider an application for financial assistance towards the Italian Earthquake Appeal
which is being conducted by “Il Globo” and “La Fiamma” (the Italian daily newspapers in
Australia) and “Rete Italia” (the Italian radio in Australia).
Background
On 6 April 2009, an earthquake of 6.3 moment magnitude occurred in the central Italian
region of Abruzzo, following a series of about a hundred minor tremors since January 2009,
including a 4.0-magnitude one on 30 March. The majority of the damage occurred in the
medieval city of L'Aquila (capital city of the Abruzzo region) and the surrounding villages.
315 people are known to have died and thousands have been left homeless, making this the
deadliest earthquake to hit Italy since the 1980 Irpinia earthquake.
“Il Globo” has requested Mayor Nick Catania (Town of Vincent) to coordinate the Western
Australian effort, which was launched in early May with business and community leaders,
local, State and Federal Government representatives being invited to attend
The Australian coordinating committee will identify a project in the devastated city where the
Australian funds will be used to help reconstruct the city and will directly supervise the
specific projects.
Comment
In the past, Council has made various donations to different global disasters as follows:
Council Resolution
Feb 2009
May 2008
January 2005
January 2004
October 2002
DONATIONS TO DISASTER APPEALS
Organisation
Disaster
Australian Red Cross
Victorian Bushfires
World Vision
•
Myanmar Cyclone
•
China Earthquake
Care Australia
Tsunami Appeal
Australian Red Cross
Tsunami Appeal
Lord Mayors Disaster Appeal
Cranbrook/Plantaganet/
Bridgetown Bushfires
Lord Mayors Disaster Appeal
Bali Appeal
Page 14
Amount
$20,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$500
$5,000
26 MAY 2009
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority Required.
Council Discussion:
Council discussed the recent devastation caused and decided to increase the donation
amount to $2,000.
Officer's Recommendation
That Council grants a donation of $1,000 to “Il Globo” towards the Australian Abruzzo
Earthquake Appeal Fund.
AMENDMENT
CR MICHAEL SABATINO MOVED, CR TERRY KENYON, JP SECONDED that the
donation from Council be increased to the amount of $2,000.
The Amendment was put and
CARRIED
The Amendment became the Substantive Motion.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR IAN MCCLELLAND, JP MOVED, CR SALLY PALMER SECONDED that
Council grants a donation of $2,000 to the Australian Abruzzo Earthquake Appeal
Fund.
CARRIED
Page 15
26 MAY 2009
8
PETITIONS
8.1
Cr Marlene Robinson tabled an email from Mr Richard Foulds and Ms Paule
Scantlebury of Kichener Avenue, Bayswater re: Laneway.
A copy of this document can be located at Appendix 6.
Page 16
9
26 MAY 2009
MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN
Nil.
Page 17
10
26 MAY 2009
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING
MEETING IF GIVEN DURING THE MEETING
Nil.
Page 18
11
26 MAY 2009
BUSINESS – ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
COUNCIL DECISION - EN BLOC RESOLUTION
CR TERRY BLANCHARD MOVED, CR SYLVAN ALBERT SECONDED to en bloc
the Committee/Officer’s recommendations of Item 11.1 through to Item 11.6, Item 11.8,
Item 13.3, 13.4 and Item 13.8 through to Item 13.11, Item 13.13 through to Item 13.17,
Item 14.1 through to Item 14.6, Item 14.8 through to Item 14.10 and Item 15.1 through
to Item 15.3.
11.1
Aquatic Facilities Report- April 2009
Attachments:
Officer:
Aquatic Facilities Report – April 2009
Application
To consider the report of activities at the City of Bayswater aquatic facilities for April 2009.
Background
A copy of the report and operations undertaken in the Month of April 2009
(refer to Attachment No 1).
Comment
Nil.
Policy Implications
Nil.
Financial Implications
Nil.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
(OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION)
CR TERRY BLANCHARD MOVED, CR SYLVAN ALBERT SECONDED the Officer
recommendation that the report of activities and operations for the City of Bayswater’s
aquatic facilities for April 2009 be received.
CARRIED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION
Page 19
11.2
26 MAY 2009
Ranger Services Management Report – April 2009
Attachments:
Officer:
Ranger Services Management Report - April 2009
Manager Rangers and Security
Application
To receive the monthly Ranger Services management report for April 2009.
Background
To keep Council informed on the activities of the Ranger Service section.
summary report is provided (refer to Attachment).
A monthly
Comment
The City Ranger Services are located at 25 King Street. The office is open to the public
Monday to Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm.
Community Rangers are on duty from:
7:00am to 7:00pm Monday to Thursday
7:00am to 7:30pm Friday
8:30am to 5:30pm Saturday
9:30am to 4:30pm Sunday.
Policy Implications
Nil.
Nil.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that the Ranger Services management report for April 2009 be
received.
Page 20
11.3
26 MAY 2009
Registration of Voting Delegates and Attendance - WALGA 2009 Annual
General Meeting / Convention & Call for Submission of Motions
Attachments:
Officer:
1: WALGA Notice of AGM
2: Correspondence dated 24 April 2009
3: Voting Delegate Information Form
Application
To nominate the City of Bayswater’s voting delegates and general elected member attendance
at WALGA’s 2009 Annual General Meeting and Convention, to be held at the Perth
Convention Exhibition Centre, 21 Mounts Bay Road from Wednesday, 5 August 2009 to
Sunday, 9 August 2009 and to submit any motions for consideration at this meeting.
Background
The City is in receipt of correspondence from WALGA which advises that WALGA’s Annual
General Meeting is to be held on Saturday, 8 August 2009 calling for delegates to attend on
behalf of the City of Bayswater at the AGM. Furthermore, the notice is requesting the
submission of any motions for consideration at this meeting, deadline for Agenda Items is by
close of business on Friday, 12 June 2009. (Refer to Attachment No. 1).
Registrations for voting delegates must be completed and signed off by the Chief Executive
Officer and faxed back to the Association by Monday, 20 July 2009
(refer to Attachment No’s 2 & 3). The closing date for submission of motions is Friday, 12
June 2009 (COB). Registrations for general attendance at the WALGA Annual General
Meeting and subsequent Convention sessions and functions are encouraged and are required
as soon as possible.
Comment
Pursuant to the WALGA Constitution, all Member Councils are entitled to be represented by
two (2) voting delegates. Voting delegates may be either elected members or serving officers.
It has been practice for the City of Bayswater to nominate two voting delegates to be from
amongst those Councillors who choose to register for the Convention, although this is not a
requirement.
In the past a number of Councillors have registered for themselves and their partners to attend
the WALGA Gala Dinner which will be held on Saturday, 8 August 2009 commencing at
7:00pm.
Councillors should note that schedule of the Convention provided is currently tentative.
Policy Implications
Nil.
Page 21
26 MAY 2009
Attendance at the WALGA Annual General Meeting is free of charge to all Member Local
Governments, excluding the cost of lunch. Any other expenses incurred as a result of
attending this Convention will be charged to “conferences” under member expenses in the
2008/2009 budget. And any commitment to attend will constitute an authorised expenditure
in the 2008/2009 budget.
Voting Requirements
Discussion at Briefing Session:
At the briefing session held on 19 May 2009, additional information was brought to the
officer’s attention which detailed the past practice of Council was that the City of Bayswater
East Metro WALGA representative were selected as voting delegates for the WALGA Annual
General Meeting. In addition, a deputy voting delegate has been listed in past years. During
the briefing session the Mayor, Cr Lou Magro and Cr McClelland, JP were identified as the
nominated voting delegates with the deputy voting delegate being identified as Cr Sabatino.
The officer’s recommendation has been adjusted to incorporate this information.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that:
1.
The Mayor, Cr Lou Magro and Cr Ian McClelland, JP be authorised as voting
delegates and the Deputy Mayor, Cr Mike Sabatino be authorised as a Deputy
voting delegate for the WALGA Annual General Meeting to be held at 1:00pm on
Saturday, 8 August 2009.
2.
Any Councillors wishing to attend the 2009 WALGA Convention and Gala
Dinner to provide their details to the Chief Executive Officer to be included with
registrations.
3.
The cost of attendance at the WALGA Convention will be met as part of the
2008/2009 budget allocations for elected members conference attendance.
CARRIED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION WITH AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY
Page 22
11.4
26 MAY 2009
2009 National General Assembly of Local Government
Officer:
Application
To consider the attendance of Elected Members at the 2009 National General Assembly of
Local Government to be held in Canberra between 21 and 24 June 2009.
Background
An invitation has been received from the Australian Local Government Association for
Council to send representatives to attend and participate in the 2009 National General
Assembly of Local Government.
The theme for this year’s forum is “Rising to the Challenge – Infrastructure, Climate Change
and Financing” and will coincide with the next meeting of Mayors and Shire Presidents.
Previous assemblies have passed resolutions calling for more infrastructure and general
purpose funding to be provided by the Australian Government to Local Government. These
resolutions have developed the Local Government case for more funding and assisted in
convincing the Australian Government of the need for an increased investment in community
infrastructure funding for Local Government.
Comment
Delegates to the 2009 Assembly will again join other community leaders from around the
country to consider plans and address problems affecting metropolitan and rural regions.
WALGA has advised that following the National General Assembly in Canberra the second
Australian Council of Local Government (ACLG) plenary meeting, hosted by Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Minister Anthony Albanese will be
held on 25 June 2009 at Parliament House, Canberra. Further details regarding this meeting
will be posted to the website www.aclg.gov.au and invitations forwarded to all mayors and
shire presidents as they become available and the meeting is confirmed.
The approximate costs associated with attendance, including registration, events, airfares and
accommodation, are approximately $3,200.
Voting Requirements
Page 23
26 MAY 2009
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
1.
Council approves the attendance and associated costs of the Mayor, Cr Lou Magro
at the 2009 National General Assembly of Local Government to be held in
Canberra between 21 and 24 June 2009 in accordance with Council Policy EOPO5.
2.
Council approves the attendance and associated costs of the Mayor, Cr Lou Magro
at the second Australian Council of Local Government (ACLG) meeting to be held
in Canberra on 25 June 2009 in accordance with Council Policy EO-P05.
Page 24
11.5
26 MAY 2009
Essential Ingredients Catering - Extension of Contract
Attachments:
Refer:
Officer:
1. Original Tender Submission (Confidential Attachment)
2. Signed Copies of Essentials Ingredients Catering
Contract and acceptance letter (Confidential Attachment)
3. Correspondence (Confidential Attachment)
Item 15.4.2 : OMC : 27.06/2006
Application
To consider extending the existing contract for catering services between Essential Ingredients
Catering and the City of Bayswater.
The first of the options to renew the contract for a twelve (12) month period is due for review
on 30 June 2009. Council is requested to consider exercising this option based on their
personal experiences and officers’ agreed perception of satisfactory performance in their
delivery of services.
Background
Based on the content included in the Tender submission (refer to Attachment No. 1) and the
quality of services provided, Council awarded the Supply and Provision of Catering contract
to Essential Ingredients Catering at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 27 June 2006
(refer to Attachment No. 2) for a period of three (3) years with two (2) options for extension
of twelve (12) months each, commencing 1 July 2006 until 30 June 2009.
As Essential Ingredients currently have a contract agreement in place with the City of
Bayswater, they wish to exercise the first option to extend their contract for a further twelve
(12) months to again be reviewed on 30 June 2010 (refer to Attachment No. 3)
For Essential Ingredients catering to continue providing services to the City of Bayswater,
Council is requested to exercise the first option to extend the contract for twelve (12) months
from 30 June 2009 to again review on 30 June 2010 as per the second option for renewal for a
further twelve (12) months.
Comment
Since 1 July 2006, Essential Ingredients have been providing catering services to the City of
Bayswater’s Members’ and Officers within the conditions of contract and the required criteria
of providing:
a)
menu variety;
b)
fixed prices; and
c)
food of exceptional quality and presentation.
These criteria also include Members’ and Officers’ perception of:
• Punctuality;
• Wait staff personality and friendly service; and
• Efficiency
Council is therefore requested to approve the first option of a twelve (12) month extension of
contract for Essential Ingredients Catering to again be reviewed on June 2010.
Page 25
26 MAY 2009
Policy Implications
Nil.
As per catering requirements for the City of Bayswater Functions and Events and within the
terms of the contract.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that Council approve the first of the twelve (12) month contract
extension option for Essential Ingredients Catering, with the contract to again be
reviewed for the second extension option within the next twelve months.
Page 26
11.6
26 MAY 2009
Review of City of Bayswater Policies - Library Policies LB-P04 & LB-P06
Attachments:
Officer:
1. LB-P04
2. LB-P06
Application
To consider the amendments to the City of Bayswater Library policies to bring the existing
policies in line with current legislation wording and change the wording to be grammatically
correct.
Background
As part of the ongoing review of Council policies, the City of Bayswater Town Librarian has
reviewed and identified the Library policies that require amendments based on grammatical
and expansion requirements.
The policies as approved by Council in April 1996 and amended in February 2006
(refer to Attachment No’s 1 & 2) remain fundamentally unchanged but have been identified
as requiring some grammatical amendments and expansion to bring the policies in line with
the Australian Library and Information Association’s “Statement on Free Access to
Information” and the “Statement on Information Literacy for all Australians”.
Comment
The amendments as recommended by the City Librarian to existing library policies are to
expand and improve the explanation of the existing policies regarding Censorship and
Advertising Material and Community Information without having any fundamental impact to
the outcome of the Policies.
Policy Implications
LB-P04
LB-P06
Nil.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
1.
2.
Council adopts the amendments to Policy LB-P06 to bring the Policy wording in
line with the Australian Library and Information Association’s “Statement on
Free Access to Information” and the “Statement on Information Literacy for all
Australians.”, (as per Attachment No. 2).
Council adopts the grammatical amendments as identified in Policies LB-P04 and
LB-P06, (as per Attachment No’s 1 & 2).
Page 27
11.7
26 MAY 2009
Review of Policies – Bayswater Waves - BW-P02; BW-P03; BW-P06
Attachments:
Officer:
1. BW-P02
2. BW-P03
3. BW-P06
Application
To consider the amendments to the Bayswater Waves and Maylands Waterland policies to
grammatically correct and bring the existing policies in line with current IT changes in media
devices and subsequent Aquatic Centre Code amendments.
Background
As part of the ongoing review of Council policies, the Manager of Bayswater Waves has
reviewed and identified the Bayswater Waves and Maylands Waterland policies
(refer to Attachment No’s 1, 2 & 3) that require some minor amendments.
The policies as approved by Council in February 2006 remain fundamentally unchanged but
have been identified as requiring some grammatical amendments and expansion to also
capture changes in media technology development.
Comment
1.
BW-P02, and BW-P06 – Bayswater Waves and Maylands Waterland –
Conditions of Entry
a)
Cameras:
This item was originally worded with reference only to “camera devices” being
prohibited in change room areas. However, in light of recent updates to the
Department of Sport and Recreation position paper that ban the use of various devices
in public places which include new technology such as mobile phones etc., it was
considered necessary to amend this item to also reflect these changes.
b)
Age:
The description of age has been expanded to include children under the age of six (6)
to be within arms length of the parent or guardian at all times. This is to bring the
policy in line with the “Watch Around Water” education program which is a standard
across Western Australia and endorsed by Bayswater Waves.
2.
BW-P03 – Bayswater Waves/Maylands Waterland - Privilege Card
The full definition of whom the Privilege Card applies to has never been captured in
the policy wording. As such, the wording has been expanded to include memberships,
swim school enrolments and admission prices to Maylands Waterland.
This will have some financial implications due to the 15% discount this attracts for
users. Based on the figures from the last financial year the Privilege Card would
account for an estimated $2462.10 revenue decrease for residents who used the
Maylands Waterland.
Policy Implications
BW-P02 - Nil
Page 28
26 MAY 2009
BW-P06 - Nil
BW-P03 - Based on the figures from the last financial year the Privilege Card would account
for an estimated $2462.10 revenue decrease for residents who used the Maylands Waterland.
Nil.
Voting Requirements
Council Discussion:
Council discussed the terminology in Policy No. BW-P02 relating to Bayswater Waves
Condition of Entry and in particular the section referring to cameras. The wording in this
policy was amended to remove the word ‘authorised’.
That:
1.
Council adopts the amendments to Bayswater Waves Policy BW-P02, “Condition of
Entry” (as per Attachment No. 1) based on identified requirements to bring the policy in
line with current media technological advances;
2.
Council adopts the amendments to Bayswater Waves Policy BW-P03, “Bayswater
Waves/Maylands Waterland Privilege Card” (as per Attachment No. 2). based on
expanded explanation of existing policy; and
3.
Council adopts the amendments to Bayswater Waves Policy BW-P06, “Maylands
Waterland – Conditions of Entry” (as per Attachment No. 3) based on:
a)
identified requirements to bring the policy in line with current media technological
advances; and
b)
the “Watch Around Water” education program.
AMENDMENT
CR TERRY BLANCHARD MOVED, CR SYLVAN ALBERT SECONDED that point 1
of the Officer’s recommendation be amended to read as follows:
1.
Council adopts the amendments to Bayswater Waves Policy BW-P02, “Condition
of Entry” (as per Attachment No. 1) based on identified requirements to bring the
policy in line with current media technological advances, and that Section 11.14
referring to ‘Cameras’ be further amended to read as follows:
(a)
“The use of any camera device in the change room areas is prohibited. The
use of cameras and video cameras within the Centre (excluding change
rooms) is limited to filming/photographing of your own child with preapproval from the Duty Manager.”
CARRIED WITH AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY
Page 29
26 MAY 2009
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR TERRY BLANCHARD MOVED, CR IAN MCCLELLAND, JP SECONDED that:
1.
Council adopts the amendments to Bayswater Waves Policy BW-P02, “Condition
of Entry” (as per Attachment No. 1) based on identified requirements to bring the
policy in line with current media technological advances, and that Section 11.14
referring to ‘Cameras’ be further amended to read as follows:
(a)
“The use of any camera device in the change room areas is prohibited. The
use of cameras and video cameras within the Centre (excluding change
rooms) is limited to filming/photographing of your own child with preapproval from the Duty Manager.”
2.
Council adopts the amendments to Bayswater Waves Policy BW-P03, “Bayswater
Waves/Maylands Waterland Privilege Card” (as per Attachment No. 2). based on
expanded explanation of existing policy.
3.
Council adopts the amendments to Bayswater Waves Policy BW-P06, “Maylands
Waterland – Conditions of Entry” (as per Attachment No. 3) based on:
a)
Identified requirements to bring the policy in line with current media
technological advances; and
b)
The “Watch Around Water” education program.
CARRIED WITH AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY
Page 30
11.8
26 MAY 2009
Review of Policy - Community Services – CS-P01
Attachments:
Ref No:
Officer:
1. CS-P01
OMC – 29.01.08
Application
1.
2.
For Council to consider minor amendments to the Community Bus Hire policy
(CS-P01); and
To consider (CS-P01) in relation to fee structure.
Background
As part of the ongoing review of Council policies, the Manager of Community Services has
reviewed and identified the Community Services policies that require:
a)
b)
Amendment to bring them in line with Government Department name changes; and
Policy CS-P01 (refer to Attachment No. 1) as approved by Council in April 1996 and
amended by Council on 29 January 2008 to remain fundamentally unchanged with the
exception of fees and charges.
All other Community Services policies as approved by Council in May 2002 remain
fundamentally unchanged but require amendment to reflect the Government’s Departmental
and Committee name changes
Comment
a)
CS-P01 – Community Bus Hire
This policy has been changed to reflect the changes as approved at the Ordinary
Meeting of Council on 29 January 2008 with the exception of fees and charges.
b)
All existing Community Services policies that include reference to “Homeswest”
require amendment to reflect the new Departmental name change of “Department of
Housing and Works” (DHW).
c)
All existing Community Services polices that include reference to the “Community
Housing Management Committee” are to be amended to reflect the new Committee
name change to “Local Government Community Housing Program (LGCHP)
Management Committee.
Policy Implications
CS-P01
Nil.
Voting Requirements
Page 31
26 MAY 2009
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that Council adopts the following amendments to the Community
Services Policies:
1.
Policy CS-P01 – Community Bus Hire (as per Attachment No. 1), in relation to
reference of fee structure; and
2.
All Community Services policies to reflect the following Government Departmental
and Committee name changes:
a)
“Homeswest” to be hereafter referred to as the “Department of Housing and
Works” ; and
b)
The Community and Housing Management Committee hereafter referred to
as the “Local Government Community Housing Program (LGCHP)
Management Committee”.
Page 32
12
BUSINESS – TECHNICAL SERVICES
Nil.
Page 33
26 MAY 2009
13
BUSINESS – PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
13.1
Town Planning Scheme No. 24 Amendment No. 43
Location:
Attachments:
Applicant:
Owner:
Officer:
Refer:
26 MAY 2009
Lot 26, No. 465-469 Guildford Road, Bayswater
Location Plan and Site Photo
City of Bayswater
Loan Thi Kha, Minh Le, Thi My Nugyen,
Project Development (WA) Pty Ltd
Item 8.1 : S.C.M. : 15.04.09
Item 13.7 : O.C.M. : 24.02.09
Item 14.15 : O.C.M. : 26.08.08
Item 12.3.7 : O.C.M. : 22.04.08
Application
1.
2.
To consider three matters:
a)
advice from the City’s Solicitors regarding the ‘Tavern’ use in the Special Purpose
Zone provisions for:
•
Lot 26, No 465-469 Guildford Road, Bayswater; and
•
Lot 101, No. 497 Guildford Road, Bayswater;
b)
comments from the City’s Solicitors regarding the potential clarification of the use
class ‘Local Shopping’ contained in the Special Purpose Zone provisions for the
aforementioned lots; and
c)
the initiation of a Scheme Amendment to amend the Special Purpose Zone
provisions for:
•
•
Lot 101, No. 497 Guildford Road, Bayswater.
A separate report relating to a Section 40 Liquor Licence certificate at No 497 Guildford
Road is on the agenda.
Background
Town Planning
Zoning:
Scheme
No.
24 “Special Purpose”
Permitted uses – Tavern
Local Shopping
Lot Areas:
Lot 26 – 1627m²
Lot 101 - 3136 m²
Existing Land Use:
Lot 26 – Pizza take away shop, a fish and chip
shop and a lunch bar
Lot 101 - Vacant
Surrounding Land Use:
Residential
“Special Purpose”
Permitted uses – Tavern, Shop
Discretionary uses – Fast Food Outlet, Lunch Bar
Proposed Rezoning to:
Page 34
26 MAY 2009
1.
A development application was presented to Council at its Ordinary meeting held on
24 February 2009 and comprised the development of four (4) separate tenancies on Lot
101, No. 497 Guildford Road, Bayswater as follows:
a)
Two (2) fast food outlets (drive-through chicken franchise (206m²) and drive-thru
coffee outlet (19m²);
b)
Liquor store (204m²) with drive-through bottle shop component (71m²); and
c)
Shop (205m²).
2.
Council resolved to grant conditional approval for the proposed commercial
development (fast food outlets and shops) at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on
24 February 2009.
3.
In accordance with Section 5.4 of the Local Government Act 1995, a Special Meeting of
Council was called to discuss issues raised with the proposal. The purpose of the
meeting was to further consider and revoke the planning approval granted for the site.
Advice was received from the City’s Solicitors on various issues relating to this matter.
A motion to revoke Council’s approval of 24 February 2009 for No 497 Guildford Road
was not carried.
4.
Section 75(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 provides for local
governments to amend a town planning scheme “with reference to any land within its
district”. Section 83 of the Act requires the local government to make reasonable
endeavours to consult with parties affected by the amendment.
5.
Scheme amendments are normally initiated by landowners when they involve specific
parcels of land. The matters raised in the above legal advice need to be addressed,
therefore the City is initiating a scheme amendment in this instance. It is possible that
the relevant landowners may not agree with the City’s position and may make
representations to maintain the current provisions for the subject land. The final decision
for all scheme amendments rests with the Minister for Planning upon advice from the
Department for Planning and Infrastructure and Western Australian Planning
Commission and recommendations made by the local government.
6.
The Special Purpose Zone provisions for both of the subject lots are contained in one
entry of Appendix 3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 24.
Comment
1.
2.
3.
Issue 1 - Tavern
Appendix 3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 24 provides the details of Special Purpose
Zones. Special Purpose Zones specify permitted and discretionary uses for particular
lots of land.
Appendix 3 specifies that subject Lots 26 and 101 have permitted uses of ‘Tavern’ and
‘Local Shopping’.
A ‘Tavern’ “means any premises licensed as a Tavern under the provisions of the
Liquor Licensing Act 1988 and used to sell liquor for consumption on the premises”
under Town Planning Scheme No. 24 (TPS24).
Page 35
4.
26 MAY 2009
The City’s Solicitors in considering all the matters relating to the subject sites provided
additional advice in the concluding comments that:
“if it is the intention of the Council that a liquor outlet should not be permitted on that
site”
then Council should consider an amendment to the permitted uses (for Lot 101) in the
Special Purpose Zones Schedule so as to remove ‘Tavern’ as a permitted use.
5.
The Council has made no clear direction whether a Tavern use should be retained or
removed as a permitted use or replaced with other appropriate use(s) on the subject lots.
6.
The City’s Officers have not prepared a strategic analysis regarding this matter.
7.
Should Council wish to consider whether or not a ‘Tavern’ use is a suitable for the sites,
it is considered appropriate that this issue be further considered as part of a broader
strategic study on the Guildford Road Activity Corridor in terms of the draft Local
Housing Strategy.
8.
Issue 2 – ‘Local Shopping’
‘Local Shopping’ is not defined in TPS24 and was not defined in Town Planning
Scheme No. 21 (TPS 21) (the preceding town planning scheme). ‘Local Shopping’ was
defined in Town Planning Scheme No 13 (TPS 13), which was the district Town
Planning Scheme prior to TPS 21. According to TPS 13, ‘Local Shopping” was defined
as:
“The use of land or buildings for one or more of the following activities – butcher shop,
cake shop, green grocer, delicatessen, small goods, hairdresser, newsagent or novelty
shop. Any other activities, non conforming with this definition, are only permissible
with the approval of Council, if Council considers they serve the day-to-day shopping
needs of the locality.”
9.
10.
11.
12.
The City’s Solicitors have advised that “there is a clear interpretation problem with the
term “Local Shopping” in the context of (Town Planning Scheme No. 24)”. Given that
‘Local Shopping’ is not defined in the Scheme or Model Scheme Text, and that any
proposed definition is likely to still be subject to interpretation, the City’s Officers
concur with the City’s Solicitors advice that the use of the term should be reviewed. In
order to remedy this issue, a Scheme Amendment has been proposed which is further
discussed below.
Issue 3 - Proposed Scheme Amendment
Lot 26 currently contains a pizza take away shop, a fish and chip shop and a lunch bar
which have been operating on the site for a number of years. No development approvals
have been approved for Lot 26 in the last 3 years.
Lot 101 is currently vacant, although it has a planning approval for a proposed
commercial development (fast food outlets and shops) which was granted at the
Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 February 2009.
Local Shopping
‘Local Shopping’ is not defined in TPS24 or the Model Scheme Text. The term is
subject to interpretation as previously discussed and it is considered to be appropriate
that it be replaced or defined.
Page 36
13.
There are various potential options to address this matter, including the following:
a)
b)
c)
14.
26 MAY 2009
Option 1 –Retaining the existing provision is not recommended as there are issues
with the definition and interpretation of ‘Local Shopping’ as demonstrated in
considering a recent development application on the site;
Option 2 – Defining ‘Local Shopping’ is possible, however a standard definition
does not exist in the Model Scheme Text (MST). It is considered that ‘Local
Shopping’ could still present interpretation issues even if a definition was
developed; or
Option 3 –Replacing the permitted ‘Local Shopping’ use provision with use
classes that is listed and defined in TPS24 and MST and reflects the existing or
approved uses for the sites.
Given the discussion above, it is recommended that Council consider removing the
permitted ‘Local Shopping’ use provision and replacing it with use(s) that reflect
existing or approved uses for the sites. The suggested scheme amendment proposes to
amend the Special Purpose Zone provisions for the subject lots as follows:
Special Purpose Provision
Permitted use(s)
Discretionary use(s)
Current Use
Proposed Uses
Tavern
Local Shopping
-
Tavern
Shop
Fast Food Outlet
Lunch Bar
15.
‘Shop’, ‘Fast Food’ and ‘Lunch Bar’ reflect the existing or approved uses for the sites.
A discussion of each of the potential use classes follows.
16.
The location of the lots along Guildford Road encourages small-scale commercial uses
because of the exposure to passing vehicle traffic. Commercial uses have been
operating on Lot 26 for a number of years. The permitted use of ‘Shop’ has been
proposed as this is the most relevant definition to provide for the continuation of these
appropriate uses. ‘Shop’ is defined by TPS24 as:
“ any building wherein goods are kept, exposed or offered for sale by retail, or within
which services of a personal nature are provided (including a hairdresser, beauty
therapist or manicurist) but does not include a showroom, fast food outlet or any other
premises specifically defined elsewhere in this part”.
17.
It is considered that inserting ‘Shop’ as a permitted use would simplify and streamline
the Scheme and provide greater clarity on the uses permitted on the site. It is considered
to be consistent with the original intent of the zoning for the site.
18.
It is proposed to include ‘Fast Food Outlet’ as a discretional use. As per Clause 7.2.2 of
TPS24, a discretional use “means that the use is not permitted unless the local
government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval”. ‘Fast Food
Outlet’ is defined by TPS24 as: “ land and building used for the preparation, sale and
serving of food to customers in a form ready to be eaten without further preparation,
primarily off the premises, but does not include a fish shop or lunch bar”.
19.
It is considered appropriate to provide for ‘Fast Food Outlet’ given that Council
approved a development including fast food outlets on the site at its meeting of 24
February 2009. ‘Fast Food’ uses have been operating on Lot 26 for a number of years.
Such uses are generally attracted to high profile locations like Guildford Road.
Page 37
26 MAY 2009
20.
It is proposed to include a “Lunch Bar” as a discretional use. TPS24 defines a ‘Lunch
Bar’ as:
“premises or part of premises used for the sale of takeaway food (in a form ready to be
consumed without further preparation) within industrial or commercial areas, but does
not include a Fast Food Outlet.”
21.
A lunch bar is similar in nature to a ‘Shop’ and ‘Fast Food’ outlet and is considered to
be appropriate as they are generally found in areas that cater for passing traffic or
nearby commercial or industrial uses. A lunch bar has also been operating on Lot 26 for
a number of years.
22.
It is recommended that Council initiate an amendment for the subject sites to delete the
‘Local Shopping’ use class and replace it with ‘Shop’ as a ‘Permitted’ use and ‘Fast
Food Outlet’ and ‘Lunch Bar’ as ‘Discretionary’ uses which reflect the existing and
23.
The proposed Scheme Amendment does not change or limit the existing approval(s)
granted or the existing uses, and provide clarity in the future with regards to activities on
the sites.
Summary
1.
There are three matters for Council to consider:
a)
advice from the City’s Solicitors regarding the ‘Tavern’ use in the Special Purpose
Zone provisions for:
•
•
Lot 101, No. 497 Guildford Road, Bayswater;
b)
c)
2.
comments from the City’s Solicitors regarding the potential clarification of the use
class ‘Local Shopping’ contained in the Special Purpose Zone provisions for the
aforementioned lots; and
the initiation of a Scheme Amendment to amend the Special Purpose Zone
provisions by deleting the ‘Local Shopping’ use class and replacing it with
‘Shop’, “Fast Food Outlet’ and “Lunch Bar’ which reflect the existing and
It is recommended that Council:
a)
b)
Further consider the ‘Tavern’ use as part of a broader strategic study in terms of
the draft Local Housing Strategy; and
Initiate a scheme amendment for the subject sites to delete the ‘Local Shopping’
use class and replace it with ‘Shop’ as a ‘Permitted’ use, and ‘Fast Food Outlet’
and ‘Lunch Bar’ as ‘Discretionary’ uses which reflect the existing and approved
uses for the sites.
Policy Implications
Nil.
Page 38
26 MAY 2009
The Planning and Development Act 2005 and Clause 2.3 of TPS24 have provisions relating to
“injurious affection”, which is compensation potentially payable to a landowner for the loss of
development rights in certain situations. A brief overview of the initial advice from the City’s
solicitors is that ‘injurious affection’ would only be initiated if the scheme amendment results
in the land being reserved, or only permitting public purposes ,or if no commercial uses could
be operated from the site.
Voting Requirements
Council Discussion:
Council resolved to defer this matter, as Councillors require further discussion in relation
to the Draft Local Housing Strategy prior to making any decisions.
That:
1.
Council further consider the appropriateness of a ‘Tavern’ use on Lot 26, No 465-469
Guildford Road, Bayswater and Lot 101, No. 497 Guildford Road, Bayswater as part of
a broader strategic study on the Guildford Road Activity Corridor in terms of the draft
Local Housing Strategy.
2.
Council initiate Amendment No. 43 to Town Planning Scheme No. 24 as follows:
a)
Delete the current Permitted Use of “Local Shopping” contained in Appendix 3
Special Purpose Zones of Town Planning Scheme No. 24 relating to Lot 26, No
465-469 Guildford Road, Bayswater and Lot 101, No. 497 Guildford Road,
Bayswater; and
b)
Insert ‘Shop’ as a Permitted Use, and ‘Fast Food Outlet’, and ‘Lunch Bar’ as
Discretionary Uses in Appendix 3 Special Purpose Zones of Town Planning
Scheme No. 24 relating to Lot 26, No 465-469 Guildford Road, Bayswater and
Lot 101, No. 497 Guildford Road, Bayswater.
3.
Amendment documentation to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning
and Development Services.
4.
Upon preparation of the amendment documents, the documents be forwarded to the
Department of Environmental Protection for assessment.
5.
Upon the Notice of Assessment from the Department of Environmental Assessment
being received (and issues raised being complied with) the proposed Amendment be
advertised for public comment for 42 days by way of:
a)
Notification to the Western Australian Local Government Association to publish a
notice in the West Australian newspaper;
b)
Notification being published in the local newspaper;
c)
The affected public authorities being notified in writing of the Amendment
details;
d)
The landowners being notified in writing of the Amendment details;
Page 39
6.
26 MAY 2009
e)
The surrounding landowners being notified in writing of the Amendment details;
and
f)
Signage being placed on the street frontages of the property advising the
Amendment details.
The City send correspondence to the owners of Lot 26, No 465-469 Guildford Road,
Bayswater and Lot 101, No. 497 Guildford Road, Bayswater advising them of Council’s
resolution.
LAPSED (NO MOVER/SECONDER)
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR MARLENE ROBINSON MOVED, CR TERRY KENYON, JP SECONDED that the
matter be deferred for full discussion to the Local Housing Strategy Density Review
Workshop as a matter of urgency.
CARRIED
Page 40
13.2
26 MAY 2009
Town Planning Scheme No. 24 - Amendment No. 1
Applicant:
Officer:
Refer:
City of Bayswater
Item 12.2.1 : OCM : 11.12.2007
In accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, Cr Terry Kenyon, JP
declared an impartial interest in this item as he lives one block away from the site.
Cr Kenyon remained present during discussion and voting on this item.
Application
1.
Council consideration is required for final approval following public advertising of
Scheme Amendment No 1 to Town Planning Scheme No. 24 which addresses some
textual changes to the Scheme. The proposed textual amendments address the
following:
a)
b)
Building height to be measured in storeys and metres; and
Typographical correction of Clause 5.6.4.
Background
Town Planning Scheme No. 24
1.
Town Planning Scheme No. 24 was gazetted on 26 November 2004. The Scheme was a
consolidation of the City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No 21 and City of
Stirling District Planning Scheme No 2 (Maylands) which included the ‘Model Scheme
Text’ provisions.
Model Scheme Text
2.
The Model Scheme Text (MST) sets out the structure and standard legal and
administrative provisions to be used in local planning schemes in Western Australia.
The MST is contained in the Town Planning Amendment Regulations 1999 made under
section 256 Planning and Development Act 2005. MST provisions are required to be
incorporated into schemes except where the Minister for Planning provides for a
variation. The MST also incorporates a set of standard definitions.
3.
Council resolved to initiate and publicly advertise the proposed amendment at its
meeting of 11 December 2007.
4.
Public Advertising
The proposed amendment was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days
from 6 February 2008 to 19 March 2008 by way of advertising in The West Australian
and local newspapers. As a result of the public advertising, no (0) submissions were
received.
Page 41
26 MAY 2009
Comment
Proposed Scheme Amendments
1.
Building Height
The purpose of controlling height is to ensure that the general amenity of a particular
locality is maintained by ensuring that development is sympathetic and blends with
existing built form. It is recognised however that residential amenity differs from that
of non-residential development such as industrial, commercial or public buildings and
therefore different measures of height have been applied to these various forms of
development.
2.
The matter of building height has come to light as a result of a planning law update from
the City’s Solicitors associated with a recent decision of the State Administrative
Tribunal (Grove & Ors v. City of Stirling [2006] WASAT 1360) and as a result of
recent Council consideration of non-residential development in residential areas.
In particular, it highlighted the need for height to be considered and measured in metres
as distinct from number of ‘storeys’.
3.
The matter involved an appeal against the City of Stirling’s refusal of a nine storey
building which had an overall height of 26.1 metres. The application was refused
despite a proposed amendment to the City of Stirling’s Scheme which would allow a
building of up to eight storeys or 32 metres on the site. In considering the application,
the Tribunal criticised the City of Stirling as there was no rational explanation as to why
a height limit in storeys was imposed rather than an absolute height in metres.
4.
Presently, Town Planning Scheme No 24 includes a height restriction of two storeys
which is applicable throughout the whole Scheme Area. The scheme does not prescribe
a height in metres. Given the height of a storey is measured to the ceiling the actual
height can potentially vary from 3.0 metres to 9.0 metres and greater.
5.
Defining height by storey gained prominence in the General Residential Codes
(late 1960’s). This general height principle was carried over into the Residential
Planning Codes whereby suburban local authorities, such as the City, introduced two
storey height limits in the Scheme to control the amenity of rapidly developing
residential estates. This standard, however applied to all development including nonresidential development.
6.
Traditionally two storeys have been interpreted as:
a)
b)
7.
6.0 metres of wall height / 9.0 metres of roof height for residential; and
9.0 metres of wall height / 12.0 metres roof height for non-residential
development (i.e. industrial, commercial etc…).
Residential development is controlled by the Residential Design Codes (2008)
(R-Codes). These have legislative force under the Town Planning Scheme. The Codes
prescribe maximum building heights in metres rather than storeys and therefore there is
no need to introduce prescribed heights in the scheme for residential development. The
City utilises the default Category ‘B’ requirements of the R-Codes for residential
development.
Page 42
8.
26 MAY 2009
The City presently has a planning policy (Policy No.TP-P5.5) which prescribes the
maximum building height in metres for commercial and industrial development which
states:
“Any proposed development in a Commercial or Industrial Zone shall be restricted to a
maximum height of two (2) storeys or 9 metres of wall height.
The height of the wall shall be measured in accordance with the Building Codes of
Australia, from the natural ground level of the subject land.
The Council may grant special approval for a variation to the building height
restrictions, where it is satisfied that the proposed development will not disrupt the
amenity of the surrounding area or prejudicially affect the potential development of
adjoining land.”
The policy does not deal with other non-residential development which may be on land
reserved under the scheme such as schools or recreation facilities.
9.
Whilst there is a preference for heights to be consistent in particular areas there are
circumstances where higher buildings are appropriate such as ‘land mark’ buildings
framing a precinct or development graduating up in height to the centre of development.
There are also instances, based upon the use of a site, location of the building within the
site (i.e. setbacks) and other considerations such as existing vegetation that greater
building heights may be acceptable.
10.
Given inconsistencies associated with the current measure of height it is appropriate to
introduce maximum height for development in metres on land zoned ‘Commercial’ or
‘Industrial’. It is considered that a maximum wall height of 9.0 metres and overall
maximum roof height of 12.0 metres should apply unless otherwise approved.
11.
Other non-residential zones (i.e. ‘Special Purpose’, ‘Mixed Use’) and reserved land
(for schools, churches, and recreation) generally are within a residential setting. Given
this the proposed maximum heights should be reflective of this setting. Therefore a
maximum wall height of 6.0 metres and overall maximum roof height of 9.0 metres
should apply unless otherwise approved.
12.
The proposed height provisions is a development standard under the Scheme.
Like all development standards Council has at its discretion the capacity to allow
buildings of greater height in circumstances where they are considered acceptable.
Clause 5.6.4
13.
Clause 5.6.4 contains a typographical error where by it refers to clause 5.7.1.1, which
does not exist within the scheme. The reference should be to clause 5.6.1.1.
Policy Implications
Nil.
Nil.
Summary
1.
The proposed textual amendments address the following:
a)
Building height to be measured in storeys and metres; and
b)
Typographical correction of Clause 5.6.4.
Page 43
2.
26 MAY 2009
The proposed amendment was publicly advertised and no (0) submissions were received
on the matter. The amendment is recommended for final approval.
Voting Requirements
Council Discussion:
Cr Terry Kenyon, JP requested an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to replace
the word ‘areas’ with ‘ ratepayers and residents’ on points 8.3.1.2 and 8.3.1.3. The Council
resolved to accept this amendment and emphasised the developments affect on the amenity
of the local ratepayers/residents.
CR SALLY PALMER MOVED, CR MICHAEL SABATINO SECONDED that:
1.
Council adopt Amendment No. 1 to Town Planning Scheme No. 24 as follows:
a)
Amend Clause 8.3.1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 24 as follows:
8.3.1 Height Restrictions
8.3.1.1
For the purpose of development within the Residential zone,
building height in accordance with the requirements of the
Residential Design Codes.
8.3.1.2
For the purpose of development within an Industrial or
Commercial zone, no person shall construct a building of more
than two storeys being 9.0 metres wall height and no more than
12.0 metres of roof height within the Scheme Area unless the
Council considers the building will not disrupt the amenity of
the surrounding area.
8.3.1.3
For all other development within land zoned or reserved no
person shall construct a building of more than two storeys being
6.0 metres of wall height and no more than 9.0 metres of roof
height within the Scheme Area unless the Council considers the
building will not disrupt the amenity of the surrounding area.
b)
2.
Amend Clause 5.6.4 of Town Planning Scheme No. 24 so that “5.7.1.1” is
replaced with “5.6.1.1”.
Authority be granted for the affixing of the Common Seal to the amendment documents
and the documents be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission for
approval.
Page 44
26 MAY 2009
AMENDMENT
CR TERRY KENYON, JP MOVED, CR TERRY BLANCHARD SECONDED that the
following points of the Officer’s original recommendation be amended to read as
follows:
8.3.1.2
Commercial zone, no person shall construct a building of
more than two storeys being 9.0 metres wall height and no
more than 12.0 metres of roof height within the Scheme
Area unless the Council considers the building will not
disrupt the amenity of the surrounding ratepayers and
residents.
8.3.1.3
person shall construct a building of more than two storeys
being 6.0 metres of wall height and no more than 9.0 metres
of roof height within the Scheme Area unless the Council
considers the building will not disrupt the amenity of the
surrounding ratepayers and residents.
CARRIED
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR SALLY PALMER MOVED, CR SYLVAN ALBERT SECONDED that:
1.
Council adopt Amendment No. 1 to Town Planning Scheme No. 24 as follows:
a)
Amend Clause 8.3.1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 24 as follows:
8.3.1 Height Restrictions
8.3.1.1
For the purpose of development within the Residential zone,
building height in accordance with the requirements of the
Residential Design Codes.
8.3.1.2
Commercial zone, no person shall construct a building of
more than two storeys being 9.0 metres wall height and no
more than 12.0 metres of roof height within the Scheme
Area unless the Council considers the building will not
disrupt the amenity of the surrounding ratepayers and
residents.
8.3.1.3
person shall construct a building of more than two storeys
being 6.0 metres of wall height and no more than 9.0 metres
of roof height within the Scheme Area unless the Council
considers the building will not disrupt the amenity of the
surrounding ratepayers and residents.
b) Amend Clause 5.6.4 of Town Planning Scheme No. 24 so that “5.7.1.1” is
replaced with “5.6.1.1”.
2.
Authority be granted for the affixing of the Common Seal to the amendment
documents and the documents be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning
Commission for approval.
CARRIED
Page 45
13.3
26 MAY 2009
Council Ratification of Building Licences under Council's Policy for Single
Residential Development
Attachment:
Officer:
Delegated Authority - 01//04/2009 - 30/04/2009
Application
The following building applications have been issued with a building licence in accordance
with the Building Code of Australia, Residential Design Codes 2008 and Council’s policies.
(Refer to attachment)
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that the approvals issued through the City’s Building Services Section,
in accordance with the Building Code of Australia, Residential Design Codes 2008 and
Council’s policies, be ratified.
Page 46
13.4
26 MAY 2009
Council Ratification of Planning Determinations under Delegated Authority
Attachment:
Officer:
Delegated Authority - 01/04/2009 – 30/04/2009
Application
The following development applications have been determined in accordance with the
Scheme requirements, Residential Design Codes 2008 and Council’s policies (Refer to
attachment).
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that the Planning Determinations issued by Council’s Director of
Planning and Development Services and Manager Planning Services in accordance with
Council’s Policy – Delegated Authority, be ratified.
Page 47
13.5
26 MAY 2009
Proposed Partial Demolition of and Additions to Chisholm College
Location:
Attachments:
Applicant:
Owner:
Officer:
Refer:
Lot 129, No. 1104 Beaufort Street, Bedford
No. 1 - Location Plan and Site Photo
No. 2 - Detailed Plans
No. 3 – Five Year Plan
Bruce Callow & Associates
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth
Item 13.2 – OMC 10.02.2009
Item 14.24 - OMC 26.08.2008
Item 12.3.12 - OMC 27.05.2008
Item 12.3.10 – OMC 26.02.2008
Item 12.3.3 – OMC 29.01.2008
In accordance with Section 5.60A and 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995,
Cr Barry McKenna declared a financial interest in this item as his son attends Chisholm
College.
At 7:19pm, Cr Barry McKenna withdrew from the meeting.
declared an impartial interest in this item as he lives near the development, separated by
one block of land. Cr Kenyon remained present during discussion and voting on this item.
Application
1.
MRS Form 1 and plans dated 16 December 2008 have been received for proposed
partial demolition of and additions to Chisholm College at Lot 129, No. 1104 Beaufort
Street, Bedford.
2.
The proposal comprises the following components:
a)
Demolition and replacement of Block A;
b)
Demolition of two classrooms at the end of Block C;
c)
New ‘reflection’ space facing the internal courtyard (Block D); and
d)
New four (4) bay car park accessible from Young Street.
3.
Council consideration is required for the following matters:
a)
b)
4.
The height of the development exceeds the two storey height limit under Town
Planning Scheme No.24.
The submissions received during the public consultation period.
An item on a separate application for other demolition and addition works, particularly
in relation to Block K is on the agenda.
Page 48
26 MAY 2009
Background
Town Planning Scheme No. 24 Zoning:
Local Scheme Reserve - ‘Public Purposes’
Use Class:
Educational Establishment
Lot Area:
60,385 m²
Existing Land Use:
Secondary School
Size/Nature of Proposed Development:
Residential
• Demolition and replacement of Block A;
• Demolition of two classrooms at the end of Block
C;
• New ‘reflection’ space facing the internal courtyard
(Block D); and
• New four (4) bay car park accessed via Young
Street
SCHEME PROVISIONS
Setbacks
Front (Young St)
Side (NE)
Parking
Wall Height
Ridge Height
REQUIRED
PROVIDED
13.5m*
6.0m/6m
6.0m/5.5m
6.0m/8m
252 bays
269 bays
6m
9m
9m
6.5m
8.7m
9.4m
(Young St elevation)
Ridge A
Ridge B
25%
24.84%
Site Cover
0.25
0.23
Plot Ratio
* A 3.0m setback to Young Street was approved by the State Administrative Tribunal.
1.
Council at its meeting on 25 September 2007 approved the expansion of Chisholm
College (Block D additions, new hospitality wing, Block A additions and additional car
parking over the drain) subject to a number of conditions.
2.
The applicant (Chisholm College) lodged an appeal with the State Administrative
Tribunal (SAT) over a number of conditions on the planning approval. The applicant
also lodged an appeal with the SAT against the refusal of the City to issue the building
licence for the approved aspects of the development not including Block A (i.e. the
hospitality building and additions to Block D).
3.
The appeal hearing was held on 17 and 18 of June, 2008 and included an inspection of
the site on the afternoon of 17 June 2008. Four (4) conditions were contested by
Chisholm College at the SAT hearing. These conditions related to:
a)
Condition 3 – Student numbers;
b)
Condition 24 – Setback from Young Street;
c)
Condition 25 – Restrictions on carpark; and
d)
Condition 26 – Landscape strip.
Page 49
26 MAY 2009
4.
With regard to Condition 3 – Student Numbers, the Tribunal did not accept the
applicant’s arguments that the condition has a fetter on future decision making and that
the condition was fair and reasonable in capping student numbers to 1800. The Tribunal
however did not accept it was necessary to retain the request for a Master Plan to be
provided for future development of the site. On this matter the City’s solicitors have
advised that this decision may have implications for the proposed changes to the policy
relating to education establishments in so far that it may not be prudent to have the
requirement for a Master Plan as a policy requirement.
5.
With regard to Condition 24 – Setback from Young Street, the Tribunal was of the
opinion that whilst the scheme provides for a 13.5m setback a setback of 3.0m would
not affect the amenity of Young Street and deleted the condition requiring a 6.0m
setback.
6.
With regard to Condition No 25 – Restrictions on Carpark, the Tribunal concluded that
the carpark should be restricted to staff only and an electronic gate installed. The
Tribunal did not support a restriction on the hours of use of the carpark by staff and
deleted this aspect of the condition.
7.
With regard to Condition No 26 – Landscape Strip, the Tribunal concluded that
landscaping was appropriate and a 1m wide landscaping strip should be installed with
the car parking reconfigured if needed.
8.
The Tribunal also considered that an additional condition should be imposed to
overcome any potential overlooking from new glazed windows to Block A. As such,
the Tribunal ordered that the windows be restricted to the current size and location.
9.
The applicant has indicated that consultation has been undertaken with the affected
landowners. The applicant has advised that modifications to the current proposal have
occurred as a result of these discussions including a greater boundary setback to the
upper floor of Block A from the boundary with No.6 Young Street and a modification to
the roof component of the design.
10.
Council previously considered this application at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 10
February 2009, where the following resolution was made:
1.
“Council receive the information in this report on proposed additions and
demolition of classrooms at Chisholm College.
2.
Council note the advertising of the proposed development for public comment
in accordance with Clause 3.3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 24 and Policy
No. TP- 1.4.
3.
As a sign of good faith, the applicant provides Council with a five year plan
regarding the school’s future structures.”
Page 50
11.
12.
26 MAY 2009
Submissions
In accordance with the provisions of Policy TP-P 1.4 Development Applications for
Educational Facilities, the proposal was advertised to the community for comment for a
period of 21 days, which included a sign being placed on site, a notice in the local
newspaper and letters sent to affected landowners. At the conclusion of the advertising
period a total of four (4) objections were received in relation to the proposal.
The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below:
a)
Upper storey protrusion is setback from Young Street only 5.5m, not 7m.
b)
Given 30m length of building adjacent to property boundary, a larger setback is
requested.
c)
Request that new building be no higher, and no closer, than current Block A
building.
d)
Object to development that exceeds 9m height requirement. No objection if
height matches current Block A building.
e)
Noise from music classrooms is a serious concern. Request further detail on how
sound is to be managed from practice rooms.
f)
Will acoustic engineers report be provided to ensure that the building will not emit
excessive noise acoustically?
g)
Noise from existing air-conditioners is of serious concern. Request mechanical
ventilation systems to be indicated on the current plans.
h)
The architect has advised that the 6m setback area adjacent to No.6 Young Street
will be landscaped with trees to screen the new building. What assurance is there
that these trees will not be bulldozed in the future?
i)
Will the electronic gate to carpark area be installed as per previous building
licence?
j)
Height of development will restrict future development plans and impact on city
views.
k)
Council report should show a required setback of 13.5m, not 3m as approved by
the SAT.
Comment
1.
2.
Assessment of the proposal indicates that the application complies with the provisions
of Town Planning Scheme No.24 and Council policies with the exception of the
proposed wall and roof height of Block A, and the front setback to Young Street. An
item on a separate application for other demolition and addition works, particularly in
relation to Block K is on the agenda.
Wall Heights - Block A
The applicant has advised that the original plans presented to the adjoining neighbours
showed uniform setbacks for both floors and complied with the 6 metre wall heights
when viewed from the adjoining properties. Following these discussions, the plans
were modified to increase the setback of the upper floor from the northern boundary
from 6 metres to 8 metres at the request of the neighbours. As a result of this
modification, the wall heights for the upper floor increased from 6 metres to 6.5 metres
due to the fall of the site.
Page 51
26 MAY 2009
3.
Block A is located on the northern portion of the school site, where the natural ground
level slopes downwards from Young Street. There is a fall of approximately 4 metres,
with the neighbouring properties being on the higher side.
4.
The two storey height limit is understood to be 6 metre wall heights and 9 metre roof
heights. Council has initiated a Scheme Amendment that proposes wall heights for nonresidential development within a residential setting to be a maximum of 6 metres and 9
metres for ridge (roof) heights, similar to the standard requirements for residential
development under the Residential Design Codes (R Codes).
5.
The wall height for Block A as it presents to the adjoining property measures 6.5
metres, representing a variation of 0.5 metre. It is worth noting that the wall height of
the development would comply had uniform 6 metre setbacks for both floors been
proposed. By comparison, a standard two storey dwelling with a 6.5 metre wall height,
based on the proposed wall length of 30 metres, requires a setback of 3.0 metres. The
slope of the site is such that as setbacks are increased, so too does the wall height. The
wall height variation is not considered to unduly impact on the amenity of the adjoining
neighbours given that the bulk of the building is broken up by differing setbacks for the
upper and ground floors and as such the impacts of building bulk on the neighbouring
property are considered to be largely mitigated.
6.
Block A also seeks a variation on the internal elevation that faces the school, with a
proposed wall height (concealed roof) of 10.8 metres. The wall is three storeys and has
a concealed roof. In this regard the wall faces into the school site and is considered to
affect only the school. As a comparison, the R-Codes stipulate that three storey
development is considered to comply with wall heights of 9 metres (10 metres for
concealed roofs) and roof heights of 12 metres. The variation is not considered to
impact unduly on the amenity of the surrounding properties given that this is internal to
the site.
Roof Height - Block A
The applicant has proposed a roof height for the proposal that exceeds the height
requirements. The plans show that Block A has two roof ridges, (denoted as Ridge A
and Ridge B on the East Elevation plan) which measure 8.7 metres and 9.4 metres,
respectively.
From the plans it is evident that the two roof ridges of Block A (Ridge A and Ridge B)
are similar in height, with the downward slope of the land resulting in different height
measurements for each ridge. When viewed from the adjoining property, Ridge B
would appear approximately 200mm higher than Ridge A, notwithstanding that the
height when measured in accordance with the Scheme is 9.4 metres. Whilst new
development should be consistent with the City’s desired height of buildings in the
locality, where variations are proposed Council is required to consider whether the
proposal will unduly affect the amenity of the surrounding area.
7.
8.
9.
The existing Block A building is setback 12 metres from the neighbouring property and
has a roof height of 8.4 metres. The previous application for additions to Block A
approved by the SAT maintained the 12 metre setback from the neighbouring property
and maintained the maximum roof height of 8.4 metres. The current proposal provides
for a 6 metre setback to the adjoining property and proposes a maximum roof height of
9.4 metres.
Page 52
10.
26 MAY 2009
As a comparison, the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes states the following with
regard to height:
“Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to
recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where
appropriate:
a) Adequate direct sun to building and appurtenant open spaces;
b) Adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and
c) Access to views of significance.”
11.
12.
13.
The proposal ensures adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces
and provides adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms. The variation to
height is considered to have some impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties.
The City understands that the previous plans discussed with the neighbours contained a
higher ridge that was reduced due to neighbour concerns. The City also understands
that a request for a tiled roof was also made, which usually requires a certain pitch due
to the roof needing to be constructed with a ridge and hip to provide a cover to the
building. The applicant has advised that Ridge B as proposed is approximately 700mm
higher than the current Block A ridge height. In this context, the variation to height,
albeit minor, is considered to have some degree of impact to the adjoining residences.
To ensure that the impact of the increased ridge height of Ridge B is addressed, a
condition has been included to require Ridge B to be limited to a maximum height of 9
metres from the natural ground level as shown on the East Elevation plan.
Number of Storeys
Proposed Block A is three storeys in height, with the three (3) storey component evident
when viewed from within the school site. Block A presents to the adjoining property
along Young Street as two (2) storeys. Clause 8.3.1 of Town Planning Scheme No.24
stipulates the following with regard to height:
“No person shall construct a building of more than two storeys on any land
within the Scheme Area unless the Council considers the building will not
disrupt the amenity of the surrounding area.”
14.
15.
The plans show that Block A is cut into the site significantly, such that the lower floor is
entirely below ground level, resulting in Block A presenting as two (2) storeys when
viewed from the adjoining properties. It is worth noting that the existing Block A
building which is to be demolished is currently three (3) storeys. The impact from the
third storey of Block A is largely mitigated by the slope of the land, that allows the third
level to face into the college site. Council has previously approved development within
a residential setting that proposes to cut a third storey into a sloping site, provided that
compliance with the overall height requirement was achieved. When viewed from the
adjoining properties, the proposed building will present as two storeys and is therefore
not considered to unduly affect the amenity of the surrounding area.
Front Setback
The applicant has proposed Block A to be setback 5.5 metres from the Young Street
boundary. The provisions of the Town Planning Scheme stipulate a front setback of
13.5 metres.
Page 53
16.
17.
26 MAY 2009
The main portion of the building is setback 7 metres, with a curved section of the upper
floor protruding out with a setback at 5.5 metres. This upper floor intrusion is 3 metres
above the ground level and is considered to have the same impact as an awning or entry
canopy. The setback of the remainder of the building at 7 metres is considered to be
consistent with the general setback of buildings in Young Street, which is permitted
with an average of 6 metres from the street. By comparison, the SAT in a previous
determination on a similar proposal approved a setback of 3 metres from Young Street.
Other matters
Other concerns have been raised through the community submissions on the proposal.
These concerns are as follows:
a)
Upper storey protrusion setback from Young Street only 5.5m, not 7m – In this
regard the applicant has proposed a 5.5m setback to the curved protrusion that
overhangs from the upper floor of the building. Whilst the street setback
prescribed under Town Planning Scheme No.24 is 13.5 metres, the proposed
setback of 5.5 metres is consistent with the setback of other buildings along the
street, which are permitted to be an average of 6 metres. By comparison, the
approval issued by the SAT on the previous proposal permitted a setback to
Young Street of 3 metres. Based on the above, the proposed setback of 5.5 metres
is considered appropriate.
b)
Given 30m length of building adjacent to property boundary, a larger setback is
requested – The Scheme requirement for side setbacks for schools is 6 metres,
which the applicant has complied with. The upper floor is setback 8 metres which
is greater than the Scheme requirement and arises from consultation. There is no
limit on the length of a particular building under the Scheme provisions. It is
worth noting that a standard two storey residential dwelling with compliant
heights would require a setback of approximately 3 metres from the boundary.
c)
Request that new building be no higher, and no closer than current Block A
building – Whilst it is acknowledged that the setback of the new Block A building
will be closer than the existing Block A building, the proposal complies with the
side setback provisions outlined in Town Planning Scheme No.24. The applicant
has advised that the new Block A building is proposed to be approximately
700mm higher that the existing Block A building. Although there are height
variations to the wall and roof heights for proposed Block A, the buildings present
to the adjoining properties as two storeys and are not considered to unduly affect
the amenity of these properties given that roof heights have been reduced to
comply with the 9 metre height limit. As a result of this condition imposed, Block
A will be approximately 400mm higher than the current Block A building.
d)
Object to development that exceeds 9m height requirement. No objection if height
matches current Block A building – Ridge B of proposed Block A has been
conditioned to a maximum height of 9 metres. The ridge height of the proposed
Block A building, as a result of the 9 metre height maximum imposed on Ridge B
of proposed Block A, is approximately 400mm higher than the current Block A
building.
Page 54
26 MAY 2009
e)
Noise from music classrooms is a serious concern. Request further detail on how
sound is to be managed from practice rooms – Block A is proposed to
accommodate music rooms that were previously located within the existing Block
A building. The applicant has stated that the most appropriate method for acoustic
absorption is through density and mass, which is achieved by setting the music
facilities into the ground where they abut the neighbouring property. The ground
and upper floors do not show music related uses. Notwithstanding, noise from the
site is required to be within acceptable levels during construction and once
completed, in accordance with the standard Noise regulations under the Australian
Standards. To this effect, a condition has been included requiring that music
practice and education be limited to the lower ground floor of the proposed Block
A building.
f)
Will a sound engineers report be provided to ensure that the building will not emit
excessive noise acoustically? – As outlined above, the impacts from noise are
considered to be mitigated by the music rooms being contained in the basement
level of Building A, below the finished ground level. The applicant has stated that
the floor level of the basement was reduced to ensure that noise from the building
would not be a concern. Notwithstanding, a condition has been included to
require the applicant to provide an acoustic engineers report outlining
recommendations to limit the impact from noise on the adjoining properties.
g)
Noise from air conditioners is of serious concern. Request mechanical ventilation
systems be indicated on the current plans – The applicant has advised that they
have agreed with the neighbours to not install air-conditioning compressors on the
side of the building that faces the adjoining neighbours. The applicant has further
advised that a plant area is intended to be incorporated in between the two roof
halves. Notwithstanding, it is considered prudent to include a condition that
ensures that the installation of the air conditioning plant area does not increase the
height of proposed Block A than currently proposed.
h)
The architect has advised that the 6m setback area adjacent to No.6 Young St will
be landscaped with trees to screen the new building. What assurance is there that
these trees will not be bulldozed in the future? – An appropriate condition has
been included to ensure that the landscaping is provided. Whilst it is
acknowledged that general maintenance of these trees may be required, which
could in the future involve pruning or replacement, the landscaping is required to
be maintained for the perpetuity of the development.
i)
Will the electronic gate to the carpark area be installed as per previous building
licence? – The installation of the gates was part of the previous proposal lodged
by the applicant, and was proposed to address neighbour concerns regarding noise
from the use of the original car park. The applicant has advised that the
installation of the gates is not considered necessary, as the matter was raised with
the adjoining neighbours in the pre-lodgement discussions. Notwithstanding, the
use of the carpark is considered to have the potential to unduly impact on the
amenity of the adjoining dwelling. This is discussed further under the “Gates to
Carpark” section of this report.
Page 55
j)
26 MAY 2009
Height of development will restrict future development plans and impact on city
views – The height of the development is considered to have the same general
impact as a two storey dwelling on the adjoining neighbours. Whilst views are a
relevant consideration where height variations are proposed, the proposed
variation is not considered to unduly impact on the amenity of the adjoining
properties provided the roof height is reduced to the required 9 metres.
k)
18.
19.
Council report should show a required setback of 13.5m, not 3m as approved by
the SAT – The building is proposed with a 5.5m setback to Young Street. Whilst
it is acknowledged that the required setback of 13.5 metres has not been met in
this case, the setback of the building from Young Street is consistent with the
setback of residential dwellings in Young Street and is therefore considered to be
appropriate with regard to the existing streetscape. In addition, the proposed
setback is more than was permitted by the SAT for the previous development.
Five (5) Year Plan
When the proposal was previously considered by Council on 10 February 2009, Council
resolved to inform the applicant to provide, as a sign of good faith, a five year plan
outlining the school’s future structures. The applicant has outlined that due to the
commencement of new Federal Government initiative, funding for schools have been
increased to enable the upgrading of existing school facilities.
In this regard the applicant has provided an additional plan that outlines the various
developments envisaged by the College. Other scheduled development within the 5
year timeframe as outlined by the applicant are as follows:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Demolition and replacement of existing K Block, including new canopy to
existing courtyard (subject of a separate item on this Ordinary Council Agenda)
Alterations and additions to C Block, located in the central part of the site;
Internal modifications to existing Library to include mezzanine area;
Proposed verandah enclosure for existing staffroom extension (existing
Administration Building);
Re-locate Grounds Management’ buildings from south west corner of the oval to
the north of the oval, adjacent to the Hospitality wing, to facilitate the extension of
the ‘Art and Design’ facilities.
These future works indicated above are outlined in this report on the five year plan
(refer Attachment No 3.)
20.
21.
22.
Parking
The application proposes the loss of nine (9) parking bays as a result of the removal of
the existing car park to the north of Block A. Whilst four (4) replacement bays are
proposed, a loss of 5 parking bays is the net result.
Based on the Scheme provisions, 252 parking bays are required to be provided on the
site. Whilst the application proposes the loss of five (5) bays, these bays are countered
by the surplus number of parking bays available on the site (269 bays), in excess of the
Town Planning Scheme requirement.
Reflection Space
The proposal seeks approval for a student reflection space to be located adjacent to the
existing Block C and is internal to the site. The area of the space is a maximum of 50m²
Page 56
23.
24.
26 MAY 2009
and will provide a suitable area in addition to the existing chapel for personal reflection
in a more intimate setting. No objection is raised to this aspect of the proposal.
Part Demolition of Block C
The applicant has advised that the northernmost portion of Block C will be demolished.
This comprises two classrooms that are proposed to be incorporated into the new Block
A building further to the north. Block C is located internal to the site and the partial
demolition is not considered to be problematic from a planning perspective.
Gates to Carpark
The applicant has stated in supporting correspondence that the gates indicated on the
proposed development plans would not be necessary, given that this was a requirement
on the previous application considered by the SAT. Further discussions with the
adjoining neighbour have identified concerns regarding noise from the use of this
parking area after hours. An automatic electric gate could restrict the use of these bays
to be for staff only. To address this concern, a condition has been included in the
recommendation stipulating that an automatic electric gate be installed to the four (4)
bay car park accessed from Young Street, with the carpark to be used for staff parking
only.
Summary
1.
The current application seeks to demolish and replace the existing Block A building on
the site. Also proposed is demolition of two classrooms at the end of Block C; a new
‘reflection’ space facing the internal courtyard (Block D); and a new four (4) bay car
park accessible from Young Street.
2.
Proposed Block A building proposes variations to the wall and roof height requirements.
These variations are not considered to unduly affect the amenity of the surrounding
properties given the three storey component is internal to the site and the height of
Ridge B is conditioned to comply with the required 9 metre height limit. The setback of
the building from Young Street is considered to be consistent with the permitted
residential setbacks along Young Street. Conditions imposed for landscaping and the
installation of gates to the proposed carpark are considered to adequately address the
amenity concerns of the adjoining neighbour.
3.
The part demolition of Block C and the proposed reflection space comply with the
provisions of the Town Planning Scheme.
4.
The five year plan provided by the applicant outlines a number of improvements
scheduled over the next five years. The applicant has advised that these have only
recently been proposed by the school as a result of increased Federal Government
funding for schools.
5.
The proposal is recommended for approval.
Voting Requirements
Page 57
26 MAY 2009
Council Discussion:
Cr Terry Kenyon, JP raised concerns that the report did not pick up on the landscaping
requirements issued by the State Administrative Tribunal and the Council resolved to
incorporate this in the resolution. It was further decided to add an extra condition
concerning the removal of rubbish and demolition material from the site and the safety
concerns that may arise from this.
That Planning Approval be granted for the proposed partial demolition of and additions to
Chisholm College at Lot 129, No.1104 Beaufort Street, Bedford in accordance with the
application DA 08-0666 dated 16 December 2008 subject to the following planning
conditions:
1.
The height of roof Ridge B (as denoted on the East Elevation plan) to be limited to a
maximum height of 9 metres from the natural ground levels.
2.
The applicant to provide an ‘as constructed’ plan showing the final as constructed
heights of the proposed development to the satisfaction of the Manager of Planning
Services, prior to occupation of the development.
3.
The windows on the upper floor of Block A on the north elevation to be highlight
windows with sill heights of not less than 1.65 metres from the finished floor level.
4.
A maximum of 1800 students to be enrolled at the school at any one time.
5.
The addition of air conditioning plant areas within the roof of Block A is not to result in
an increase in the height of the overall development, when measured from the natural
ground level.
6.
Air conditioning compressors are not to be installed on the side of the building facing
the adjoining neighbours.
7.
The landscaping adjacent to No.6 Young Street, Bedford to be established, reticulated
and thereafter maintained such that trees screen and soften the impact of the building on
the adjoining property. A separate plan to be provided showing the location and species
of proposed shrubs and trees. The landscaping to comprise advanced shrub and tree
stock.
8.
Landscaping and reticulation must be completed in accordance with an approved
detailed landscape plan(s) prior to occupation of the development and thereafter
maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.
9.
The car park to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Australian Standard
AS2890.1.
10.
Proposal must comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.
11.
Toilets numbers and specifications to be in compliance with the Building Code of
Australia.
12.
Music performance and practice to be limited to the lower ground floor of the proposed
Block A Building or in rooms approved by the City that have been constructed in
accordance to the standards prescribed by an acoustic report.
Page 58
26 MAY 2009
13.
The applicant to provide a Noise Management Plan for construction and potential noise
emissions from the building, prior to the issue of a building licence.
14.
The applicant to provide an acoustic report detailing how sound from the proposed
Block A will be appropriately managed and for the recommendations outlined in this
report being adopted into the final design, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the
issue of a building licence.
15.
This approval is valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of this letter. If the
development/use, the subject of this approval, is not SUBSTANTIALLY
COMMENCED within two years, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.
Where an approval has lapsed, no development/use shall be carried out without the
further approval of the City having first been sought and obtained.
16.
The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the terms of the application
as approved herein, and any approved plan.
17.
The development complying with any details marked in red on the approved plans.
18.
In accordance with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and
Building Regulations 1989, a building licence application must be obtained prior to the
commencement of any building works.
19.
This approval does not authorise any interference with dividing fences, nor entry onto
neighbouring land. Accordingly, should you wish to remove or replace any portion of a
dividing fence, or enter onto neighbouring land, you must first come to a satisfactory
arrangement with the adjoining property owner. Please refer to the Dividing Fences Act
1961.
20.
On completion of construction, all excess articles, equipment, rubbish and materials being
removed from the site and the site left in an orderly and tidy condition.
21.
All stormwater and drainage runoff produced onsite is to be disposed of onsite via the use
of soakwells. The size of the soakwells are to be calculated by use of the formula
VOL(m3) = AREA (m2) x 0.0125, where VOL is total storage volume of soakwells and
AREA is total roofed and paved areas. Connection to the City’s stormwater system, where
available, may be permitted as an overflow only if to the satisfaction of the City of
Bayswater.
22.
The vehicle parking area shall be sealed, kerbed, drained and line marked in accordance
with the approved plans and specifications and shall be thereafter maintained to the
satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.
23.
This approval does not limit or alter the conditions of approval as they relate to the
approval dated 25 September 2007, except where implicitly provided for in the plans or a
condition of approval.
24.
The applicant to install an automatic electric gate to the proposed four (4) bay car park
access from Young Street, with the parking bays to be used by staff only.
Page 59
26 MAY 2009
AMENDMENT
CR TERRY KENYON, JP MOVED, CR MARLENE ROBINSON SECONDED that the
following point 7 of the Officer’s recommendation be amended and point 25 added to
read as follows:
7.
The landscaping adjacent to No.6 Young Street, Bedford to be established,
reticulated and thereafter maintained such that trees screen and soften the
impact of the building on the adjoining property. A separate plan to be provided
showing the location and species of proposed shrubs and trees. The landscaping
to comprise advanced shrub and tree stock, in consultation with the surrounding
neighbours in accordance with SAT directions.
25.
The removal of all rubbish and demolition material be transported through the
carpark exiting via Belham Street and no removal of material through Young
Street onto Coode Street.
CARRIED
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR TERRY KENYON, JP MOVED, CR TERRY BLANCHARD SECONDED that
Planning Approval be granted for the proposed partial demolition of and additions to
Chisholm College at Lot 129, No.1104 Beaufort Street, Bedford in accordance with the
application DA 08-0666 dated 16 December 2008 subject to the following planning
conditions:
1.
The height of roof Ridge B (as denoted on the East Elevation plan) to be limited to
a maximum height of 9 metres from the natural ground levels.
2.
3.
The windows on the upper floor of Block A on the north elevation to be highlight
windows with sill heights of not less than 1.65 metres from the finished floor level.
4.
5.
The addition of air conditioning plant areas within the roof of Block A is not to
result in an increase in the height of the overall development, when measured from
the natural ground level.
6.
Air conditioning compressors are not to be installed on the side of the building
facing the adjoining neighbours.
7.
The landscaping adjacent to No.6 Young Street, Bedford to be established,
reticulated and thereafter maintained such that trees screen and soften the impact
of the building on the adjoining property. A separate plan to be provided showing
the location and species of proposed shrubs and trees. The landscaping to
comprise advanced shrub and tree stock, in consultation with the surrounding
neighbours in accordance with SAT directions.
Page 60
26 MAY 2009
8.
9.
The car park to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Australian
Standard AS2890.1.
10.
Proposal must comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.
11.
Toilets numbers and specifications to be in compliance with the Building Code of
Australia.
12.
Music performance and practice to be limited to the lower ground floor of the
proposed Block A Building or in rooms approved by the City that have been
constructed in accordance to the standards prescribed by an acoustic report.
13.
The applicant to provide a Noise Management Plan for construction and potential
noise emissions from the building, prior to the issue of a building licence.
14.
The applicant to provide an acoustic report detailing how sound from the proposed
Block A will be appropriately managed and for the recommendations outlined in
this report being adopted into the final design, to the satisfaction of the City, prior
to the issue of a building licence.
15.
This approval is valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of this letter. If
the development/use, the subject of this approval, is not SUBSTANTIALLY
COMMENCED within two years, the approval shall lapse and be of no further
effect. Where an approval has lapsed, no development/use shall be carried out
without the further approval of the City having first been sought and obtained.
16.
The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the terms of the
application as approved herein, and any approved plan.
17.
18.
Building Regulations 1989, a building licence application must be obtained prior to
the commencement of any building works.
19.
This approval does not authorise any interference with dividing fences, nor entry
onto neighbouring land. Accordingly, should you wish to remove or replace any
portion of a dividing fence, or enter onto neighbouring land, you must first come to a
satisfactory arrangement with the adjoining property owner. Please refer to the
Dividing Fences Act 1961.
20.
On completion of construction, all excess articles, equipment, rubbish and materials
being removed from the site and the site left in an orderly and tidy condition.
21.
All stormwater and drainage runoff produced onsite is to be disposed of onsite via the
use of soakwells. The size of the soakwells are to be calculated by use of the formula
AREA is total roofed and paved areas. Connection to the City’s stormwater system,
where available, may be permitted as an overflow only if to the satisfaction of the
City of Bayswater.
22.
The vehicle parking area shall be sealed, kerbed, drained and line marked in
accordance with the approved plans and specifications and shall be thereafter
Page 61
26 MAY 2009
23.
approval dated 25 September 2007, except where implicitly provided for in the plans
or a condition of approval.
24.
The applicant to install an automatic electric gate to the proposed four (4) bay car
park access from Young Street, with the parking bays to be used by staff only.
25.
The removal of all rubbish and demolition material be transported through the
carpark exiting via Belham Street and no removal of material through
Young Street onto Coode Street.
CARRIED
Page 62
13.6
26 MAY 2009
Proposed Partial Demolition of and Additions to Chisholm College – Block K,
Library and Administration
Location:
Attachments:
Applicant:
Owner:
Officer:
Refer:
Lot 129, No.1104 Beaufort Street, Bedford
No. 1 - Location Plan and Photograph
No. 2 - Proposed Plans
No. 3 – Five Year Plan
Bruce Callow & Associates Pty. Ltd.
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Western Australia
Item 13.2 : OMC : 10.02.2009
Item 14.24 : OMC : 26.08.2008
Item 12.3.12 : OMC : 27.05.2008
Item 12.3.10 : OMC : 26.02.2008
Item 12.3.3 : OMC : 29.01.2008
In accordance with Section 5.60A and 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995,
Cr Barry McKenna declared a financial interest in this item as his son attends Chisholm
College.
At 7:29pm, Cr McKenna withdrew from the meeting.
declared an impartial interest in this item as he lives near the development, separated by
one block of land. Cr Kenyon remained present during discussion and voting on this item.
Application
1.
MRS Form 1 and plans dated 4 May 2009 have been received for the proposed partial
demolition of and additions to Chisholm College at Lot 129, No.1104 Beaufort Street,
Bedford.
2.
The proposal comprises the following components:
3.
a)
Demolition of and replacement 2 storey building for Block K building located in
the north-east portion of the site;
b)
Translucent roof cover over existing courtyard between Block K and library;
c)
Enclosure of existing verandah to facilitate staffroom extension; and
d)
Modification of existing carpark adjacent to Block K.
Council consideration is required for the following matters:
a)
The ridge height of Block K exceeds the maximum height of buildings with a
proposed ridge height of 9.9 metres; and
b)
Whether advertising of the proposed Block K is required, given the development
is not considered to unduly impact on the neighbouring properties.
Page 63
4.
26 MAY 2009
An item on a separate application for other partial demolition and additions works,
particularly in relation to Blocks A and C is on the agenda.
Background
Local Scheme Reserve - ‘Public Purposes’
Use Class:
Educational Establishment
Lot Area:
60,385 m²
Existing Land Use:
Secondary School
Residential
• Demolition of and replacement building for
Block K.
• Translucent roof cover over existing
courtyard between Block K and library.
• Enclosure of existing verandah to facilitate
staffroom extension.
• Modification of existing carpark adjacent to
Block K.
SCHEME PROVISIONS
REQUIRED
PROVIDED
13.5m
8.5m
6.0m
38m
252 bays
276 bays
Maximum Site Cover
25%
24.87%
Maximum Plot Ratio
0.25
0.23
Setbacks
Front
(Beaufort St)
Side
Parking
1.
As a result of the Federal Government’s ‘Building the Education Revolution’ economic
stimulus package, additional funding has been made available for school facilities
provided certain timeframes are met to enable construction to commence in the
2009/2010 financial year.
2.
As a result of this funding initiative, development applications for State Government
schools have been given priority with the power of determination delegated from the
Western Australian Planning Commission to the Executive Director of Building
Management and Works, with the City required to provide comment within seven (7)
days of receipt of the application. Development applications for private schools are
processed differently with approvals still being required from the local government
authority. These private school applications are required to be determined by the City,
and the City could still require these applications to be advertised.
Page 64
3.
26 MAY 2009
Council’s Town Planning Policy TP P 1.4 Development Applications for Educational
Facilities states that applications are required to be advertised to the community where
certain criteria apply.
Comment
1.
2.
3.
An item on a separate application for other partial demolition and additions works,
particularly in relation to Blocks A and C is on the agenda.
Compliance with Scheme Provisions
The application has been assessed against the provisions of Town Planning Scheme
No.24 and Council policies and complies with the exception of the ridge height and the
front setback of the proposed Block K building. Advertising of the proposal has not yet
been initiated.
Ridge Height - Block K
The roof height of the new Block K has been assessed at 9.9 metres from the natural
ground level. Whilst the new Block K Building complies with the two storey height
limit under the Town Planning Scheme, the proposal exceeds the 9 metre roof height
limit that is generally understood to be the preferred height of buildings in a residential
setting.
4.
The proposed Block K building is located more than 30 metres away from the adjoining
residences to the north and across Beaufort Street to the east. The adjoining dwellings
to the north are located on the higher side of the slope, whilst the dwellings to the west
are located at approximately the same level. Block K is designed to integrate with the
existing Administration building and has almost identical wall heights, although the roof
ridge height for Block K is 1.3 metres higher than the existing Administration building
(8.6m in height).
5.
The variation in height of the proposed Block K Building is not considered to impact
unduly on the amenity of the adjoining neighbours to the north given that these
properties are elevated, which is considered to mitigate the concerns in regard to the
proposed roof ridge height. Whilst proposed Block K is setback in line with the existing
Administration building, the height variation is likely to be evident from the
neighbouring properties to the west. These properties are likely to be affected to some
degree by the continuation of building bulk with proposed Block K being designed to
link with the Administration building. There is considered to be scope for proposed
Block K to be reduced in roof ridge height to comply, as the portion of the roof that
exceeds the 9 metre requirement contains primarily highlight windows to provide
additional light to the courtyard between the two buildings. A condition to this effect
would enable the building to integrate more appropriately with the existing
Administration building and would be consistent with the desired height of buildings in
the area. On this basis it is considered appropriate to include this condition in the
officer recommendation.
6.
Wall Height Block K
The application proposes a wall height for proposed Block K with a height of 5.7 metres
from the current natural ground level on site. This complies with the City’s two storey
height limit and by comparison with the wall height provisions under the Residential
Design Codes.
Page 65
7.
8.
9.
10.
Front setback
The applicant has proposed the new Block K Building to be setback at 8.5 metres, in
lieu of the Town Planning Scheme requirement of 13.5 metres. The new Block K
building is proposed with the same setback as the existing Administration building.
The reduced setback of the proposed Block K is considered to be sympathetic to the
existing streetscape, given that the setback is proposed to be consistent with the existing
Administration building. The plans show that the wall height of the building matches
with the existing Administration building and will present to the street as a singular
building once works are completed. Although it is acknowledged that there will still be
a difference in roof lines, given that the recommendation includes a condition that limits
the overall height to 9 metres, the impact on the streetscape is considered to be minimal.
Reducing the ridge height to 9 metres will enable the proposed Block K to present as
singular building, which reduces the impact on the street. The proposed 8.5 metre
setback is consistent with the setback of other development on the site and is greater
than the permitted residential setbacks along the street. The setback of the building
from the street is considered to be appropriate in this instance and is supported.
Advertising of Proposal
The proposal has not yet been advertised to the community for comment. Given the
emphasis on expediting development approvals that fall under the category of the
Federal Government’s ‘Building the Education Revolution’ programme, and the nature
of the current application before Council, it is considered warranted that Council
consider the determination of the proposal, potentially without advertising.
The City’s Town Planning Policy TP P 1.4 Development Applications for Educational
Facilities stipulates that advertising of proposals for educational facilities is required
where the following is proposed:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
11.
26 MAY 2009
Buildings with a height in excess of one storey (3 metres).
Setback variations.
Reconfiguration of parking, traffic and manoeuvring areas.
Any increase in the population of the educational establishment.
Proposal has impact on the streetscape.
Whilst the proposed new Block K building presents as a two storey building, it is
relevant to consider that the existing Block K Building is also two storeys in height.
The proposal complies with the exception of the roof ridge height, which has been
conditioned to comply with a maximum height of 9 metres and the front setback, which
is consistent with the setback of the existing Administration building fronting Beaufort
Street. Whilst there is some reconfiguration of parking areas, the changes are
considered to be an improvement on the previous parking arrangements in this section
of the school site. The applicant has advised that the school population will not be
affected by this proposal. The impact on the streetscape is considered to be minor as the
proposal maintains the existing street setback, consistent with that of the Administration
building and proposes a setback greater than the permitted residential setbacks along
Beaufort Street.
Page 66
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
26 MAY 2009
Whilst there is considered to be scope for the proposal to be considered without the need
for public consultation in light of the reasons outlined above, given the history of the
site and previous levels of community interest in proposals for educational
establishments, notwithstanding the above, Council may consider that community
consultation be undertaken prior to the matter being determined by Council.
Parking
The plans show the demolition of the existing uniform shop and the reconfiguration of
parking bays and manoeuvring areas adjacent to the proposed Block K building. The
plans show a one-way traffic flow through the car park. The Town Planning Scheme
requires a total of 252 parking bays based on the number of students at the college. The
plans show 276 bays have been provided, representing a surplus of twenty-four (24)
bays.
The City’s Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and have advised that a
two way circulation within the proposed car park would be more appropriate and result
in an improved flow of traffic into and out of the car park. To ensure this is achieved,
an appropriate condition has been included in officer recommendation to this effect.
Verandah to Courtyard
The applicant has proposed to cover the existing courtyard between the Block K
building and the library. This is proposed to be a curved translucent structure and will
be internal to the site. No objection is raised to this aspect of the design.
Staffroom Extension
The applicant has indicated that the extension of the staffroom located at the southern
end of the existing Administration Building is also proposed. This is a single storey
addition involves extending the existing building into the verandah with it being
enclosed as part of the extended staffroom. No objection is raised to the staffroom
extension as proposed.
Summary
1.
The application for the demolition of and replacement building for Block K is
considered to have merit. The roof height of the development has been conditioned to
comply with the 9 metre height limit considered to be the maximum height of
development within a residential setting.
2.
The setback variation to Beaufort Street is consistent with the setback of the existing
Administration building at 8.5 metres and with the permitted setback requirements for
residential development in the street, and is therefore not considered to unduly affect the
existing streetscape.
3.
The need for advertising of the proposal is not considered to be required, as the proposal
replaces an existing two storey building with a similar scale building and the setback of
the proposed Block K is consistent with the existing setback of the Administration
building. The modifications to the parking areas are considered to be an improvement
on the previous parking arrangement, and results in a net gain of seven (7) parking bays.
No increase in student numbers is proposed from the additions outlined in this report.
4.
Page 67
26 MAY 2009
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR TERRY KENYON, JP MOVED, CR TERRY BLANCHARD SECONDED the
Officer recommendation that Planning Approval be granted for the proposed demolition
of and additions to Chisholm College at Lot 129, No 1104 Beaufort Street, Bedford in
accordance with the application DA09-0214 dated 4 May 2009 subject to the following
planning conditions:
1.
The height of the proposed Block K replacement building being limited to a
maximum roof ridge height of 9 metres.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The landscaping to be established, reticulated and thereafter maintained such that
trees screen and soften the impact of the building on the streetscape and adjoining
properties. A separate plan to be provided showing the location and species of
proposed shrubs and trees. The landscaping to comprise advanced shrub and tree
stock.
11.
Page 68
26 MAY 2009
12.
All reasonable steps being taken to preserve existing mature vegetation on the site,
particularly the existing mature eucalyptus tree located in the front setback
between the existing Block K building and Beaufort Street.
13.
City of Bayswater.
14.
15.
The car park to be modified to facilitate two way traffic flow in accordance with
the recommendations of the City’s Technical Manager.
16.
The car park to be designed and constructed in accordance with Australian
Standard AS 2890.1.
17.
approval dated 25 September 2007, except where implicitly provided for in the plans
or a condition of approval.
CARRIED
Page 69
26 MAY 2009
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR BARRY MCKENNA MOVED, CR TERRY BLANCHARD SECONDED that this
item be discussed behind closed doors at Item 18.1 due to the Council receiving
confidential legal advice on 25 May 2009 with regard to this Item.
CARRIED
13.7
Location:
Attachments:
Applicant:
Owner:
Officer:
Refer:
No. 3 - Correspondence
Item 8.1 SCM : 18.0-4.09
Item 13.7 OCM: 24.02.09
Item 14.15 OCM 26.08.08
Item 12.3.7 OCM 22.04.08
Item 12.3.10 OCM 25.03.08
Application
1.
2.
3.
An application has been received requesting the authorisation of a Section 40 Liquor
Licence Certificate to facilitate a proposed liquor store at Lot 101, No.497 Guildford
Road, Bayswater.
Council consideration is required in this instance as Council has previously resolved
that the City would not endorse an application for a Liquor Licence on the subject site at
the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 February 2009.
A separate report relating to a scheme amendment to address ‘Local Shopping’ at the
subject property is on this agenda.
Background
Special Purpose – Tavern & Local Shopping
Use Class:
Shop
Fast Food Outlet (‘Red Rooster’ with drive
through)
Fast Food Outlet (Drive-through Coffee)
Shop (with Drive-through Facility)
Lot Area:
3136 m²
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Residential, Shops (Fast Food Outlet)
Proposed Liquor Store (Section 40
Application)
Page 70
26 MAY 2009
1.
Council resolved to grant conditional approval for the construction of the proposed
commercial development (fast food outlets and local shops) at Lot 101, No. 497
Guildford Road, Bayswater at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 February 2009.
2.
The proposal presented to Council at the meeting held on 24 February 2009 comprised
the development of four (4) separate tenancies as follows:
a)
Two (2) fast food outlets (drive-through chicken franchise (206m²) and drive-thru
coffee outlet (19m²);
b)
Shop (204m²) with drive-through component (71m²); and
c)
Shop (205m²).
3.
Council considered the proposal at the meeting held on 24 February 2009 where the
following issues were canvassed:
a)
b)
c)
The use of ‘Fast Food Outlet’ requires Council to exercise its discretionary power
should the use be considered appropriate;
Variations to the setback to Slade Street, parking and landscaping requirements;
and
As twenty five (25) objections, including four (4) petitions containing 320
signatories, have been received in opposition to the proposal.
4.
In accordance with Section 5.4 of the Local Government Act 1995, a Special Meeting of
Council was held on 15 April 2009 to further consider and revoke the planning approval
granted by Council at the Ordinary Meeting held on 24 February 2009 for the
commercial development at Lot 101, No. 497 Guildford Road Bayswater.
5.
At the Special Council Meeting on 15 April 2009 a motion to revoke the previous
Council planning approval resolution was lost, therefore the planning approval remains
in force. As part of the original determination by Council on 24 February 2009, an
advice note was included in the approval stating, in part, the following:
“2.
The applicant be advised that a Liquor Licensing outlet will be refused.”
Comment
1.
Road, Bayswater. A Section 40 Certificate is requested from local authorities when an
application is to be made for a liquor licence to the Department of Racing, Gaming and
Liquor (DRGL). The certificate states that the site complies, or could comply with the
relevant planning laws and is one part of the information required to be lodged by
proponents to the DRGL.
2.
The officer recommendation to the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 February 2009
was to grant planning approval for the proposed commercial development (fast food
outlets and liquor store with drive through facilities and local shop) at Lot 101, No. 497
Guildford Road, Bayswater. Council resolved to grant planning approval and in doing
so modified the description of the approved development and deleted the reference to a
liquor store from the approval. Therefore a ‘liquor store’ did not form part of this
approval.
Page 71
26 MAY 2009
3.
Council also resolved that a liquor licensing outlet would not be support on the subject
site. This part of the resolution was communicated to the applicant in writing and was
also included as an advice note on the written approval.
4.
In general planning terms, a liquor store is considered to fall under the Town Planning
Scheme 24 definition of a “Shop”. However, in this instance it is the officer’s view that
Council did not approve a liquor store but a shop. This position was further reiterated
when Council also resolved that a liquor licensing outlet on the site would be refused.
5.
Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 24 February, 2009 granted approval for two (2)
‘shops’. The applicant contends that because the plans indicate a liquor store that
approval for a Section 40 Liquor Licence certificate should be provided. The officer’s
opinion is that Council did not approve a liquor store but a shop and Council clearly
articulated that a liquor licensing outlet on the site would be refused.
6.
In correspondence received from the applicant (see Attachment No.3) the contention is
that advice notes have no statutory basis under the provisions of the Planning and
Development Act. The applicant further contends that the use of “bottleshop” was
clearly indicated on the plans that were stamped and granted approval by Council.
7.
The written planning approval clearly indicates that the proposal is for fast food outlets
and local shops, not for a liquor store. In considering and determining the development
application, Council canvassed the approved uses as fast food and shop(s). In
determining the application Council was clear in point 2 of the 24 February 2009
Council resolution that it would not support a liquor licensing outlet on the subject site.
8.
In correspondence from the proponent and the proponents solicitors it is contended that
Council has no grounds to withhold the Section 40 and that staff are placing emphasis
on an advice note when an advice note has no legal standing. The City acknowledges
that an advice note has no legal standing from a planning perspective as compared to a
planning approval condition.
9.
The current application before Council is not a development application, rather a request
made under the provisions of the Liquor Control Act. The recommendation from
Council will be forwarded to the Director of Liquor Licensing who makes the
determination on the liquor licence application. In the event that the City does not
endorse the Section 40 Certificate the applicant can make representation to the Director
Liquor Licensing regarding the withholding of the endorsement who could ultimately
grant approval with or without Council’s Section 40 Certificate consent. It is also worth
noting that there is other information required by the DRGL to obtain liquor licences
and any of this information could give rise to a liquor licence application being
approved or refused.
10.
Where an applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the Director of Liquor
Licensing, a right of review to the Liquor Commission exists.
11.
The decision of a local planning authority not to issue a Section 40 Certificate is not a
decision made by the Liquor Commission, therefore there does not appear to be a right
of review in this matter.
Page 72
26 MAY 2009
12.
A decision of the Council, Director of Liquor Licensing and/or the Liquor Commission,
could be subject to a challenge to the Supreme Court on a question of law. Such
challenges to the Supreme Court are possible under most legislations.
13.
In light of the above, particularly the Council resolution made on 24 February 2009, it
is recommended that Council refuse the Section 40 Liquor Licence Certificate.
Summary
1.
Council resolved at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 February 2009 that a
liquor licensing outlet at the subject site would be refused. The owner of the site has
lodged an application with the City for a Section 40 Liquor Licence Certificate to
endorse the development of a liquor store on the site.
2.
The planning approval issued for the site granted approval for two ‘shops’. Whilst a
liquor store is considered as a ‘shop’ under the definitions of Town Planning Scheme
No.24, given that Council resolved not to support a liquor licensing outlet on the site
during the consideration and granting of the approval it is therefore recommended that
the Section 40 Liquor Licence Certificate be refused, in accordance with Council’s
previous resolution on the matter.
3.
The City provides only a recommendation on this application. The final determination
on the application rests with the Director of Liquor Licensing.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR TERRY KENYON, JP MOVED, CR SALLY PALMER SECONDED that in light of
the letter received from Project Development (WA) Pty Ltd dated 25 May 2009, Council
seek written legal advice prior to making a decision on the matter.
CARRIED
The Acting Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Michael Sabatino
Cr Ian McClelland, JP requested that their vote against the resolution be recorded.
Page 73
and
13.8
26 MAY 2009
Change of Use to Community Activities
Location:
Attachments:
Applicant:
Owner:
Officer:
Lot 2, Unit 2, No. 222-230 Walter Road West, Morley
Dynamic Planning and Developments
ATF Davey Investment Trust
Application
1.
MRS Form 1 and plans dated 19 March 2009 have been received for a change of use for
a portion of an existing commercial building from ‘Service Industry’ to ‘Community
Activities’ at Lot 2, Unit 2, No. 222 Walter Road West, Morley.
2.
The site is located at the corner of Walter Road and Russell Street and is known as the
Morley Commercial Centre and comprises a number of different uses including retail,
recreational/health, commercial and professional offices.
3.
The application proposes to use a vacant tenancy of Unit 2 (approx. 200m²) for nonprofit ‘community activities’ conducted by His Highness Prince Aga Khan Shia Imami
Ismaili Council for Australia and New Zealand. The applicant has advised that the use
is for reading and discussions, and is open to persons of any background who are
interested in reflection, silent contemplation and general discussions in relation to
compassion, tolerance and the dignity of mankind; and is not a place of worship or
prayer.
4.
The proposed use is expected to cater for a maximum of 50 people. The proposed hours
of operation are 6.00pm to 9.00pm, every day of the week.
5.
Council consideration is required as the proposed use of ‘Community Activities’ is a
discretionary use within Precinct 10 of the Morley City Centre, and there is a shortfall in
the provision of on-site car parking.
Background
Morley City Central Zone – Precinct 10
Use Class:
Community Activities - "D"
Lot Area:
8787 m²
Existing Land Use:
Service Industry – “D”
Retail, recreational/health, offices
Change of Use to ‘Community Activities’
SCHEME PROVISIONS
REQUIRED
20 bays
Parking
*Based on a pro-rata calculation of total floor space and total bays
Page 74
PROVIDED
5 bays*
26 MAY 2009
An assessment of the current parking requirements for the site has been undertaken based on
the existing use of each unit. The current uses include recreation, fast food, restaurant and
office. Based on this, the entire site has a parking requirement of 241 bays in accordance with
current scheme standards. There are 138 bays approved for the site. This represents a
shortfall of 103 bays. Please note that this calculation has been done on current uses and
standards and is not based on the calculations used for the original approval as these were not
able to be readily sourced.
Comment
Compliance with Scheme Requirements
1.
‘Community Activities’ is a ‘Discretionary’ use in Precinct 10 of Town Planning
Scheme No. 23. The applicant has advised that the use would include reading and
discussions in relation to compassion, tolerance and the dignity of mankind; and is open
to persons of any background who are interested in reflection, silent contemplation and
general discussions. The use is proposed to be conducted from 6pm to 9pm everyday,
outside of normal business hours.
Use
2.
There are two potential definitions in Town Planning Scheme No. 23 for the proposed
use, ‘Community Activities’ and ‘Place of Public Worship’.
3.
Town Planning Scheme No. 23 states that ‘Community Activities’ is defined as “a
range of non-commercial activities which are generally supported by public finds and
which are open to the public”.
4.
‘Place of Public Worship’ is defined as “land and buildings used for the religious
activities of a church but does not include an institution for primary, secondary, or
higher education, or a residential training institution”.
5.
In support of the application, the applicant has advised the following (refer Attachment
No. 2):
“The intention for this site is not to create a place of worshipping or praying, but to
provide a suitable location for people who share common interests to congregate and
reflect and contemplate.
The intention of this site is to create a place for people to congregate and converse
about likeminded issues. Similarly to that of a book club, where people have a
designated location to read, research and discuss matters of a book with others…”
6.
It is considered that the proposal meets with the ‘Community Activities’ definition
(noted above) because it is a community based, non-profit activity conducted for
community benefit. The definition of ‘Place of Public Worship’ is not considered
appropriate because the premises are not to be used as a place of worship or prayer.
7.
The Morley Commercial Centre currently comprises a number of different land uses
including retail, office and recreation/health. Use of the site for ‘Community Activities’
is not expected to have any undue impact on the surrounding area in terms of the
activities undertaken and levels of noise generated. The use would also be consistent
with Council’s intention to promote activity in the Morley City Centre.
Page 75
26 MAY 2009
8.
The City’s Health and Building departments have advised the building must comply
with the Building Code of Australia and Public Building requirements, including the
provision of toilets. The applicant has advised there are two toilets available for the
exclusive use of the tenancy, as well as common amenity facilities with toilets and
showers for use by all strata units. These facilities are considered to be sufficient for the
proposed use.
9.
It is considered that ‘Community Activities’ is an appropriate use of the site.
Car Parking
10.
Whist the original approved plans were not able to be readily sourced for this property,
an assessment of the existing uses against the current car parking standards have been
undertaken. Therefore the site based on the current uses and standards is 103 bays
short. The site currently provides for one hundred and thirty-eight (138) car bays.
11.
The understanding of the City’s Officers is that the parking areas are shared by all the
units. Notwithstanding this, a calculation has been undertaken on a pro-rata basis,
dividing the total leasable area by the number of car bays available. Using this
calculation, the site provides for approximately 1 car bay per 39m² of leasable area.
This results in the subject tenancy having an allocation of 5 bays.
12.
There is no car parking standards listed for ‘Community Activities’ in Town Planning
Scheme No. 23. The closest aligned standard is considered to be ‘Recreation Facility’
which has a requirement for parking at a ratio of 1 bay per 10m² of net leasable area.
The proposed use requires 20 bays, so this results in a shortfall of 15 bays.
13.
The Community Activities are proposed to be conducted exclusively outside normal
business hours (generally considered as 9am-5pm, Monday-Friday). The applicant
believes this would mitigate the parking shortfall by allowing the existing car parking
areas to be used by the complex during the day, whilst the community activities could
use the car bays outside business hours. The existing car bays would effectively be
shared by the different uses.
14.
Within the complex there is a food hall, fast food outlet and a gym which are also open
after the traditional 9am-5pm working hours. It is considered that this will affect the
available parking for the Community Activities, as there are 138 bays available, and the
food hall, fast food outlet and gym generate the requirement for approximately 117
bays. However, the operating times of the other uses on site may extend beyond 5pm
in the future, therefore further reducing the parking available for the Community
Activities. It is therefore recommended that the number of people allowed to attend the
proposed Community Activities be limited to 20 people at any given time, due to the
parking constraints of the site.
15.
Given the above, it is recommended that the proposed use of Community Activities be
approved subject to the use only being conducted outside normal business hours
(generally considered as 9am-5pm, Monday-Friday), and being limited to maximum of
20 people at any time.
Page 76
26 MAY 2009
Summary
1.
‘Community Activities’ is a Discretionary’ use in Precinct 10 of Town Planning
Scheme No. 23. It is considered that the proposed change of use is consistent with the
surrounding uses within the Precinct. Whilst a car parking shortfall is proposed, the
Community Activities are proposed to be conducted exclusively outside normal
business hours. This would mitigate the parking shortfall by allowing the existing car
parking areas to be used by other users during the day, whilst the Community Activities
could also use the car bays outside business hours. However, given the number of uses
which are operating outside of traditional business hours, it is recommended that the
proposed use be limited to a maximum of 20 people at any given time.
2.
Given the above, it is recommended that the proposed use of ‘Community Activities’ be
approved subject to the use only being conducted outside normal business hours
(generally considered as 9am-5pm, Monday-Friday), and with a maximum of 20 people
allowed to attend the tenancy at any one time.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that Planning Approval be granted for a proposed change of use to
Community Activities at Lot 2, Unit 2, No. 222 Walter Road West, Morley in accordance
with the application and plans dated 19 March 2009 subject to the following planning
conditions:
1.
A maximum of 20 people to attend the ‘Community Activities’ at any one time.
2.
application as approved herein, and any approved plan
3.
4.
5.
A separate application including plans or description of all signs for the proposed
development (including signs painted on a building) shall be submitted to and
approved by the City of Bayswater prior to any erection of signage.
6.
The subject site is to be upgraded to meet the requirements of a Class 9b building
under the Building Codes of Australia (BCA).
7.
Facilities for people with disabilities to be provided in accordance with the
Building Codes of Australia, Part D3 Clause F2.4, and Australian Standard 1428.
8.
The subject site is to be upgraded to comply with the provisions of the Public
Building Regulations 1992.
9.
The proposed Community Activities shall not operate on the site between 9am and
5pm, Monday to Friday inclusive.
Page 77
26 MAY 2009
10.
The noise generated by construction and operational activities is not to exceed the
levels prescribed under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.
11.
Toilet numbers and facilities to be provided in accordance with the BCA
requirements and Public Building Regulations.
12.
Rubbish bins must be stored within a designated bin storage area (to Council
specifications).
Page 78
13.9
26 MAY 2009
Proposed Extensions and Alterations to Factory and Office Building
Location:
Attachments:
Applicant:
Owner:
Officer:
Lot 480, No. 46 Clavering Road, Bayswater
AAD Design Pty Ltd
KP and LY Goodwin
Application
1.
MRS Form 1 and plans dated 30 January 2009 and revised plans dated 7 May 2009 have
been received for proposed alterations and extensions to the existing factory and office
building at Lot 480, No. 46 Clavering Road, Bayswater.
2.
The proposal comprises alterations and a two storey extension to the existing factory
and office building.
3.
Council consideration is required as the applicant has requested variation to the
requirements of the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 24 in relation to:
a)
b)
c)
Parking;
Plot ratio; and,
Landscaping.
Background
1.
The applicant has advised that the proposed building has been designed specifically for
the client, who conducts a business involving laboratory testing of rock samples
obtained from drill cores.
2.
The proposed extension is required to allow for additional space to lay out long cores
away from the elements (sun, wind and rain).
3.
The proposal incorporates a two storey extension to the existing building with the
ground level being partially enclosed by chain-wire fencing.
General Industry
Use Class:
Factory – ‘P’
Office – ‘D’
Lot Area:
1214 m²
Existing Land Use:
Factory – ‘P’
Office – ‘D’
General industry
Extensions and alterations to existing factory
and office
Page 79
SCHEME PROVISIONS
26 MAY 2009
REQUIRED
PROVIDED
13.5m
Nil for parapet walls
6m
3m
9.1m (existing building)
Nil
4m (existing building)
13.8m
2000m2
1214m2
Maximum Site Cover
50%
45.9%
Plot Ratio
Parking
0.5
0.75
Setbacks
Front
Side (N)
Side (S)
Rear
Minimum Lot Area
Factory Use
(1 bays per 100m2 gla)
Office Use
(4 bays per 100m2 gla)
13 bays
8 bays
TOTAL: 21 bays
TOTAL: 11 bays
Comment
1.
Compliance with Scheme Standards
Assessment of the application indicates that the proposal complies with the provisions
of Town Planning Scheme No. 24 (TPS 24) with the exception of parking, plot ratio and
landscaping.
2.
Parking
The applicant has provided 11 parking bays with the development. When assessed
against the Development Standards Table of the TPS 24, the development requires a
total of 21 bays to be provided. This represents a shortfall of 10 bays.
3.
In support of the parking shortfall, the applicant has provided the following justification:
a)
b)
c)
4.
Over time, the mining industry has seen core samples increase in length from 80120 metres up to approximately 300 metres in length. Previously these samples
were laid out in the open car parking area at the rear of the existing building. The
applicant seeks to lay out the core samples under cover, thus the need for a larger
building.
The design of the building incorporates portion of the ground level being open on
two sides, enclosed only by chain-wire fencing. The building’s design is not
intended to be utilised by additional staff but is intended for storage space only.
The applicant has advised the current number of staff is 7 and with the proposed
extension may, over time, increase to a total of 9. Additionally, the applicant has
advised up to 3 or 4 staff frequently travel around the state, interstate and
internationally to conduct field operations at mine sites. Thus leaving only 3 or 4
staff members on site.
It is considered an additional parking bay could be achieved adjacent to parking bay 9,
with the resulting overall shortfall on site being 9 bays. A condition of approval has
been included to relocate the bin store area and include the additional bay.
Page 80
26 MAY 2009
5.
The shortfall in parking bays is exacerbated by the vast amount of storage area sought
by the applicant. On the basis that the building is specifically designed to provide
shelter from the elements for a very specific use, the shortfall in parking is considered
acceptable.
6.
Furthermore, a condition of approval has been included requiring the ground floor of the
building to remain partially open (ie. constructed of chain-wire fencing) and to be
utilised for storage / laying out of materials and car parking only. The inclusion of this
condition ensures the need for parking would not increase should the property be used
for other industrial activities.
7.
Plot Ratio
The applicant in a submission has sought Council discretion for the large site coverage
for the factory. The plans propose a plot ratio of 0.75 in lieu of 0.5. As stated above by
the applicant, the nature of the business requires vast amount of area to lay out core
samples.
8.
The size, scale and bulk of the proposed alterations and additions are in keeping with
similar buildings in the immediate vicinity. Several other buildings located on lots of
similar size along Clavering Road have a footprint in excess of 600m2.
9.
The site is existing and is zoned for industrial development. As a significant portion of
the premises is proposed for storage space only and will not generate additional need for
parking or unduly impact the amenity of adjacent businesses, the relaxation of the
scheme standard for plot ratio is supported.
10.
Landscaping
The applicant has proposed to landscape 8.5% of the site, which includes the existing
2m wide landscaping strip along the street frontage and 1m wide landscaping strips
throughout the proposed rear car park. The Scheme requires 10% of the site to be
landscaped.
11.
Given the existing landscaping on site is in a tidy condition, mainly within the front
setback area and generally contributes to the streetscape of the area, the minor variation
is not considered to have an undue impact on the amenity of the area.
12.
It is on this basis the minor variation requested (i.e. 1.5%) is supported.
Summary
1.
The proposal for alterations and extensions to the existing factory and office building is
intended for the convenience of the existing business operations occurring at the site and
is considered acceptable in terms of Scheme requirements. The proposal is seeking
variations to car parking and plot ratio as the nature of the business requires a larger
premises to store large drill core samples. The applicant has advised there will be little
or no additional impact on the site or its surrounds to that already being generated. The
minor variation requested to landscaping is considered acceptable given the existing
landscaping and overall neat presentation of the site.
The proposal presented is
considered to meet with the intent of the Scheme provisions.
2.
Page 81
26 MAY 2009
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that Planning Approval be granted for the alterations and extensions
to a factory and office building at Lot 480, No.46 Clavering Road, Bayswater in
accordance with the application dated 30 January 2009 and revised plans dated
7 May 2009 subject to the following planning conditions:
1.
2.
application as approved herein, and any approved plan, including any notations in
red on the approved plan.
3.
4.
5.
The provision of a suitably screened refuse bulk bin area with a minimum area of
10m2 to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater. The bin area is to be provided
with a permanent water supply and drainage facility for wash-down and is to be
screened by a gate and brick walls or other suitable material to a height of not less
than 1.8 metres. The bin area shall be accessible via a suitably constructed service
road that will allow heavy vehicle movement. The bin store compound area to be
kerbed to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.
6.
All stormwater and drainage runoff produced onsite is to be disposed of onsite via
the use of soakwells. The size of the soakwells are to be calculated by use of the
formula VOL(m3) = AREA (m2) x 0.0125, where VOL is total storage volume of
soakwells and AREA is total roofed and paved areas. Connection to the City’s
stormwater system, where available, may be permitted as an overflow only if to the
7.
8.
All vehicle crossings being upgraded, designed and constructed to the satisfaction
City of Bayswater. Payment for the crossover is required prior to the issue of a
building licence.
Page 82
26 MAY 2009
9.
Any existing septic tanks, leach drains or soakwells on the property must be
pumped out, completely removed and the excavations backfilled with clean sand
and compacted. These works must be undertaken under the supervision of an
Environmental Health Officer.
10.
Any industry derived liquid waste is to be disposed of in accordance with the
Environmental Protection (Liquid Waste) Regulations 1996 and/or the
requirements of the Water Corporation, Water and Rivers Commission,
Department of Environmental Protection and the Principal Environmental health
Officer.
11.
The noise generated by construction or operational activities is not to exceed the
levels prescribed under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.
12.
Compliance with the Health (Air Handling and Water Systems) Regulations 1994
and relevant Australian Standards e.g. AS1668.2 ‘the use of mechanical ventilation
and air-conditioning in buildings’ and AS 3666.1 1995 ‘Air-handling and water
systems of buildings – microbial control Part 1 : Design, installation and
commissioning’.
13.
Ventilation is to comply with the requirements of the Sewerage (Lighting,
Ventilation and Construction) Regulations 1971 and the Building Code of
Australia.
14.
Compliance with the Explosives and Dangerous Goods Act 1961 and the Explosive
and Dangerous Goods (Handling and Storage) Regulations 1992.
15.
All premises to be connected to deep sewerage.
16.
Proposal must comply with the City of Bayswater Local Laws.
17.
The lower ground floor area, depicted as car parking, bin store and sample layout
areas on the approved plans are to remain unenclosed and are to be utilised for car
parking, bin storage, general storage and for the laying out of materials only, to
the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.
18.
Plans are to be amended to include an additional car parking bay, adjacent to
parking bay 9. The bin store area is to be relocated within the unenclosed area, to
the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.
Page 83
13.10
26 MAY 2009
Status of Application for Appeal/Review - Proposed Six (6) Multiple
Dwellings
Location:
Applicant:
Owner:
Officer:
Refer:
Lot 383, No.6 Riverslea Avenue, Maylands
S Rizzo
K & M Sanford
Item 13.7 : OCM : 24.03.09
Application
An Application for Appeal/Review has been lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal
(SAT) in relation to Council’s refusal of the proposal for a six (6) multiple dwelling
development at Lot 383, No.6 Riverslea Avenue, Maylands.
Background
1.
Council considered this application at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 March 2009.
The application sought planning approval for the development of six (6) multiple
dwellings contained within a residential building on a 1214m² lot that currently contains
a single dwelling.
2.
The application sought a number of variations to the provisions of Town Planning
Scheme No.24 and the Acceptable Development standards of the Residential Design
Codes, in regard to the following matters:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
3.
The overall bulk and scale of the proposal;
Variations to wall height and the City’s two storey height limit;
Setback variation to the side south east boundary;
A fill variation within the front setback area;
A variation to plot ratio requirement under the R Codes; and
Twelve (12) objections to the proposal have been received.
Council resolved to refuse the application for the following reasons:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
The height, bulk and scale of the development is considered to be excessive and
unduly affects the amenity of the surrounding area and is not in keeping with the
prevailing height, scale and nature of residential development in the area.
The proposal does not meet with the provisions of Clause 8.3.1 of Town Planning
Scheme No.24 as the proposed building exceeds the two storey height limit and is
considered to unduly disrupt the amenity of the area.
The proposal does not meet with the Acceptable Development Standards and
Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes with regard to building
height.
Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes with regard to plot ratio.
Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes with regard to fill within the
front setback area.
Consideration of the objections received.
Page 84
26 MAY 2009
4.
A Directions Hearing was held on Friday 8 May 2009 at 11am and was attended by the
City’s Senior Planning Officer and a Planning Officer. At the Directions Hearing the
applicant sought to enter into mediation discussions with the City in regard to providing
a revised plan that was more consistent with Council’s expectations for the area. A
mediation session has been scheduled for Tuesday 16 June 2009 at 2pm.
5.
The City has written to those persons who lodged submissions on the proposal
informing of the lodgement of the Application for Appeal/Review with the SAT.
Comment
1.
The Application for Review lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) seeks
a review of Council’s decision to refuse planning approval for a six (6) multiple
dwelling development.
2.
A Directions Hearing was held on Friday 8 May 2009 where the applicant sought to
have the matter referred to mediation so that further review of the proposal could be
undertaken with a view to providing a proposal that was more consistent with Council’s
expectations for the area.
3.
A mediation session has been scheduled for Tuesday 16 June 2009 at 2pm. Witness
statements in relation to this matter would only be required should the matter progress
to a Full Hearing.
Summary
1.
An Application for Appeal/Review has been lodged with the State Administrative
Tribunal in relation to Council’s refusal of the proposal for a six (6) multiple dwelling
development at Lot 383, No.6 Riverslea Avenue, Maylands.
2.
A Directions Hearing was attended by the City where it was agreed that a mediation
session be scheduled to review the concerns identified by Council, and for the applicant
to provide a revised plan that addresses Council’s concerns.
3.
A mediation session has been scheduled for Tuesday 16 June 2009 at 2pm.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
1.
The information contained in this report relating to the Application for
Appeal/Review in relation to the refusal of the proposed six (6) multiple dwelling
development at Lot 383, No.6 Riverslea Avenue, Maylands be received by
Council.
2.
Witness statements on behalf of the City be sought from affected parties and
Councillors should the matter progress to a Full Hearing.
Page 85
13.11
26 MAY 2009
Location:
Attachments:
Applicant:
Owner:
Officer:
Lot 11, Unit 1, No. 5 Elizabeth Street, Maylands
No. 3 – Boundary Wall Aerial
John and Nina Caputo
John and Nina Caputo
Application
1.
MRS Form 1 and plans dated 9 December 2008 and amended plans received 21 April
2009 have been received for a proposed two storey single house at Lot 11, Unit 1, No. 5
Elizabeth Street, Maylands.
2.
Council consideration is required for variations to requirements relating to:
a)
b)
3.
Solar access for adjoining sites; and
Wall height of proposed two storey single house (one submission received
objecting to the height).
In support of the application, the applicant has advised the following:
a)
b)
The size of the subject land is small and therefore only suitable for the
construction of a two storey house; and
Overshadowing is mainly confined to a wall with no major openings.
Background
Medium and High Density Residential - R30
Use Class:
Single House – “P”
Lot Area:
207 m²
Existing Land Use:
Vacant Lot
Residential
Two storey single house
SCHEME PROVISIONS
Setbacks
Front
Rear
Side SW
Side NE
Minimum Lot Area
Maximum Wall height
Maximum building height
Overshadowing
* Letter of non-objection received
REQUIRED
2/4m
1.2m/1.5m
1m/1.5m/1.9m
1m/1.5m/1.9m
270m2
6m
9m
35%
Page 86
PROVIDED
4m
1.508m
0m/1.51m*
0m/1.5m*
207m2
6.2m
8.37m
59.1%
1.
26 MAY 2009
Submission
One submission was received objecting to the proposal. The submission raised the
following issues:
a)
The dwelling at 1 Central Avenue will have natural light restricted to its kitchen
and lounge areas as a result of this development; and
b)
The landowner has concerns regarding on site stormwater disposal.
Comment
1.
An assessment of the application indicates that the proposed development complies with
the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 24, the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), and
Council Policy with the exception of wall height and overshadowing onto the adjoining
property.
Wall Height
2.
The Acceptable development standards of the R-Codes requires that wall and building
height do not exceed the following requirements:
a)
b)
c)
3.
6m for external wall height for pitched roofs;
7m for external wall height for concealed roofs; and
9m for total building height to the top of a pitched roof.
The proposal incorporates a maximum wall height of 6.2m and a roof pitch of 8.37m.
The proposed wall height variation was advertised to affected landowners for a period
of 14 days in accordance with local planning policy. An objection was received from
the landowner at 1 Central Avenue. Given that the wall height does not meet the
acceptable development standards and an objection has been received from an adjoining
landowner, it has been assessed under the performance criteria of the R-Codes which
state:
“Building height consistent with the desired height of the buildings in the locality, and
to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including where
appropriate:
a) adequate direct sun to buildings and appurturent open spaces;
b) adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and
c) access to views of significance”
4.
The proposed wall height is not considered to affect solar access or access to views of
significance to the objecting landowner, giving the subject land’s southern orientation in
relation to the objector’s property. However, the extra height results in additional bulk
and increases the overshadowing to 59.1% on the adjoining southern property. For this
reason, it is recommended that as a condition of approval, a maximum wall height limit
of 6m be imposed. This will reduce the extent of overshadowing to 56.9%.
Overshadowing
5.
The acceptable development standards of Clause 6.9.1 of the R-Codes requires
dwellings to be constructed so as to overshadow no more than 35% of an adjoining lot
at midday, 21 June at the R30 zoning. The 21 June is the winter solstice representing
the day with the maximum potential for overshadowing adjoining lots. The proposal
has been assessed as overshadowing up to 59.1% of the adjoining lot at midday on 21
June.
Page 87
6.
26 MAY 2009
Given that the overshadowing does not meet the acceptable development standards in
relation to overshadowing, it has been assessed under the relevant performance criteria,
which state:
“Development designed to protect solar access for neighbouring properties taking
account the potential to overshadow:
•
•
•
•
7.
outdoor living areas;
major openings to habitable rooms;
solar collectors; or
balconies or verandahs”
An inspection of the approved plans for the adjoining dwelling at Lot 3 at Unit 2, No. 5
Elizabeth Street indicate that the overshadowing would occur on the following habitable
spaces:
•
•
•
•
A highlight window for bedroom 1;
A major opening for bedroom 2;
A portion of the screened balcony; and
A portion of the outdoor living area.
8.
It is considered that the overshadowing will result in a minor amenity impact on the
adjoining property with only the major opening to bedroom 2 significantly affected.
The reduction in wall height will also reduce overshadowing, and it is noted that the
neighbouring landowner has signed a letter of non-objection regarding the proposed
overshadowing.
9.
Due to the north-south orientation and narrow width of the lots, a degree of
overshadowing from the subject lot onto Unit 2, No. 5 Elizabeth Street is inevitable
regardless of any potential building design at the subject site. The variation to the
acceptable development provision regarding solar access is therefore supported.
10.
Drainage
The objector has also raised concerns that any drainage generated by the proposed
dwelling may create an undue impact on 1 Central Avenue, given that it is on a lower
floor level than the proposed dwelling. A development approval issued contains a
standard condition requiring stormwater produced onsite is to be disposed onsite via the
use of soakwells.
Summary
Assessment of the application indicates that the proposed development complies with the City
of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No. 24, the Residential Design Codes and Council
policy with the exception of wall height and overshadowing to the adjoining property. The
variation to wall height is considered to meet the performance criteria of the R-Codes subject
to a maximum wall height of 6m being imposed as a condition of planning approval. The
proposed overshadowing is considered to have a minor impact on the adjoining dwelling at
Unit 2, 5 Elizabeth Street and furthermore, overshadowing would be reduced with a reduction
in the wall height. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.
Voting Requirements
Page 88
26 MAY 2009
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that Planning Approval be granted for the proposed two storey single
house at Lot 11, Unit 1, No. 5 Elizabeth Street, Maylands in accordance with the
application dated 9 December 2008 and amended plans received 21 April 2009 subject to
the following planning conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The approved parapet/boundary walls and footings abutting the south-western and
north-eastern boundaries must be constructed wholly within the subject allotment.
The external surface of the parapet/boundary walls shall be finished to a
professional standard to complement the dwelling on the adjoining lots, to the
7.
8.
The applicant is to make arrangements to the satisfaction of the Water Corporation
for the provision of reticulated sewerage to all lots/units within the
subdivision/development. Where the Water Corporation reticulated sewer is not
available the premises are to be connected to an approved wastewater treatment
system which complies with the requirements of the Treatment of Sewage and
Disposal of Effluent and Liquid Waste Regulations and the Government Sewerage
Policy Perth Metropolitan Region.
9.
Any existing septic system is to be decommissioned to the satisfaction of the City of
Bayswater and in accordance with the Treatment of Sewage and Disposal of Effluent
and Liquid Waste Amendment Regulations (No.2) 1997.
Page 89
26 MAY 2009
10.
City of Bayswater.
11.
All vehicle crossings being upgraded, designed and constructed to the satisfaction
City of Bayswater. Payment for the crossover is required prior to the issue of a
building licence.
12.
The existing and/or proposed driveways being constructed with brick paving or
concrete to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.
13.
The external wall height for the proposed dwelling is to a maximum of 6m.
Page 90
13.12
26 MAY 2009
Location:
Attachments:
Applicant:
Owner:
Officer:
Lot 87, No. 29 Hampton Square West, Morley
No. 2 - Detailed Plans & Aerial
Gabriella Di Cesare
Davide and Gabriella Di Cesare
Application
1.
MRS Form 1 and plans dated 3 March 2009 have been received for a two storey, single
dwelling at Lot 87, No. 29 Hampton Square West, Morley.
2.
Council consideration is required as one objection has been received from an adjoining
landowner in relation to an overheight parapet/boundary wall on the southern boundary
and variation to privacy requirements.
Background
Residential R20/25
Use Class:
Single House – ‘P’
Lot Area:
394 m²
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Residential
Two Storey Single House
SCHEME PROVISIONS
Setbacks
Ground Floor:
Front
Rear
Side (N)
Side (S)
Upper Floor:
Front
Rear
Side (N)
Side (S)
Minimum Lot Area
Minimum Open Space
Parking
*Objection received
REQUIRED
PROVIDED
6m average
1.0m
1.2m / 1.5m / 1m
1m / 1.5m
6.1m
1.1m / 1.5m
1.6m / 6.4m / 1.3m
0m* / 1.5m
6m average
3m
1.5m
1.5m
6m average
9.8m
1.7m
1.5m
320m2
394m2
50%
50%
2 bays
2 bays
Page 91
PARAPET/BOUNDARY WALL
ACCEPTABLE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
26 MAY 2009
REQUIRED
PROVIDED
Maximum Wall Height
3.0m
3.4m*
Maximum Average Wall Height
2.7m
3.4m*
9m
9m
Maximum Wall Length
*Objection received
Submissions
1.
As the proposal incorporates a garage/storeroom boundary wall, which is over the
maximum permitted height and a variation to privacy requirements, comment was
sought from the adjoining landowner at Lot 142, No. 1 Gayswood Way, Morley. Two
separate pieces of correspondence were received from the adjoining landowner raising
objections with regards to the boundary wall and the issue of overlooking from windows
on the upper level.
2.
The main issues raised in the submissions were:
a)
b)
c)
d)
inadequate fencing for a swimming pool during the construction period;
inadequate security during the construction period;
inadequate sunlight, during winter months, to the backyard and swimming pool
area; and,
loss of visual privacy from the backyard and swimming pool area.
Comment
Compliance with the Scheme and R-Code Requirements
1.
Assessment of the application indicates that the proposed development complies with
the acceptable development criteria of the Residential Design Codes 2008, the City’s
Town Planning Scheme No. 24 and Council Policies, with the exception of the height of
the parapet/boundary wall and visual privacy.
Parapet Wall
2.
The proposal incorporates a parapet/boundary wall which is located on the southern
boundary and has a length of 9 metres and a maximum height of 3.4m above natural
ground level, and an average height of 3.4m. The length of the wall complies with the
requirements of the R-Codes but a variation has been requested to the maximum and
average height of the wall.
3.
Clause 6.3.2 of the R-Codes “Buildings on Boundary” requires boundary walls to
comply with the provisions except where otherwise provided for in a local planning
policy. The City’s policy for boundary walls states that any wall within 1.0m of a
boundary requires neighbours’ comments. Where an objection is received the
development is required to be determined under performance criteria by Council.
Page 92
4.
26 MAY 2009
The performance criteria of the R-Codes state:
“Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable
to do so in order to:
•
•
•
•
•
5.
Potential reasons against the proposed parapet/boundary wall include:
a)
b)
c)
d)
6.
make effective use of space; or
enhance privacy; or
otherwise enhance the amenity of the development;
not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property:
and,
ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living
areas of adjoining properties is not restricted.”
the objector believes the parapet/boundary wall will result in inadequate fencing
for the swimming pool during the construction period;
the objector believes the parapet/boundary wall will result in inadequate security
during the construction period;
the objector believes the parapet/boundary wall will result in inadequate sunlight,
during winter months, to the backyard and swimming pool area; and,
insufficient justification has been provided as to the height of the proposed
parapet/boundary wall under the performance criteria of the R-Codes.
In support of the proposed parapet/boundary wall, the following points are relevant:
a)
b)
c)
d)
The proposed parapet/boundary wall is considered to make effective use of space,
on what is considered to be a relatively narrow lot (approximately 13m);
The wall contains no major openings therefore allowing for the privacy of both
neighbours;
The proposed single storey parapet/boundary wall is considered to have little
effect on direct sun light to the backyard or swimming pool area. It is noted a
large patio and tall vegetation cover a significant portion of the neighbouring
property; and
The applicant has confirmed a willingness to finish the wall to the satisfaction of
the City of Bayswater and will provide temporary fencing to secure the
neighbours’ swimming pool and rear yard during construction.
7.
It is considered that the proposed wall could be reduced in height by approximately
400mm, thus bringing the overall height to 3 metres. This will result in the
parapet/boundary wall complying with the acceptable development provisions of the RCodes for maximum height.
8.
The applicant has agreed to lower the height of the boundary wall to comply with the
maximum permissible height of 3m. Notwithstanding the proposed wall does not meet
the acceptable average height of 2.7m, the additional 300mm is not seen to have any
additional undue impact on the neighbouring property. A condition has been placed on
the approval to this effect.
9.
On this basis, the variation to the average wall height of the proposed parapet/boundary
wall is supported.
Page 93
26 MAY 2009
Visual Privacy
10.
The acceptable development standards of the R-Codes (Element 6.8.1 – Visual Privacy)
requires a 4.5m setback for a bedroom window with a finished floor level higher than
0.5m above natural ground level, unless appropriate screening has been provided.
11.
The proposal incorporates two (2) bedroom windows (bedroom 2 and bedroom 4) which
do not meet the acceptable development standards.
12.
Given the proposed development does not meet the acceptable development standards in
relation to visual privacy it has been assessed against the relevant performance criteria,
which state:
“ Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other
dwellings is minimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and
outdoor active habitable spaces, screening devises and landscape, or remoteness.
Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid
overlooking is preferred to the use of screening devised or obscured glass.
Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have
minimal impact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.
Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another,
the distance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.”
13.
The applicant has agreed to modify the proposed window of bedroom 2, to either a
highlight window being 1.65m above the finished floor level or relocate the window
such that the cone of vision is greater than 4.5m from the boundary.
14.
Additionally, the applicant has proposed a permanent vertical screen on the southern
elevation restricting any potential overlooking from bedroom 4 into the neighbouring
property. As such, the window meets the relevant acceptable development requirements
of the R-Codes. A condition has been placed on the approval to this effect.
15.
It is noted the objector also raised concern regarding potential overlooking from various
windows and other points along the frontage of the proposed dwelling. As stated above,
the cone of vision from a habitable space for a bedroom is 4.5m. The windows of
concern to the objector are some 5.5m from the boundary. The R-Codes set minimum
separation standards but does not totally remove the opportunity for windows to
overlook other properties.
16.
It is on this basis the proposal is in accordance with Clause 6.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the
R-Codes and is supported.
Dividing Fences
17.
The Dividing Fences Act 1961 (the Act) deals primarily with the process for sharing
with the neighbour the cost of building and maintaining a dividing fence. When a
parapet wall is proposed on a lot it is up to the two adjoining property owners to reach
agreement in regard to the removal of an existing fencing should fencing need to be
removed. The Dividing Fences Act 1961 indicates that a building boundary wall is not a
dividing fence and either adjoining landowner can still erect a sufficient fence along the
boundary line. There is no mandatory requirement to have temporary fencing erected.
All disputes are civil and are resolved by a Magistrates’ court.
Page 94
26 MAY 2009
18.
If the adjoining owner redevelops by demolishing existing buildings, they may ask for a
contribution for a new fence. This may occur if the existing fence is of a lower standard
than a sufficient fence, is erected other than on the boundary line or is in need of repair
or replacement. It may also occur because the adjoining owner wants a new fence.
19.
Development approvals by some local governments require the developer to build new
fences or require that the fence be to the local government’s satisfaction (i.e. for
screening of overlooking). This does not prevent the owner from serving notice under
the Act on the other owner seeking a contribution for half the fence construction or
repair costs.
20.
Pool Safety Barriers (Fencing)
Western Australia has legislation to restrict unsupervised access to a private swimming
or spa pool by young children. If the structure contains water to a depth greater than
300mm and is meant for swimming, wading, bathing or like activities then the structure
is required to have a barrier (fence) installed.
21.
Part 10, Regulation 38B(1) of the Building Regulations 1989 (WA) states “… the owner
or occupier of premises on which there is a swimming pool is to install or provide
around the pool an enclosure suitable to restrict access by young children to it and its
immediate surrounding.” In summary, the legal responsibility to provide pool fencing
remains with the pool owner at all times. This applies even when a neighbour or builder
of an adjoining property removes or damages a fence as part of construction.
22.
In order to overcome these issues and assist as much as practicable the City can place a
condition on the approval which requires temporary fencing to be offered to a
neighbour. This does not overcome the responsibilities of the owner of the adjoining
property to secure the pool to the relevant standards, nor can the condition overcome
any obligation or potential cost implications for fencing under the Dividing Fences Act.
It is considered that both pieces of legislation inadequately protect land owners from
the effects of development on neighbouring properties and as such it is considered that
written representation should be made to relevant Ministers outlining Council’s
concerns.
23.
A condition has been placed on this approval requiring the developer to offer the
neighbour temporary fencing.
Summary
The proposed modifications and screening to the upper floor bedroom 2 and bedroom 4
windows and the parapet/boundary wall are considered to meet the relevant performance
criteria of the R-Codes, Town Planning Scheme No. 24 and Council Policy. The proposed
dwelling is not considered to cause an undue amenity impact on the adjoining property and on
this basis the proposal is recommended for approval.
Voting Requirements
Page 95
26 MAY 2009
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR IAN MCCLELLAND, JP MOVED, CR TERRY BLANCHARD SECONDED the
Officer recommendation that:
1.
Planning Approval be granted for the two storey single house at Lot 87, No. 29
Hampton Square West, Morley in accordance with the plans dated 27 February
2009 subject to the following planning conditions:
a)
This approval is valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of this letter.
If the development/use, the subject of this approval, is not
SUBSTANTIALLY COMMENCED within two years, the approval shall
lapse and be of no further effect. Where an approval has lapsed, no
development/use shall be carried out without the further approval of the City
having first been sought and obtained.
b)
c)
The development complying with any details marked in red on the approved
plans.
d)
In accordance with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960
and Building Regulations 1989, a building licence application must be obtained
prior to the commencement of any building works.
e)
This approval does not authorise any interference with dividing fences, nor
entry onto neighbouring land. Accordingly, should you wish to remove or
replace any portion of a dividing fence, or enter onto neighbouring land, you
must first come to a satisfactory arrangement with the adjoining property
owner. Please refer to the Dividing Fences Act 1961.
f)
The approved parapet/boundary wall and footings abutting the southern
boundary must be constructed wholly within the subject allotment. The
external surface of the parapet/boundary wall shall be finished to a
professional standard to complement the dwelling on the adjoining lot, to the
g)
On completion of construction, all excess articles, equipment, rubbish and
materials being removed from the site and the site left in an orderly and tidy
condition.
h)
The applicant is to make arrangements to the satisfaction of the Water
Corporation for the provision of reticulated sewerage to all lots/units within
the subdivision/development. Where the Water Corporation reticulated
sewer is not available the premises are to be connected to an approved
wastewater treatment system which complies with the requirements of the
Treatment of Sewage and Disposal of Effluent and Liquid Waste Regulations
and the Government Sewerage Policy Perth Metropolitan Region.
i)
Any existing septic system is to be decommissioned to the satisfaction of the
City of Bayswater and in accordance with the Treatment of Sewage and
Disposal of Effluent and Liquid Waste Amendment Regulations (No.2) 1997.
Page 96
2.
26 MAY 2009
j)
All vehicle crossings being upgraded, designed and constructed to the
satisfaction City of Bayswater. Payment for the crossover is required prior
to the issue of a building licence.
k)
The existing and/or proposed driveways being constructed with brick paving
or concrete to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.
l)
The applicant/owner is to offer suitable temporary fencing to the adjoining
neighbour during construction of the parapet/boundary wall.
m)
The parapet/boundary wall is to have a maximum height of 3.0m.
n)
Proposed windows to bedroom 2 to be modified to highlight windows being a
minimum of 1.65m above the finished floor level or relocated such that the
cone of vision is greater than 4.5m from the southern boundary, to the
o)
Proposed window to bedroom 4 to include permanent vertical screening on
the southern elevation as per the approved plan.
That Council write to the Minister for Treasury and Finance, Minister for Local
Government, Minister for Planning and the Department of Treasury and Finance Building Management and Works detailing the dissatisfaction with the capacity of
the Dividing Fences Act 1961 to protect the interests of a third party when
development takes place on a neighbouring lot.
CARRIED
Cr Marlene Robinson requested that her vote against the resolution be recorded.
Page 97
13.13
26 MAY 2009
Proposed Patio Addition to Grouped Dwelling
Location:
Attachments:
Applicant:
Owner:
Officer:
Lot 97, No. 12 Tillingdon Way, Morley
Oasis Patios
Phil and Jenni Poughnault
Application
1.
MRS Form 1 and plans dated 23 March 2009 for the installation of a patio addition
within the primary street setback of a grouped dwelling at Lot 97, No.12 Tillingdon
Way, Morley.
2.
The proposal comprises the installation of a pitched roof patio addition to the existing
dwelling located within the primary street setback.
3.
Council consideration is required as the proposal does not comply with the average
primary street setback of 6.0 metres.
Background
Residential R20/25
Use Class:
Grouped Dwelling – ‘P’
Lot Area:
332m²
Existing Land Use:
Two grouped dwellings
Residential
Patio addition to grouped dwelling
SCHEME PROVISIONS
Setbacks – Street Minimum Lot Area
Maximum Site Cover
Parking
Minimum
Average
REQUIRED
PROVIDED
3.0m
6.0m
3.0m
4.0m
320m2
332m2
50%
50%
2 car bays
2 car bays
Planning approval under delegated authority was granted on 15 May 2006 for two grouped
dwellings at the subject site.
Comment
1.
Assessment of the proposal indicates that the patio complies with the acceptable
development standards of the Residential Design Codes, the City’s Town Planning
Scheme No. 24 and Council Policies with the exception of the average street setback.
Page 98
2.
3.
26 MAY 2009
Setback of Patio
The proposed patio has a setback of 3.0m from the primary street in accordance with the
minimum requirement for an R25 zoning under the Residential Design Codes.
The Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes states with regard to the
setback of buildings generally:
“Buildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they:
a) Contribute to the desired streetscape;
b) Provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and
c) Allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.”
4.
The proposed patio is to have a pitched roof and is to be located within the outdoor
living area of the dwelling. This area is screened from Tillingdon Way by an existing
1.8m high wall constructed from limestone pillars and wooden panels.
5.
The proposed patio is to have a consistent setback with the existing dwelling alignment.
No service easements are located in the area where the proposed patio is to be built.
6.
The outdoor living area is screened from the primary street and the setback of the
proposed patio meets the minimum requirement of 3.0m. Furthermore the proposed
patio is to have a pitched roof in keeping with the appearance of the existing dwelling.
7.
The prevailing context of the streetscape is that of existing dwellings with 6.0 - 8.0m
setbacks. Infill development is present directly opposite the subject site at 19 Tillingdon
Way where an existing carport has a street setback of 1.5m.
8.
Given the above it is not considered that the development will have an undue impact on
the amenity of the streetscape.
Summary
The City has no objection to the proposed patio which is considered to meet the performance
criteria of the Residential Design Codes.
Voting Requirements
Page 99
26 MAY 2009
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that Planning Approval be granted for a patio addition to grouped
dwelling at Lot 97, No. 12 Tillingdon Way Morley in accordance with the plans dated 23
March, 2009 subject to the following planning conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
City of Bayswater.
Page 100
13.14
26 MAY 2009
Council Ratification of Subdivisions & Amalgamations under Delegated
Authority
Attachment:
Officer:
Delegated Authority Subdivisions - 01/04/2009 – 30/04/2009
Application
The subdivision and amalgamation applications listed below, and which comply with the
provisions of the City’s District Zoning Scheme No 24, have been processed accordingly, and
a recommendation returned to the Western Australian Planning Commission.
(Refer to attachment).
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that Council ratify the schedule of subdivisions and amalgamation
applications for which comment has been provided to the Western Australian Planning
Commission.
Page 101
13.15
26 MAY 2009
Status Report - Planning Complaints/Zoning Breaches
Officer:
CONFIDENTIAL ITEM
Application
To advise Council of the status of unauthorised planning activities within the City.
In accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995, the meeting is closed
to members of the public for this item as the following sub-section applied:
(b) The personal affairs of any person.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that the status report on the complaints regarding unauthorised
planning activities be received.
Page 102
13.16
26 MAY 2009
PAW - Kirkpatrick Crescent and Widgee Road, Noranda
Location:
Attachments:
Applicant:
Owner:
Officer:
Refer:
PAW between Kirkpatrick Crescent and Widgee Road,
Noranda
No. 1 - Location Plan and Site Photos
No. 2 - Photos submitted by applicant
Peter Young
The Crown
Item 12.5.2: OCM : 25.9.2007
Item 12.5.3: OCM : 11.12.2007
Item 12.5.8: OCM : 29.1.2008
Application
1.
Correspondence dated 23 April 2009 has been received from a landowner adjoining the
pedestrian access way (PAW) between Kirkpatrick Crescent and Widgee Road,
Noranda requesting that the PAW be closed. The reasons for the request are as follows:
a)
Rocks being thrown by offenders from the PAW and property damage;
b)
Anti-social behaviour emanating from the PAW; and
c)
Previous graffiti attacks.
2.
The City installed gates and a security camera at the subject PAW in 2008.
3.
Council consideration is required to determine the status of the subject PAW. The
options include:
a)
Permanently close the PAW;
b)
Maintain the status quo with security cameras and gates; and/or
c)
Provide extra security features such as lighting or more security patrols.
Background
1.
Council, at its meeting of 25 September, 2007 resolved to advertise a proposal (from the
same applicant) to place gates across the subject PAW. Public advertising finished on
29 October, 2007.
2.
A total of nine (9) submissions were received during the advertising period in 2007,
comprising three (3) submissions objecting to the gates and two (2) submissions
supporting the gates and four (4) comments from service agencies. One (1) submission
was also originally received from the applicant requesting the gates be installed.
3.
Council considered the matter at its meeting of 29 January 2008, where it resolved (in
part) that:
a)
Council resolve that the request to place gates across the Pedestrian Access Way
(PAW) be supported.
b)
The City to make suitable arrangements to trim any trees encroaching into the
Pedestrian Access Way.
c)
Cameras be installed at the Kirkpatrick Crescent end of the PAW, until such a
time as they are removed by Council.
Page 103
4.
26 MAY 2009
PAW gates and a security camera were installed in 2008 in accordance with Council’s
resolution. The City’s Security Watch Service recently attended the subject site several
times and met with the applicant, Mr. Peter Young, regarding the concerns.
Comment
1.
Requests to close pedestrian access ways (PAW’s) are often made on the grounds of
security, safety and amenity. However, PAW’s were created to provide improved
pedestrian access to services and facilities within a neighbourhood. In considering
closure requests, a balance needs to be found between pedestrian access and concerns
regarding residents’ amenity and security.
2.
The PAW between Kirkpatrick Crescent and Widgee Road is strategically located and is
considered to form an important part of the pedestrian network in the area. It provides
pedestrian access for the residents of Kirkpatrick Crescent to bus stops on Widgee Road
and areas within the City of Swan to the north. It also provides access from Widgee
Road to the park at Kirkpatrick Reserve.
Alternative access routes via Bramwell and Camboon Roads or Quinn Court and a PAW
next to Morley Senior High School would involve a detour of approximately 500
metres. As such, the PAW is considered to be important to the daytime local pedestrian
network.
3.
4.
5.
Western Australian Planning Commission requirements
The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is the body responsible for the
final decision to close a pedestrian access way. The WAPC outlines the procedures to
follow regarding a PAW closure request in the WAPC Planning Bulletin No. 57.
A PAW closure report is required to be produced as part of the assessment identifying
the appropriateness and desirability of closing the PAW. The closure report addresses
the following components:
a)
Local pedestrian connections;
b)
Impact of the closure on surrounding facilities;
c)
Quality and impact of alternative routes;
d)
Access to facilities;
e)
Relationship of the PAW to the strategic pedestrian/cycle network; and
f)
Social difficulties experienced by adjoining landowners; and consideration of
alternative options to closure.
Council Policy
6.
Council has a policy to deal with requests for PAW closures. The policy requires that
the proposed closure be advertised for public comment via the following methods:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Placement of an advertisement in local newspaper(s);
Placement of signs at either end of the PAW;
Written notification to relevant public authorities; and
Written notification to surrounding landowners.
The PAW is across the road from the City of Swan. It is therefore recommended that the
City of Swan also be consulted in relation to the matter.
Page 104
7.
26 MAY 2009
It is considered that the proposed PAW closure should be advertised for public comment
given the concerns raised by an adjoining landowner. The proposed PAW closure
would be publicly advertised to the residents of the locality, City of Swan, local schools
(including Morley Senior High School) and relevant public authorities. Following the
public advertising period, the proposal would then be presented to Council for
consideration including information on any submissions.
Policy Implications
It is recommended that the City follow the requirements of Policy TP.P1.3 regarding
Pedestrian Access Way closure requests.
Financial implications
Should the closure process proceed, the land would be offered equally to all adjacent
landowners and all the PAW land is required to be sold. If all the PAW land is not sold, the
PAW closure cannot proceed. The land is owned by the Crown, so there are no financial
implications for the City.
Summary
It is considered that the proposal to close the PAW between Kirkpatrick Crescent and Widgee
Road, Noranda should be advertised for public comment prior to the further consideration of
Council. The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is the body responsible for
the final decision to close a pedestrian access way.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that in relation to the Pedestrian Access Way between Kirkpatrick
Crescent and Widgee Road, Noranda:
1.
The City prepare a Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) Closure Report in accordance
with the requirements of the Western Australian Planning Commission Planning
Bulletin No. 57 (Pedestrian Access Ways, May 2003).
2.
Following completion of the PAW Closure Report, the proposal be advertised for
public comment for a period of twenty-one (21) days by way of:
a)
Placement of signs at either end of the PAW;
b)
Written notification to:
c)
• The residents of the locality;
• The City of Swan;
• Relevant public authorities; and
• Local schools;
A notice in the local newspapers.
3.
Adjacent property owners be advised of Council’s resolution.
4.
Following the close of advertising a report be referred back to Council.
Page 105
13.17
26 MAY 2009
Proposed Policy Modification - Alfresco Dining
Attachments:
Officer:
Refer:
Existing and proposed policies
Item 12.4.4 : OMC : 25.01.05
Item 12.7.3 : OMC : 26.06.07
Item 12.7.1 : OMC : 28.08.07
Item 13.1.6 : OMC : 24.03.09
Application
To consider the final adoption of the amended ‘Alfresco Dining TP-P 5.3’ Policy following
public advertising.
Background
Council at its meeting of 24 March 2009, resolved to advertise the amended policy for public
comment in accordance with Scheme requirements. A notice was published in two local
newspapers for two consecutive weeks and the proposed amended policy was made available
for public comment for a period of twenty-one (21) days from 31 March 2009 to 21 April
2009. No submissions were received during the advertising period.
Comment
Current Process
1.
The purpose of the ‘Alfresco Dining’ policy is to provide direction and clarity to
developers, business owners and the community on the permissibility, use and
management of alfresco areas and relates solely to alfresco dining in thoroughfares and
public places.
2.
There are two issues with the current policy that the policy amendments seek to address:
3.
4.
a)
Council at its meeting of 28 August 2007, resolved that the City should fund and
install trading boundary plaques to ensure that alfresco activities occur only within
a designated area. At least 1.8 metres of footpath width is required to remain clear
to allow for pedestrian traffic past the al fresco area. The subject policy was not
updated at the time to reflect Council’s resolution. The amended policy
incorporates Council direction on the installation of trading boundary plaques.
b)
Applications for alfresco dining permits can currently be approved for a maximum
of six (6) alfresco tables under delegated authority from the Council. The
maximum number is considered to be low and may be a barrier to facilitating
active and vibrant streets.
Proposed Process
It is considered appropriate to amend the policy to address the issues noted above.
It is proposed to amend the policy to include information relating to the installation of
trading plaque boundaries and the requirement for al fresco activities to occur within
these boundaries. Trading boundary plaques are being installed in accordance with
Council directives, however the policy does not currently reflect these processes.
Page 106
26 MAY 2009
5.
It is also proposed to amend the maximum number of permitted alfresco dining tables.
The current policy allows for a maximum of six (6) alfresco dining tables. It is
proposed to revise this limit to ten (10) tables, subject to the minimum 1.8 metre wide
pedestrian clearway being provided and the amenity of the locality being protected. The
intent of the amendment is to encourage more alfresco dining activities in appropriate
areas to activate streets and create vibrant town centres.
6.
In addition, all chairs, tables, shade structures and the like are to be removed from the
footpath area when the associated eating house or food establishment is not in operation.
This allows pedestrians to use the space when it is not in use.
7.
The policy will continue to require sanitary facilities to be provided where patrons
combine to exceed 20 persons, in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.
8.
The benefits of the policy amendments include:
a)
b)
c)
Providing clearer information on Council’s requirements for al fresco dining
areas;
Streamlining of the alfresco dining application process; and
Encouraging more alfresco dining activities in appropriate areas to activate streets.
Policy Implications
Policy No TP-P 5.3 Alfresco Dining is proposed to be amended as outlined above.
Nil.
Summary
1.
The proposed amendments seek to update the policy with Council’s directives on the
installation of trading plaques from its meeting of 28 August 2007, provide clearer
information on Council’s expectations and encourage more alfresco dining activities in
appropriate areas to activate streets.
2.
The proposed amended policy has been advertised for public comment and no
objections have been received. It is recommended that Council adopt the proposed
amended policy.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that Council resolve to complete the final adoption of the amended
Policy No. TP-P 5.3 ‘Alfresco Dining’ pursuant to the provisions of Town Planning
Scheme No. 24 and Town Planning Scheme No. 23.
Page 107
14
BUSINESS – FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
14.1
Financial Reports for Period Ending 30 April 2009
Officer:
26 MAY 2009
Director of Finance
Application
To inform Council of the financial statements for the period ending 30 April 2009.
Background
The financial statements for the reporting period are submitted in the form of:
•
Financial Activity Statement Report
•
Net Current Asset Position
•
Reserve Fund Statement
•
Summary Schedule of Divisional Financial Activity
•
Divisional Summaries
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that the financial reports for the period ending 30 April 2009 be
received.
Page 108
26 MAY 2009
CITY OF BAYSWATER
FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENT REPORT
FOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY 2008 TO 30 APRIL 2009
% OF YEAR
REVENUE
General Purpose Funding
Law Order & Public Safety
Health
Welfare & Education
Housing
Community Amenities
Recreation & Culture
Transport
Economic Services
Other Property & Services
LESS
OPERATING EXPENDITURE
(1)
General Purpose Funding
Governance/Admin
Law Order & Public Safety
Health
Welfare & Education
(3)
Housing
Community Amenities
Transport
Economic Services
Other Property & Services
ADOPTED
BUDGET 2008-2009
ACTUAL
29,145,567
161,900
72,000
3,006,999
65,200
7,535,847
4,653,049
312,500
642,000
393,700
$45,988,762
28,119,040
114,544
114,746
5,071,969
57,688
7,104,421
4,367,018
255,587
520,766
372,153
$46,097,932
96.48
70.75
159.37
168.67
88.48
94.28
93.85
81.79
81.12
94.53
100.24
498,630
3,751,530
1,502,669
935,561
7,288,057
33,719
8,182,727
19,627,894
6,255,142
1,358,821
1,100,460
$50,535,210
489,581
3,174,250
1,371,889
776,450
5,599,327
117,365
6,746,310
16,705,687
4,969,402
993,332
952,787
$41,896,380
98.19
84.61
91.30
82.99
76.83
348.07
82.45
85.11
79.45
73.10
86.58
82.91
200,000
3,021,931
3,374,706
13,312
1,132,910
ADD
CONTRIBUTIONS/GRANTS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF ASSETS
Transport
Welfare
RLCIP Grants
Funding for Operations
$6,596,637
263,000
$1,409,222
$2,050,189
$5,610,774
ADD
DISPOSAL OF ASSETS
RESERVES MOVEMENT
PRINCIPAL LOAN RECOVERIES
EMPLOYEE PROVISIONS
DEPRECIATION
$431,000
$135,744
$62,634
($208,000)
$9,664,800
$10,086,178
$8,053,666
$9,356,491
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
$17,302,191
$7,510,018
$270,631
$976,289
$55,905
LESS
REPAYMENT OF DEBT
PROFIT/LOSS ON DISPOSAL OF ASSETS
OPENING BALANCE
CLOSING BALANCE
%
BUDGET
$392,842
($146,069)
$54,977
$17,548,964
$7,564,995
$5,412,597
$0
$5,297,877
$12,700,147
Explanation of expenditure greater than 10% of the average monthly estimates
(1) Annual Rates Paid on Council Properties
(3) Maintenance costs on Community Housing (Recoverable from restricted surplus funds)
Page 109
83.56%
26 MAY 2009
NET CURRENT ASSET POSITION AS AT 30 April 2009
2008/2009
2007/2008
SURPLUS SUMMARY REPRESENTED BY
CASH AT BANK AS AT 30 April 2009
$18,865,609
$19,340,599
$2,893,938
$3,633,926
STOCK
$108,133
$176,390
PREPAID EXPENSES
$125,858
($23,348)
DEBTORS/INCOME DUE NOT RECEIVED
G.S.T. CLEARING ACCOUNT
(Cleared at time of lodging B.A.S. return )
FIRE & SERVICES LEVY
CREDITORS
$21,993,538
$23,127,567
$287,987
$111,929
($133,940)
($2,569,307)
Deferred Movement - Pensioners/Other
($233,363)
($2,378,367)
$14,428
Aged Persons Homes
BALANCE AS AT 30 April 2009
As Per Summary of Divisional Activity
$4,982,803
$3,862,354
$24,575,509
$24,490,120
$7,312,958
$4,562,404
$6,598,585
$12,700,147
$17,891,535
LESS RESTRICTED ASSETS
RESERVES - GENERAL
RESERVES - AGED
CLOSING BALANCE AS AT 30 APRIL 2009
AS PER FINANCIAL ACTIVITY REPORT
Page 110
Page 111
26 MAY 2009
Page 112
26 MAY 2009
26 MAY 2009
SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF DIVISIONAL FINANCIAL ACTIVITY
AS AT 30 APRIL 2009
FROM
BUDGET (Revised)
INCOME
EXPENDITURE
01-Jul-08
ACTUAL
INCOME
EXPENDITURE
TO
30-Apr-09
75.07%
% ACT TO BUDGET
INC
EXP
OPERATING
Administration & Community Services
Aged Persons Homes
Planning & Development Services
Technical Services
Financial Services
$6,392,460
$4,911,516
$1,392,100
$11,398,513
$29,034,576
$12,431,436
$4,384,392
$3,990,414
$16,625,422
$3,621,135
$6,030,547
$3,618,803
$1,116,840
$8,308,558
$28,432,405
$10,268,809
$3,186,124
$3,104,637
$14,328,249
$2,954,894
94.34
73.68
80.23
72.89
97.93
82.60
72.67
77.80
86.18
81.60
TOTAL ALL OPERATING
$53,129,165
$41,052,799
$47,507,153
$33,842,713
89.42
82.44
CAPITAL
Administration & Community Services
Planning & Development Services
Aged
Technical Services
Financial Services - Recreation Centres
$2,264,119
$3,151,368
$200,061
$11,685,884
$87,500
Plant Trades
$1,100,276
$1,388,030
45254
$4,891,010
$85,448
($431,000)
TOTAL ALL CAPITAL
($270,631)
$16,957,932
TOTAL FROM OPERATIONS
$53,129,165
OPENING BALANCE 1 JUL 08
OPENING BALANCE 1 JUL 08
- Aged Persons Homes
$13,859,177
$1,860,970
$58,010,731
$7,239,387
$47,507,153
$41,082,100
$13,554,150
$4,595,378
CLOSING BALANCE 30 April 2009
$24,575,509
CLOSING BALANCE 30 JUNE 2009
Aged Persons Homes
$8,650,548
$1,857,825
BORROWINGS
Principal Loan Repayments - General
Principal Loan Repayments - Aged Persons Homes
Principal Loan Recoveries
TOTAL
$62,634
$330,208
$62,634
$62,634
$68,911,946
$54,977
$392,842
$55,905
$55,905
$54,977
$68,911,946
$65,712,586
$65,712,586
Page 113
Last Year
Income
Expenditure
$44,755,958 $39,984,373
26 MAY 2009
BUDGET 2008-2009
ADMINISTRATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
30-Apr-09
$10
Adopted Budget
Description
305
Revised Budget
2008/9
% OF YEAR
Actual
Commitment
Period 10
Total (Act +
Comm)
-5,585
-29,809
-46,994
-120
-18,436
-3,200
-62,373
-41,883
-2,487,817
-121,472
-6,737
-10,860
-24,343
-8,495
-351,870
-949,832
-104,952
-4,259
-4,831
-4,154
-14,744
-27,415
-7,525
-630
-1,153
-2,336
-25,852
-183,193
-331,215
-224,161
-196,343
-171,164
-110,337
-91,931
-27,516
-14,784
-9,312
-219,024
-49,138
-7,920
-26,831
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-5,585
-29,809
-46,994
-120
-18,436
-3,200
-62,373
-41,883
-2,487,817
-121,472
-6,737
-10,860
-24,343
-8,495
-351,870
-949,832
-104,952
-4,259
-4,831
-4,154
-14,744
-27,415
-7,525
-630
-1,153
-2,336
-25,852
-183,193
-331,215
-224,161
-196,343
-171,164
-110,337
-91,931
-27,516
-14,784
-9,312
-219,024
-49,138
-7,920
-26,831
-$6,392,460 -$6,030,547
$0
-$6,030,547
83.56%
%
Operating Income
SS10100
SS10120
SS10300
SS10301
SS10400
SS10405
SS10410
SS10420
SS10600
SS10610
SS10700
SS10705
SS10710
SS10801
SS10805
SS10810
SS11000
SS11105
SS11106
SS11107
SS11110
SS11111
SS11112
SS11115
SS11130
SS11145
SS11210
SS11300
SS11301
SS11302
SS11303
SS11305
SS11306
SS11307
SS11308
SS11310
SS11400
SS10800
SS11115
SS11120
SS11200
Total Operating Income
Members of Council
Chief Executive Officer's Offi
General Administration
Records Administration
Rangers
Security Watch
Animal Control
Parking Facilities
Bayswater Waves
Maylands Waterland
Bayswater Library
Maylands Library
Morley Library
Other Recreation & Sport
Embleton Golf Course
Maylands Golf Course
Community Programmes
Bayswater Senior Citizens
Morley Senior Cits
Maylands Autumn Ctre
Bayswater Podiatry
Morley Podiatry
Maylands Podiatry
Community Housing
Community Bus
Other Community Services
Other Admin & Comm Servic
HAAC Program - Administrat
Meals on Wheels
Adult Day Services
Aged in Home Care
BLIS
Social Support Prg
HACC Program Transport
Food Preparation
Counselling Support
Eric Strauss
Recreation & Sport
Community Housing
Rental Council Properties
Education
-$16,800
$0
-$8,200
-$400
-$17,000
-$12,500
-$78,400
-$72,000
-$2,649,819
-$130,000
-$5,555
-$9,875
-$23,600
-$66,500
-$320,000
-$1,007,200
-$161,700
-$5,000
-$1,000
-$2,100
-$15,000
-$26,000
-$7,500
$0
-$2,000
-$7,000
-$20,000
-$205,545
-$312,111
-$325,284
-$262,610
-$164,465
-$39,500
-$68,074
$0
$0
-$20,000
-$176,300
-$56,000
-$9,200
-$25,500
-$6,329,738
-$16,800
$0
-$39,900
-$400
-$17,000
-$12,500
-$78,400
-$72,000
-$2,649,819
-$130,000
-$5,555
-$9,875
-$23,600
-$66,500
-$320,000
-$1,012,700
-$161,700
-$5,000
-$1,000
-$2,100
-$15,000
-$26,000
-$7,500
$0
-$2,000
-$7,000
-$20,000
-$231,067
-$312,111
-$325,284
-$262,610
-$164,465
-$39,500
-$68,074
$0
$0
-$20,000
-$176,300
-$56,000
-$9,200
-$25,500
Page 114
33.24%
117.78%
30.00%
108.44%
25.60%
79.56%
58.17%
93.89%
93.44%
121.28%
109.97%
103.15%
12.78%
109.96%
93.79%
64.91%
85.18%
483.13%
197.81%
98.29%
105.44%
100.33%
57.67%
33.37%
129.26%
79.28%
106.12%
68.91%
74.77%
104.07%
279.33%
135.05%
46.56%
124.23%
87.75%
86.08%
105.22%
94.34%
26 MAY 2009
BUDGET 2008-2009
$10
30-Apr-09
Adopted Budget
Description
% OF YEAR
Revised Budget
2008/9
83.56%
Actual
Commitment
Period 10
Total (Act +
Comm)
$624,014
$566,913
$385,251
$53,415
$760,334
$283,192
$299,677
$670,447
$121,478
$95,654
$2,250,963
$129,199
$299,698
$293,825
$602,043
$8,651
$543,608
$26,385
$93,694
$331,690
$187,293
$32,998
$35,828
$35,434
$14,820
$23,926
$7,762
$89,281
$137,898
$14,637
$75,349
$11,197
$5,214
$19,657
$241,700
$243,053
$242,767
$161,190
$1,812
$153,859
$36,832
$50,486
$5,688
$0
$9,593
$483
$2,447
$123
$16,392
$5,837
$630
$2,145
$288
$0
$64,343
$7,947
$7,618
$6,770
$15,624
$0
$7,092
$0
$0
$36,662
$26
$0
$155
$0
$3,633
$11,760
$9,522
$25,230
$41,829
$0
$0
$0
$0
$14,928
$164
$33,868
$1,195
$509
$8,950
-$192
$0
$1,280
$2,751
$0
$633,607
$567,396
$387,698
$53,537
$776,726
$289,028
$300,307
$672,592
$121,767
$95,654
$2,315,306
$137,146
$307,315
$300,595
$617,666
$8,651
$550,700
$26,385
$93,694
$368,351
$187,319
$32,998
$35,983
$35,434
$18,453
$35,686
$17,284
$114,511
$179,727
$14,637
$75,349
$11,197
$5,214
$34,586
$241,863
$276,921
$243,962
$161,698
$10,761
$153,667
$36,832
$51,766
$8,439
$0
%
Operating Expenditure
SS10100
SS10120
SS10200
SS10210
SS10300
SS10301
SS10400
SS10405
SS10410
SS10420
SS10600
SS10610
SS10700
SS10705
SS10710
SS10800
SS10801
SS10805
SS10810
SS11000
SS11100
SS11105
SS11106
SS11107
SS11110
SS11111
SS11112
SS11115
SS11125
SS11130
SS11140
SS11145
SS11200
SS11210
SS11300
SS11301
SS11302
SS11303
SS11304
SS11305
SS11306
SS11307
SS11308
SS11400
Members of Council
Chief Executive Officer's Offi
Human Resources
Occupational Health & Safety
General Administration
Records Administration
Rangers
Security Watch
Animal Control
Parking Facilities
Bayswater Waves
Maylands Waterland
Bayswater Library
Maylands Library
Morley Library
Recreation & Sport
Other Recreation & Sport
Embleton Golf Course
Maylands Golf Course
Community Programmes
Community Services Adminis
Morley Senior Cits
Maylands Autumn Ctre
Bayswater Podiatry
Morley Podiatry
Maylands Podiatry
Community Housing
Youth Services
Community Bus
Community Events
Other Community Services
Education
Other Admin & Comm Servic
HAAC Program - Administrat
Meals on Wheels
Adult Day Services
Aged in Home Care
Volunteers
BLIS
Social Support Prg
HACC Program Transport
Food Preparation
Eric Strauss
$732,008
$1,018,683
$454,537
$100,775
$976,553
$375,786
$282,640
$758,554
$159,469
$133,869
$2,661,917
$157,470
$378,048
$376,259
$786,658
$2,290
$478,448
$31,370
$92,600
$364,600
$174,150
$44,158
$42,358
$41,621
$17,400
$22,850
$18,400
$7,930
$205,950
$20,400
$86,200
$7,000
$12,900
$15,450
$205,795
$312,501
$325,284
$256,610
$17,000
$164,465
$39,500
$67,480
$0
$20,000
$732,008
$1,018,683
$454,537
$100,775
$976,553
$375,786
$282,640
$758,554
$159,469
$133,869
$2,661,917
$157,470
$378,048
$376,259
$786,658
$2,290
$470,448
$31,370
$98,100
$350,600
$174,150
$44,158
$42,358
$41,621
$17,400
$22,850
$18,400
$7,930
$205,950
$20,400
$86,200
$7,000
$12,900
$15,450
$205,795
$312,501
$325,284
$256,610
$17,000
$164,465
$39,500
$67,480
$0
$20,000
Maintenance Costs
Total Operating Expenditure
Total Admin & Community Serv
86.56%
55.70%
85.30%
53.13%
79.54%
76.91%
106.25%
88.67%
76.36%
71.45%
86.98%
87.09%
81.29%
79.89%
78.52%
377.76%
117.06%
84.11%
95.51%
105.06%
107.56%
74.73%
84.95%
85.14%
106.05%
156.18%
93.94%
1444.03%
87.27%
71.75%
87.41%
159.95%
40.42%
223.85%
117.53%
88.61%
75.00%
63.01%
63.30%
93.43%
93.25%
76.71%
0.00%
0
$12,447,936
$12,431,436
$10,268,809
$339,599
$10,608,408
$6,118,208
$6,038,976
$4,238,262
$339,599
$4,577,861
Page 115
85.34%
26 MAY 2009
OPERATING INCOME
7000000
6000000
Budget
5000000
Progressive Actual
4000000
Straight Line
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
E
JUN
MAY
CH
IL
APR
M AR
ARY
R
RUA
FEB
U
JAN
Y
R
MBE
BER
R
MBE
ER
EMB
DEC
E
NO V
O
OC T
TE
SEP
UST
AUG
JULY
14000000
12000000
Budget
10000000
Straight Line
8000000
Progressive Actual
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
E
JUN
MA Y
IL
APR
CH
MA R
RUA
FE B
UAR
J AN
RY
Y
R
MBE
BER
ER
EMB
DEC
E
NOV
O
OCT
ST
BER
TE M
SEP
U
AUG
JULY
Page 116
26 MAY 2009
Capital Works Expenditure as at 2009
C=06/07,D=07/08,E=08/09
10
Description
%
Total Variance
Budget
Revised Budget
Actuals
Commtiments
0
8,000
0
8,000
280
8,997
0
0
280
8,997
0%
112%
8,000
8,000
9,277
0
9,277
116%
37,111
50,144
21,000
125,000
37,111
50,144
21,000
155,000
11,997
8,249
8,052
89,548
0
0
7,854
34,720
11,997
8,249
15,905
124,267
32%
16%
76%
80%
233,255
263,255
117,845
42,573
160,418
61%
20,000
35,000
40,000
20,000
5,000
48,500
476,500
0
0
0
9,000
12,000
10,000
100,000
15,000
15,000
202,000
207,000
30,000
15,000
10,000
4,000
4,000
31,000
50,000
3,500
5,000
50,000
25,000
20,000
10,000
35,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,000
25,000
54,644
20,000
5,000
79,295
475,861
17,530
0
0
9,000
12,000
10,000
100,000
15,000
15,000
202,000
207,000
30,000
15,000
10,000
4,000
4,000
31,000
50,000
3,500
5,000
50,000
25,000
20,000
0
35,000
4,500
3,000
7,000
9,000
6,650
10,000
10,000
30,000
2,500
1,106
2,830
29,088
0
0
78,826
274,139
17,531
1,455
102
4,743
13,293
3,723
84,148
17,450
10,282
2,917
0
35,520
15,000
0
3,975
3,213
17,193
0
3,500
1,738
0
14,724
15,459
0
26,664
3,100
2,065
6,225
7,740
6,650
4,631
0
21,464
0
0
0
6,350
0
0
8,305
156,801
0
0
0
4,509
0
6,995
2,937
0
0
276,195
0
32,844
0
0
0
0
156
9,960
0
1,525
50,000
320
0
0
0
0
0
2,080
0
0
0
8,219
0
1,660
1,106
2,830
35,438
0
0
87,130
430,940
17,531
1,455
102
9,252
13,293
10,719
87,085
17,450
10,282
279,112
0
68,364
15,000
0
3,975
3,213
17,348
9,960
3,500
3,264
50,000
15,044
15,459
0
26,664
3,100
2,065
8,305
7,740
6,650
4,631
8,219
21,464
1,660
6%
11%
65%
0%
0%
110%
91%
100%
0%
0%
103%
111%
107%
87%
116%
69%
138%
0%
228%
100%
0%
99%
80%
56%
20%
100%
65%
100%
60%
77%
0%
76%
69%
69%
119%
86%
100%
46%
82%
72%
66%
1,507,500
1,632,480
730,492
568,855
1,299,348
80%
Division: 10 - Administration & Community Services
SS18000 - Furniture & Equipment
D10100 - Security Services
E10200 - Switchboard and telephone upgrade - Depot
Sub Total
SS18010 - Computer Development
C10300 - Computer Development
D33200 - Computing
E10100 - COMPUTING - Libraries
E10300 - COMPUTING
Sub Total
SS18020 - Recreation Development
C11300 - BAYS Tennis Club - Synthetic turf courts
C11700 - Equal Access playground at Riverside Gardens
D11300 - Playgrounds
D11400 - Grand Prom Lighting Upgrade
D11500 - Pat OHara Lighting Upgrade
D11600 - Beaufort Park redevelopment
D11700 - Frank Drago Pitch and Lighting upgrade
D35200 - Maylands Tennis Club
D35300 - Hinds Reserve - Boat Store Facade
D35800 - Wotton Resv Skate Park - Audit & Security
E10400 - Cricket pitches
E10500 - Cricket matts
E10600 - Lower Hillcrest Turf Practice Wicket Replacement
E10700 - Playgrounds
E10800 - Cricket nets at Lower Hillcrest
E10900 - Tables and chairs (Lightweight)
E11000 - Wotton Reserve lighting
E11100 - Halliday Reserve upgrade
E11200 - Robert Thompson Reserve - Parkland Design
E11300 - Skate Park surrounds
E11400 - Dirt Jump Maintenance/Audit
E11500 - Fencing for Elstead Reserve
E11600 - 4th long jump pit, Noranda Sports Complex
E11700 - Maylands Bowling Club – green upgrade
E11800 - Trim Trail Equipment
E11900 - City of Bayswater Band - Equipment
E12000 - Maylands Playgroup - Equipment
E12100 - Riverside Gardens - Exercise Stations
E12200 - Skatepark Development
E12300 - Lightning Park - Play Equipment
E12400 - Grand Prom Jnr Cricket - Pitch
E12500 - Bedford Morley Cricket Club - Roller
E33100 - Crimea Reserve Fencing
E33200 - Noranda Athletics - Power to Track
E33300 - Fencing on Reserves
E33400 - Soccer Goal Replacements
E33500 - Bayswater Family Centre Equipment
E33600 - Beaufort Park BBQ
E33700 - Petanque Club Furniture
E35200 - Canoeing WA
E35400 - Noranda Athletics Track Water Fountain
Sub Total
Page 117
26 MAY 2009
Capital Works Expenditure as at 30 April 2009
C=06/07,D=07/08,E=08/09
Description
%
Total Variance
Budget
Revised Budget
Actuals
Commtiments
0
9,100
5,000
77,000
18,000
3,000
1,000
63,000
88,000
9,100
5,000
77,000
18,000
3,000
1,000
63,000
26,290
9,492
5,600
72,112
17,240
2,600
921
62,800
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26,290
9,492
5,600
72,112
17,240
2,600
921
62,800
30%
104%
112%
94%
96%
87%
92%
100%
176,100
264,100
197,056
0
197,056
75%
7,250
1,025
7,250
1,025
0
1,050
6,591
0
6,591
1,050
91%
102%
8,275
8,275
1,050
6,591
7,640
92%
750
1,000
1,080
1,080
6,750
750
1,000
1,080
1,080
6,750
0
990
0
0
6,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
990
0
0
6,000
0%
99%
0%
0%
89%
10,660
10,660
6,990
0
6,990
66%
750
750
749
0
749
100%
750
750
749
0
749
100%
1,029
14,024
524
1,029
14,024
524
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
15,577
15,577
0
0
0
0%
0
0
20,521
5,001
19,961
3,843
0
983
19,961
4,826
97%
97%
0
25,522
23,804
983
24,787
97%
24,000
24,000
1,613
0
1,613
7%
24,000
24,000
1,613
0
1,613
7%
4,500
7,000
4,500
7,000
4,583
6,818
0
0
4,583
6,818
102%
97%
Sub Total
11,500
11,500
11,402
0
11,402
99%
Administration & Community Services Total
1,995,617
2,264,119
1,100,276
619,002
1,719,278
76%
Division: 10 - Administration & Community Services
SS18030 - Bayswater Waves - Furniture & Equipment
D12400 - Health Equipment
E12600 - Lane ropes
E12700 - Lane rope winders
E12800 - Pool blankets
E12900 - Pool blanket powerpacks
E13000 - Pay phone
E13100 - Spinal board rescue
E13200 - Cardio bikes
Sub Total
SS18040 - Bayswater Library Furniture & Equipment
E14000 - Customer service desk (partial replacement)
E14100 - Mobile shelving
Sub Total
SS18050 - Morley Library Furniture & Equipment
E13500 - Newspaper display stand
E13600 - Security tag desensitiser
E13700 - Sevice trolleys - staff use (4)
E13800 - Patron trolleys (4)
E13900 - DVD/CD repair unit
Sub Total
SS18060 - Maylands Library Furniture & Equipment
E14200 - Chairs - Children area (10)
Sub Total
SS18070 - Public Open Space Capital Development
C17100 - POS Silverwood Reserve
C17500 - POS Puntie Cres Reserve
C17600 - POS Anchorage Park Resv
Sub Total
SS20150 - Community Services - Capital
E35000 - HACC - Vehicle
E35100 - HACC - Computer
Sub Total
SS20180 - Security Services
E25300 - 2 x Bollard camera packs inclusive of installatio
Sub Total
SS20190 - Maylands Waterland - Equipment
E13300 - Breathing apparatus x two units
E13400 - Shade shelter
Page 118
26 MAY 2009
BUDGET 2008-2009
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
305
30-Apr-09
10
% OF YEAR
83.56%
Revised Budget
YTD Actual
Commitment
Period 10
Total (Act +
Comm)
% of Revised
Budget
-305,800
-471,100
-615,200
-349,723
-317,991
-449,127
0
0
0
-349,723
-317,991
-449,127
114.36%
67.50%
73.00%
-$1,392,100
-$1,116,840
$0
-$1,116,840
80.23%
298,100
212,600
401,580
440,055
436,240
132,570
9,660
1,168,449
891,270
0
249,618
128,335
388,446
366,326
343,292
132,943
7,998
836,936
650,719
25
20,885
33,910
9,970
62,683
0
0
0
32,554
1,677
0
270,503
162,245
398,416
429,008
343,292
132,943
7,998
869,490
652,396
25
90.74%
76.31%
99.21%
97.49%
78.69%
100.28%
82.79%
74.41%
73.20%
Expenditure Sub Total
$3,990,524
$3,104,637
$161,679
$3,266,316
81.85%
Total Planning & Development Services
2,598,424
1,987,797
161,679
2,149,476
Description
Operating Revenue
SS11700 - Planning & Building Services
SS13500 - Planning Department
SS13600 - Building Department
Revenue Sub Total
700 - Building Maintenance
750 - Special Building Mntce
800 - Cleaning Maintenance
900 - Preventative Maintenance
4123 - Electricity Charges
4125 - Water
4126 - Gas
SS13500 - Planning Department
SS13600 - Building Department
SS13610 - Special Building Maintenance
Page 119
26 MAY 2009
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING & BUILDING ORDINARY INCOME
(Excludes Capital Income)
1600000
1400000
1200000
1000000
Budget
Straight Line
Progressive Actual
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
J UN
E
M AY
CH
IL
AP R
MAR
UAR
Y
UAR
R
FEB
J AN
Y
ER
EMB
DE C
ER
EMB
NO V
BER
TEM
R
OBE
OCT
SEP
UST
AUG
JULY
4500000
4000000
3500000
Budget
3000000
Straight Line
2500000
Progressive Actual
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
J UN
E
M AY
CH
IL
AP R
MAR
UAR
Y
UAR
R
FEB
J AN
Y
ER
EMB
DE C
ER
EMB
NO V
ER
BER
B
TEM
O
OCT
SEP
UST
AUG
JULY
Page 120
26 MAY 2009
C=06/07,D=07/08,E=08/09
10
30 April
Description
%
Total Variance
Budget
Revised Budget
Actuals
Commtiments
23,900
255,562
150,000
15,000
10,000
0
23,900
363,275
150,000
15,000
10,000
143,000
0
70,571
0
23,893
18,722
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70,571
0
23,893
18,722
0
0%
19%
0%
159%
187%
0%
454,462
705,175
113,186
0
113,186
16%
0
40,247
16,800
0
105,000
6,000
25,000
54,200
72,922
28,200
0
57,791
2,500
12,555
4,000
80,000
24,000
0
114,420
114,420
114,420
123,808
10,000
7,000
500
8,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
500
3,000
600
20,000
10,000
5,000
30,000
30,000
50,000
6,000
50,000
10,000
2,000
0
0
54,447
16,800
0
105,000
6,000
0
40,000
72,922
28,200
0
2,746
2,500
12,555
4,000
0
24,000
0
112,765
112,764
112,764
138,096
10,000
7,000
500
8,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
500
3,000
600
20,000
10,000
5,000
30,000
30,000
50,000
6,000
50,000
10,000
2,000
2,000
2,261
55,399
16,800
1,350
0
7,985
0
3,985
4,186
1,800
1,000
4,034
0
0
2,536
0
10,909
3,240
59,710
57,210
28,605
33,052
8,564
3,569
60
7,402
1,288
5,149
0
713
10
540
0
0
2,690
0
0
0
2,130
0
9,768
0
1,818
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,502
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
540
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,261
55,399
16,800
1,350
0
7,985
0
6,487
4,186
1,800
1,000
4,034
0
0
2,536
0
10,909
3,240
59,710
57,210
28,605
33,052
8,564
3,569
120
7,402
1,288
5,149
0
713
10
1,080
0
0
2,690
0
0
0
2,130
0
9,768
0
1,818
0%
102%
100%
0%
0%
133%
0%
16%
6%
6%
0%
147%
0%
0%
63%
0%
45%
0%
53%
51%
25%
24%
86%
51%
24%
93%
26%
103%
0%
143%
0%
180%
0%
0%
54%
0%
0%
0%
35%
0%
98%
0%
91%
1,253,883
1,105,159
337,761
3,102
340,862
31%
Division: 20 - Planning & Development Services
SS19010 - Bayswater Waves Building Improvements
C40000
C40200
E16200
E16300
E16400
E35600
Bayswater Waves - 50m Pool Renovations
Bayswater Waves - Major Improvements
Fence
New front counter
New benches in changerooms
Bayswater Waves Gymn Extensions (Grant)
Sub Total
SS19020 - Building Constructiuon/Upgrades
C30600
C42800
D12200
D12800
D13500
D14100
D14300
D14400
D14600
D14800
D15100
D15200
D15400
D15500
D15700
D15800
D35900
D36100
D36200
D36300
D36400
D36500
E14300
E14400
E14500
E14600
E14700
E14800
E14900
E15000
E15100
E15200
E15300
E15400
E15500
E15600
E15700
E15800
E15900
E16000
E16100
E16500
E35300
Sub Total
Whittock Street
Bayswater City Soccer Club - Building Improvemen
Turnstiles
Upgrade
125 King William Street
Roof insulation
Airconditioning
Ellis House
Signs & Hot Water
Eric Strauss
Floor mtce (City res
Frank Drago Grandstand
Upgrade structural
Hampton Square Scout Hall
Kitchen and storero
Les Hansman
Preliminary Design/
Morley/Noranda Bowling Club Airconditioning
Morley Sport & Recreation - Upgrade Fascade
Morley Sport & Recreation - Kiosk Stove
Morley Sport & Recreation - Wellinton Room Tables
Noranda Netball Club
Security
Peninsula Hotel
Bay Window
Strutt Way Resv
Clubroom Upgrade
Bayswater SES - New Roof
N
Joan Rycroft Reserve - Toilets
Grand Prom Reserve - Toilets
Claughton Reserve Reserve - Toilets
Maylands Library - Toilets
Maylands Autumn Centre
Install reverse cycle
Install reverse cycle
Go/slow seniors sig
Install ramp or pavi
Morley Training Centre
Kitchen Facilities
Morley Training Centre
Air Conditioner
Install extra cupboa
Install exhaust fan i
Install island bench
Purchase pie warm
Bedford Bowling Club
Structural damage
Bayswater Tennis
Concrete steps on
Bedford Bowling Club
Shower in ladies ro
Robert Thompson Reserve
Building Design
Strutt Reserve
Design & Documen
Maylands Sportsmans (Bowling Design & Documen
Bayswater Tennis Club
Shed/storage
Building Audit
Maylands Dragon Club
Storage
Morley Public Library
Upgrade external lig
Houghton Reserve -Shelving
Page 121
26 MAY 2009
C=06/07,D=07/08,E=08/09
10
Description
%
Total Variance
Budget
Revised Budget
Actuals
Commtiments
0
0
0
0
16,455
99,876
23,543
100,000
100,000
73,843
0
0
0
16,455
99,876
58,386
100,000
100,000
98,313
1,350
0
14,000
2,500
63,875
60,121
0
0
24,470
0
0
0
2,500
0
1,284
0
0
122,783
1,350
0
14,000
5,000
63,875
61,405
0
0
166%
0%
0%
0%
30%
64%
105%
0%
0%
339,874
448,560
240,158
28,254
268,412
60%
10,000
17,930
17,918
62,010
952,615
215,317
40,000
30,000
10,000
18,580
8,546
51,045
551,229
190,654
32,420
30,000
0
1,775
8,546
0
600,074
54,111
32,420
0
0
0
0
0
7,504
0
0
0
0
1,775
8,546
0
607,579
54,111
32,420
0
0%
10%
100%
0%
110%
28%
100%
0%
1,345,790
3,394,009
892,474
3,151,368
696,925
1,388,030
7,504
38,860
704,430
1,426,890
79%
45%
Division: 20 - Planning & Development Services
SS19030 - Major Capital Works
C30000
C30200
C32000
C32100
C32200
C32300
C32400
D12500
D12600
Administration Centre Building
Administration Centre Car Park Landscaping
Noranda Regional Sporting Complex
Foreshore Development
Maylands Multipurpose Centre
Henley Brook - Consulting
Maylands Town Centre Upgrade
Residential Density Review/HouStudy
Town Planning Schemes
Sub Total
SS19040 - Works Bfwd Planning & Development
C33700
C33800
C35600
C36300
C36400
C38500
C38700
C38900
Sub Total
ervices Total
Bayswater Senior Citizens - Replace Roof
Bayswater Tennis Club - Retaining Wall
Morley/Noranda Sports Club - Clubrooms Houghton Reserve (Upper) Upgrades
RA Cook Reserve - Club Rooms/Changerooms - N
Bardon Park Toilets
Wotton Resv Windmill Soccer Club - Entry Stateme
Hampton Park Scouts - Improvements
Page 122
26 MAY 2009
DIVISIONAL BUDGET 2008-2009
TECHNICAL SERVICES
10
30-Apr-09
Revised Budget
08/09
304
% OF YEAR
83.29%
Total (Act + % of Revised
Comm)
Budget
Actual
Commitment
Period 10
-29,500
-61,000
-36,000
-36,000
0
-200
-4,192,066
-6,200,211
-525,000
-318,036
-500
-13,452
-38,288
-45,489
-69,258
-3,398
-1,500
-1,371,407
-6,139,352
-294,478
-331,396
-540
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-13,452
-38,288
-45,489
-69,258
-3,398
-1,500
-1,371,407
-6,139,352
-294,478
-331,396
-540
45.60%
62.77%
126.36%
192.38%
-$11,398,513
SUB TOTAL
Expenditure
100
General Maintenance
3,037,544
300
Median Maintenance
476,200
400
Grounds Maintenance
4,232,430
0
SS10820 Golf Courses - Plant Costs Embl
0
SS10825 Golf Course Plant Cost - Maylan
SS11600 Other
0
SS11610 TennisCourt/Wicket
0
SS11905 Health - Other
139,800
179,359
SS11906 Sustainable Environment Service
SS11910 BVES
58,400
SS11911 Mat&Infant Hlth Ctres
8,500
SS11915 Prevent SVC. Immunisation
55,960
SS11916 Prevent SVC. Administration
683,091
SS12000 Public Works
-6,480
SS12001 Plant Operation
6,480
SS12100 Tech Serv Administration
631,310
SS12101 Depot
23,600
SS12110 Other Technical Services
125,010
SS13100 Other Technical Services Extern
0
SS13200 Sanitation - Domestic
5,617,247
SS13205 Recycling
450,000
SS13206 Sanitation - Commercial
301,036
SS13207 Litter Control
262,437
SS13208 Environmental Maintenance
35,000
SS13900 GIS
308,498
Maintenance Costs
-$8,308,558
$0
-$8,308,558
72.89%
2,323,731
450,517
3,737,045
16,967
28,560
0
6,795
84,417
80,380
37,951
2,726
63,247
596,393
161,070
132,521
697,405
27,622
55,519
274
4,625,235
376,406
252,283
328,054
35,975
207,157
167,917
6,174
122,561
3,009
0
1,679
0
1,182
1,984
0
0
5,165
172
9,699
7,254
1,420
1,729
6,921
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,423
2,491,648
456,691
3,859,607
19,977
28,560
1,679
6,795
85,599
82,365
37,951
2,726
68,412
596,564
170,769
139,775
698,825
29,350
62,440
274
4,625,235
376,406
252,283
328,054
35,975
213,579
82.03%
95.90%
91.19%
82.34%
83.65%
83.80%
125.00%
102.79%
69.23%
$343,290 $14,671,539
88.25%
Description
Income
SS11905
SS11910
SS11915
SS11916
SS12000
SS12100
SS12110
SS13200
SS13205
SS13206
SS13900
Health - Other
BVES
Prevent SVC. Immunisation
Prevent SVC. Administration
Public Works
Tech Serv Administration
Other Technical Services
Sanitation - Domestic
Recycling
Sanitation - Commercial
GIS
SUB TOTAL
Total Net Operations
$16,625,422 $14,328,249
$5,226,909
$6,019,691
Page 123
$343,290
$6,362,981
750.00%
32.71%
99.02%
56.09%
104.20%
108.00%
61.23%
45.92%
64.98%
32.08%
122.25%
87.33%
110.69%
124.37%
49.95%
26 MAY 2009
TECHNICAL SERVICES
18000000
16000000
14000000
12000000
Budget
10000000
Progressive
Actual
Straight Line
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
J UN
E
IL
MAY
AP R
H
RUA
UAR
RY
Y
ER
EMB
ER
EMB
C
MAR
FEB
J AN
DEC
NOV
R
MBE
R
OBE
OCT
E
SEPT
UST
AUG
JULY
Page 124
26 MAY 2009
C=06/07,D=07/08,E=08/09
10
30 April
Description
%
Variance
Budget
Revised Budget
Actuals
Commtiments
Total
0
92,145
0
104,400
184,500
62,400
192,000
100,000
287,550
65,000
0
86,296
0
104,400
184,500
62,400
192,000
100,000
287,550
65,000
1,334
0
9,016
381
186,399
74,658
202,310
68,144
251,003
0
0
0
0
0
2,952
4,545
3,287
0
0
0
1,334
0
9,016
381
189,351
79,203
205,597
68,144
251,003
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
103%
127%
107%
68%
87%
0%
1,087,995
1,082,146
793,245
10,785
804,030
74%
24,976
25,000
190,000
160,000
24,976
25,000
190,000
160,000
3,097
4,425
9
0
1,350
0
0
0
4,447
4,425
9
0
18%
18%
0%
0%
399,976
399,976
7,530
1,350
8,880
2%
0
0
0
0
21,000
94,939
50,000
0
100,000
12,000
36,000
5,000
21,000
20,000
16,000
14,000
34,000
48,000
34,000
13,000
51,000
52,000
30,000
16,000
50,000
30,000
60,000
15,000
0
0
0
0
21,000
94,916
49,198
0
100,000
12,000
36,000
5,000
21,000
20,000
16,000
14,000
34,000
48,000
34,000
13,000
51,000
52,000
30,000
16,000
50,000
30,000
60,000
15,000
197
0
0
1,151
15,989
0
0
4,200
79,386
14,815
22,598
0
21,778
25,409
13,599
12,355
28,143
38,564
26,996
13,306
47,368
45,651
1,467
14,696
39,365
27,418
0
0
0
0
0
1,217
0
0
0
0
13,541
0
8,119
2,713
0
0
1,518
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26,594
0
6,970
0
0
0
197
0
0
2,368
15,989
0
0
4,200
92,927
14,815
30,717
2,713
21,778
25,409
15,117
12,355
28,143
38,564
26,996
13,306
47,368
45,651
28,061
14,696
46,334
27,418
0
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
76%
0%
0%
0%
93%
123%
85%
54%
104%
127%
94%
88%
83%
80%
79%
102%
93%
88%
94%
92%
93%
91%
0%
0%
822,939
822,114
494,450
60,672
555,122
68%
Division: 30 - Technical Services
SS20000 - Arterial Road Construction
D20000
D20100
D20200
D20300
E16800
E16900
E17000
E17100
E17200
E17300
Whatley Crs
Garrett to Veitch
Whatley Crs
4th to 8th
Benara Rd
Holden to Millerick
Coode St
Young to Hester
Crimea St (Morley tMRRG
Beaufort St (grand MRRG
Beechboro Rd NortMRRG
Grand Promenade Direct Grant
Grand Promenade MRRG
Whatley Crescent (Extra Funds)
Sub Total
SS20010 - Black Spot
Whatley Crescent - King William/ Cood
Walter Road West - Russell Street
Crimea St (Collier to Walter)
Russell St/Marchant Way
C51000
C51100
E16600
E16700
Sub Total
SS20030 - Base Grant Road Reconstruction
C55000
D20400
D20500
D20600
D20800
D20900
D21000
D21500
E17400
E17500
E17600
E17700
E17800
E17900
E18000
E18100
E18200
E18300
E18400
E18500
E18600
E18700
E18800
E18900
E19000
E19100
E19200
E19300
Carparks
Carparks
Renew Kerbing
Renew Drainage
View St
4th to Central
Kirkham Hill Tce East st to Peninsula
Peninsular Rd
Guildford to 6th
Hayden Cl
Clifford to cul de sa
Slade St (Whatley to Guildford)
Aughton St (Slade to Cobden)
Murray St (Leake to King)
Glyde St
Hill St (Leake to King)
Almondbury (Milne to Leake)
Wills St
Gilbert St (Rosher to Traylen)
Rowlands St (Whatley to Guildford)
Caledonian Ave (Whatley to Guildford)
Foundry St (Caledonian to Charles)
Morrison St (Foundry to Guildford)
Charles St (Whatley to Guildford)
Belgrave St (Whatley to Guildford)
Wall St
Carparks
Renew Drainage
Renew Kerbing
Coode St (Extra Funds)
Thomas St ROW Lighting
Sub Total
Page 125
26 MAY 2009
C=06/07,D=07/08,E=08/09
10
Description
%
Variance
Budget
Revised Budget
Actuals
Commtiments
Total
0
0
38,836
0
0
26,000
63,000
59,000
91,000
19,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
58,000
7,000
60,000
48,000
23,000
19,000
5,000
0
0
14,346
0
0
26,000
63,000
59,000
91,000
19,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
58,000
7,000
60,000
48,000
23,000
19,000
5,000
0
699
18,986
2,570
169
0
11,666
0
86,953
21,594
11,711
11,353
7,994
56,600
3,661
53,063
37,964
35,261
6,788
3,323
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,167
0
0
0
0
0
1,604
0
0
0
0
676
0
0
0
699
18,986
2,570
169
0
18,833
0
86,953
21,594
11,711
11,353
9,597
56,600
3,661
53,063
37,964
35,937
6,788
3,323
0%
0%
132%
0%
0%
0%
30%
0%
96%
114%
84%
81%
69%
98%
52%
88%
79%
156%
36%
66%
558,836
534,346
370,352
9,447
379,799
71%
6,030
0
7,600
3,300
700
11,300
3,400
500
200
5,000
6,700
500
7,600
2,900
7,200
8,000
800
14,800
13,800
11,807
18,500
600
700
0
8,500
30,000
15,000
15,000
14,327
0
549,036
68,784
4,770
6,090
2,585
0
0
3,300
700
11,300
1,165
500
200
5,000
3,727
500
0
2,900
7,200
8,000
800
14,800
13,800
7,015
18,500
600
700
0
8,500
30,000
15,000
15,000
14,327
0
537,971
68,784
4,770
6,090
0
0
17,911
1,953
508
13,310
3,883
0
0
5,068
1,122
0
400
998
6,627
8,143
0
13,179
0
0
13,577
0
0
2,220
125
23,319
15,287
0
9,820
4,177
585,602
6,368
5,670
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
874
0
0
0
0
0
17,911
1,953
508
13,310
3,883
0
0
5,068
1,122
0
400
998
6,627
8,143
0
13,179
0
0
13,577
0
0
2,220
125
23,319
15,287
0
9,820
4,177
586,476
6,368
5,670
0
0%
0%
0%
59%
73%
118%
333%
0%
0%
101%
30%
0%
0%
34%
92%
102%
0%
89%
0%
0%
73%
0%
0%
0%
1%
78%
102%
0%
69%
0%
109%
9%
119%
0%
SS20040 - Roads to Recovery
C62000
C62400
C63000
C63300
D22700
D23400
D23500
D23600
E19400
E19500
E19600
E19700
E19800
E19900
E20000
E20100
E20200
E20300
E20400
E20500
Drynan Street-Langley to Beach
King Street-Beach to John
Roberts Street
Guildford Rd Lights
Wardall Pl
Shadwell to cul de s
Ninth to Whatley
Holm/Charles
Charles Street - Ferguson to Holm Stre
Bramwell (Bunuya to Kirkpatrick)
Davidson Pl
Barnard Pl
Aitken Pl
Quinn Crt
Kirkpatrick Crs
Thornbar Pl
Bellew Way
Strutt Way
Turon St (Baileys to Beechboro)
Olfe St (Hamilton to Slade)
Cross St
Sub Total
SS20050 - Footpath/Slab Replacement Programme
C68800
D24000
D24400
D24500
D24600
D24700
D24800
D25200
D25300
D25400
D25600
D25700
D25800
D26700
D26800
D27500
D27800
D27900
D28000
D28100
D28200
D28300
D28700
D28900
D29100
D29200
D29300
D29400
D29500
D29800
D35000
D35100
E20600
E20700
Coode-From Walter Road to Crossove
BEAUFORT
From Coode Street
CATHERINE
From Leith Place to
CHARNWOOD
From Boundary 63
CHARNWOOD
From Junction Ashb
CHARNWOOD
From Junction Ashb
COODE
From Catherine Str
CRAVEN
From Kerbline of C
DARBY
From Guildford Roa
GRAFTON
From Guildford Roa
HOLLET
From Junction Laug
HOLLET
From Junction Eshe
HOLLET
From Paine Road to
NEVILLE
From Crossover at
NEVILLE
From Milne Street t
PAW
From Compton Wa
ROBERTS
From Almondbury S
SALISBURY
From Cross over at
SALISBURY
From Crossover at
STONE
From Garratt Road
STUART
From Alma Street to
WALTER
From Walter Road
Strutt Reserve
From Path junction
Shaftsbury
Kirkham Hill Tce
Anzac St:Whatley to Cobden
Lawrence St:Catherine to Craven
Marchant Way:Dewer-Post
Leak St:Nevile -Bellvue
Guildford Rd B/Paving
PSP Bayswater Train Stn - Tonkin High
PSP Tonkin Highway - Bassendean Tr
ARMADA
Drake Street
ARUNDEL
Lawrence Street
Page 126
E20800
E20900
E21000
E21100
E21200
E21300
E21400
E21500
E21600
E21700
E21800
E21900
E22000
E22100
AUGHTON
Slade Street
BANSTEAD
Paine Road
BANSTEAD
Bend in Banstead W
BANSTEAD
Colwyn Road
BYFLEET
Fitzgerald Road
CATHERINE
Rosebery Street
CHARLES
No.27-33 Charles S
COLLIER
Priestley Street
COOMBE
Grafton Road
Frimley Way Brick Paving
Guildford Road Brick Paving
Principle Shared Path Stage II
Newton Street (Guildford to Cul-de-sac
McGregor Street (Disabled)
Sub Total
26 MAY 2009
6,420
6,880
1,840
12,100
5,640
6,480
13,440
9,480
15,390
18,000
50,000
1,520,131
34,000
15,000
6,420
6,880
1,840
12,100
5,640
6,480
13,440
9,480
15,390
18,000
50,000
1,520,131
34,000
15,000
3,094
0
0
17,819
4,780
546
11,571
0
10,128
7,467
0
0
14,365
16,802
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,094
0
0
17,819
4,780
546
11,571
0
10,128
7,467
0
0
14,365
16,802
48%
0%
0%
147%
85%
8%
86%
0%
66%
41%
0%
0%
42%
112%
2,558,245
2,518,535
825,837
874
826,712
33%
71,296
21,344
42,101
9,375
0
248,187
9,803
17,922
0
231,290
346,000
60,000
35,000
70,000
70,000
10,000
15,000
0
0
71,296
27,176
53,782
9,375
0
246,349
5,970
16,109
0
231,290
346,000
60,000
35,000
70,000
70,000
10,000
15,000
60,000
60,000
0
1,654
0
0
0
225
1,458
17,078
389
226,301
218,194
57,268
14,777
3,865
2,762
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
626
0
37,704
115,641
1,013
2,960
0
0
0
0
0
1,845
0
1,654
0
0
0
225
1,458
17,705
389
264,005
333,836
58,281
17,737
3,865
2,762
0
0
0
1,845
0%
6%
0%
0%
0%
0%
24%
110%
0%
114%
96%
97%
51%
6%
4%
0%
0%
0%
3%
1,257,318
1,387,347
543,971
159,790
703,761
51%
75,000
100,000
0
78,196
0
120,000
100,000
30,000
150,000
55,000
0
0
0
71,121
100,000
0
75,139
45,455
120,000
100,000
30,000
150,000
55,000
60,000
2,862
7,273
0
28,054
0
4,927
0
0
6,868
4,167
32,364
4,270
0
0
0
0
2,780
-9,000
10,131
0
9,950
0
10,000
18,838
1,079
0
0
0
0
30,834
-9,000
15,058
0
9,950
6,868
14,167
51,202
5,348
0
0
0
0%
31%
0%
20%
0%
8%
7%
47%
34%
10%
0%
0%
0%
708,196
816,850
80,650
43,778
124,428
15%
SS20060 - Parks Development
C78100
C78900
C92800
C93000
D29900
D30100
D30300
D30400
D30600
D35500
D35600
D36000
E22200
E22300
E22400
E22500
E22600
E35700
E35800
Parks Development-Foreshore Restora
Parks Development-Gobba Lake 05/06
Maylands Foreshore
River Area Beautification
General Reserve Emergency Breakd
Grand Promenade Median
Catherine St - Edward to Strand
Roundabouts
Shade House includFor horti apprentice
Gibbney Resv Rehabilitation
Turbine Pump Replacement Programm
Guildford Rd - Ninth & Caledonian
Dakota and Anchorage
Shearn Park Reticulation
Joan Rycroft (Lawn)
Aviation Park
Kelvin,Swanview Lookout
Robert Thompson Redevelopment (Gra
Halliday House Landscaping
Sub Total
SS20070 - Environmental Development
D31400
D31500
D31600
D31700
D36600
E23600
E23800
E23900
E24000
E25400
E33800
E33900
E34000
Lightning Swamp
Bardon Park
Eric Singleton
Tranby
Chisolm College Drainage
Tranby Foreshore Restoration Project
Bayswater Brook Water quality impro
Lightning Park Environmental Area
Eric Singleton Bird Sanctuary
Swan Lake Restoration Project
Lighting Swamp - Boardwalk
Claughton Resv - Melaleuca Swamp
Gobba Lake - Swan Alcoa Landcare P
Sub Total
Page 127
26 MAY 2009
C=06/07,D=07/08,E=08/09
10
Description
%
Variance
Budget
Revised Budget
Actuals
Commtiments
Total
0
9,836
15,833
15,000
14,563
80,000
0
30,000
80,000
40,000
18,000
6,000
6,000
20,000
20,000
40,000
10,000
0
13,596
15,737
15,000
20,861
80,000
0
30,000
80,000
40,000
18,000
6,000
6,000
20,000
20,000
40,000
10,000
2,750
2,513
0
0
689
0
2,934
0
0
0
0
5,957
5,025
0
2,278
25,969
300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,750
2,513
0
0
689
0
2,934
0
0
0
0
5,957
5,025
0
2,278
25,969
300
0%
18%
0%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
99%
84%
0%
11%
65%
3%
405,232
415,194
48,415
0
48,415
12%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
76,510
0
91,282
55,000
14,952
96,769
0
0
0
0
119,949
0
15,000
65,000
25,000
6,000
6,000
3,500
25,000
40,000
15,000
15,000
340,000
20,000
0
26,000
20,000
60,000
0
40,112
0
89,884
55,000
14,952
96,769
0
0
0
0
59,949
0
15,000
65,000
25,000
6,000
6,000
3,500
25,000
40,000
15,000
15,000
340,000
20,000
0
26,000
20,000
60,000
8,918
12,343
24
2,289
0
0
7,272
780
11,119
0
4,000
0
17,347
3,867
4,750
4,139
2,707
0
0
0
7,410
0
0
210,278
49,148
0
45,350
2,752
44,675
0
0
0
14,471
0
0
0
10,236
0
0
0
128,990
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,479
56,000
5,880
0
1,715
9,918
8,918
12,343
24
16,760
0
0
7,272
11,016
11,119
0
4,000
128,990
17,347
3,867
4,750
4,139
2,707
0
0
0
7,410
0
0
230,757
105,148
5,880
45,350
4,467
54,593
0%
31%
0%
19%
0%
0%
8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
215%
0%
26%
7%
17%
45%
0%
0%
0%
19%
0%
0%
68%
526%
0%
174%
22%
91%
1,135,962
1,038,166
439,170
247,689
686,860
66%
SS20080 - Traffic Management
D30800
D30900
D31000
D31100
D31200
D31300
D34700
D35700
E23000
E23100
E23200
E23300
E23400
E23500
E30800
E30900
E31000
General
TMPaving
Roadwise
Kirkham Hill Tce/Elizabeth
Catherine St Cul de sacs
Russell/Catherine R/B
Essex St - May andParking Embaymen
Kirkham Hill Tce/Watson Place
Bath Road
Railway/Beechboro07/08 $20,000
Beaufort St/Nelson Parking
Goldmead /Rosher guardrail
Peninsula/Swan Bank guardrail
Puntie Crescent cul-de-sac
General
TMP Paving
Roadwise
Sub Total
SS20100 - Plant/Fleet Equipment Purchases
D33000
Plant Replacement
Sub Total
SS20110 - Other Technical Services Capital
C90200
C90600
C90700
C91200
C91400
C91500
D12900
D32000
D32100
D32300
D32500
D32600
D32700
D32800
E23700
E24100
E24200
E24300
E24400
E24500
E24600
E24700
E24800
E32100
E32200
E35500
E90000
E90100
E90200
Street Light Upgrades
Underground Power
Bayswater Primary School Parking
Claughton Reserve Jetty/Car Park
Whatley/Guildford (Brick Pave Entry an
Whatley Crescent Lighting
Administration Cen Pond
Street Light Upgrades
Crossovers
Golf Course Development
Street Light Survey
East St Jetty
Guildford rd MRWA
WAAMI
Entry Statements
Entry Statements - Industrial Areas
Morley Scout Hall
Morley Senior CitizeUpgrade landscapin
Bayswater Senior CUpgrade landscapin
Washdown RBFS Maylands Boat Ram
Depot Storage - Asphalt
Wright Crescent On-Street Parking
PAW Gates and Lighting
Crossovers
Reinstatements
Bike Racks
Bus Shelters
Sundry Works
Street Lighting
Sub Total
Page 128
26 MAY 2009
C=06/07,D=07/08,E=08/09
10
Description
%
Variance
Budget
Revised Budget
Actuals
Commtiments
Total
19,111
24,506
19,111
28,419
0
2,420
2,436
0
2,436
2,420
13%
9%
43,617
47,530
2,420
2,436
4,857
10%
0
0
0
41,416
20,000
109,300
87,295
63,767
0
0
0
113,870
20,000
109,300
87,295
63,767
159
0
39
72,454
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
159
0
39
72,454
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
64%
0%
0%
0%
0%
321,778
394,232
72,652
0
72,652
18%
126,179
5,700
15,000
19,800
9,500
50,000
106,100
0
15,000
19,800
9,500
50,000
704
0
6,017
0
0
44,928
0
0
881
0
0
909
704
0
6,898
0
0
45,837
1%
0%
46%
0%
0%
92%
226,179
200,400
51,648
1,790
53,438
27%
16,000
16,000
14,744
0
14,744
92%
16,000
16,000
14,744
0
14,744
92%
1,742,000
1,742,000
1,035,116
562,562
1,597,678
92%
1,742,000
1,742,000
1,035,116
562,562
1,597,678
92%
49,000
11,232
18,000
12,100
30,000
2,900
7,000
10,000
18,925
8,000
18,000
12,100
15,000
0
0
0
2,460
1,431
0
0
0
8,752
0
0
2,140
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,920
4,600
1,431
0
0
0
8,752
0
4,920
24%
18%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
140,232
72,025
12,643
7,060
19,703
27%
90,500
89,023
2,107
0
2,107
2%
90,500
89,023
2,107
0
2,107
2%
15,000
70,000
25,000
15,000
70,000
25,000
14,180
70,000
11,880
0
7,600
5,000
14,180
77,600
16,880
95%
111%
68%
110,000
11,625,005
110,000
11,685,884
96,060
4,891,010
12,600
1,120,834
108,660
6,011,844
99%
51%
SS20120 - Works Bfwd Technical Services Grants
C58900
C59500
Kelvin ST - Mephan to Swan View Tce
Claughton Res-Access Rd 05/06
Sub Total
SS20130 - Works Bfwd Other Technical Services
C75100
C91900
C92000
C92100
C92300
C92400
C92500
C92700
Path Construction-McKenzie/P 05/06
Noranda Regional Sporting Complex Kataning St - Industrial Area - 05/06
Beaufort St Improvement Works - 05/0
Railway Pde Crossing - 05/06
Riverside Gardens Jetty - 05/06
Transby House Jetty - 05/06
Riverbank Funding Precinct 9 - 05/06
Sub Total
SS20135 - Golf Course Development - Embleton
D33400
D33500
D33600
D33700
D33800
E32300
Replacement Green Keepers Shed
Provision of Concrete Concourse
Reticulation Upgrade
Expansion Of Carpark
Refence McGregor Sudlow
Golf Course Development
Sub Total
SS20140 - Health Dept Capital
E24900
Rion NA -28 SoundStatutory requireme
Sub Total
SS20160 - Plant & Equipment
E33000
Plant/Fleet & Equipment
Sub Total
SS20165 - Golf Course Development - Maylands Peninsula
D33900
D34000
D34100
D34200
D34300
D34400
D34500
D34600
New Entrance and Portal
Resolve Flooding Issues
Lift Bottom Tier 5 th Green
Fence Storage Compound Survey Bou
Reticulation Upgrade
Repair Brickwork Clubhouse
Air Condition Pro Shop
Air Condition Function Room
Sub Total
SS20170 - Public Open Space - Tech Services
C17800
POS Gobba Lake
Sub Total
SS20200 - GIS Capital
E25000
E25100
E25200
Spatial Development
GSP Fleet Monitoring
Plant Replacement Survey Equipment
Sub Total
Technical Services Total
Page 129
26 MAY 2009
BUDGET 2008-2009
FINANCIAL SERVICES
AS AT 30 APRIL 2009
Description
Revised Budget
Commitme
nts
Actual
Total
% Varience
Operating Income
RATE INCOME
1004
Rates Levy
1004
Rates Minimums
1004
1001
1003
1002
1005
-22,901,243
-22,922,034
0
-22,922,034
100.09
-2,369,493
-2,364,390
0
-2,364,390
99.78
Rates Interims
-407,800
-270,049
0
-270,049
66.22
Interest on Instalments
Late Payment Penalty
Instalment Charges
Rates Written Off
-105,000
-100,000
-95,000
5,000
-295,000
-97,984
-89,286
-106,490
3,694
-290,067
0
0
0
0
0
-97,984
-89,286
-106,490
3,694
-290,067
93.32
-2,704,940
-267,500
-47,000
-22,000
-19,000
-600
0
-5,000
-3,066,040
-2,272,500
-256,455
-28,696
0
-10,416
-672
-567
-16,559
-2,585,865
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2,272,500
-256,455
-28,696
0
-10,416
-672
-567
-16,559
-2,585,865
-$29,039,576
-$28,432,405
$0
-$28,432,405
97.91
325,330
15,905
265,998
13,668
0
0
265,998
13,668
81.76
89.29
112.10
73.88
98.33
Other Revenue
SS13300
SS12300
SS12501
SS10129
SS12500
SS10350
SS12502
1141
Other Financial Services
Administration Financial S
Morley Sport and Recrea
ED Other
Alma Venville Recreation
Galleria Office
Maylands Waterland-YM
LSL Contributions
Total Financial
Services Revenue
84.01
95.87
61.06
0.00
54.82
112.01
331.18
84.34
4146
4428
Insurance
Workers Comp Premium
SS12300
SS10500
SS12301
SS13300
SS10350
SS10125
SS10129
SS10127
SS10126
SS12900
SS13000
201501
Financial Services Admin
Computer Services
Rates
Other Financial Services
Galleria Morley Shop
EDP - General
EDP OTHER
EDP - Eastern Metro Reg
EDP - Communication
Stock Clearing Accounts
Suspense
Contribution To W.A.F.B
SS12501 MorleySprt&RecCentre
SS12500 AlmaVenville RecCtre
SS12502 M'lndsWaterPlaygrnd
TOTAL FINANCE
Services Expenditure
85.94
$341,235
$279,666
$0
$279,666
81.96
1,344,266
587,655
293,437
238,753
138,601
122,121
73,000
20,707
14,000
0
0
68,000
1,093,739
484,590
256,117
268,188
91,674
94,184
46,954
21,472
6,420
-1,828
4,446
67,895
777
17,516
0
2,023
484
0
5,548
0
1,045
20,663
26,619
0
1,094,516
502,105
256,117
270,211
92,158
94,184
52,501
21,472
7,465
18,835
31,065
67,895
81.42
189,550
180,640
9,170
127,506
103,786
10,086
0
0
0
127,506
103,786
10,086
109.99
$3,279,900
$2,675,228
$74,675
$2,749,903
83.84
$3,621,135
$2,954,894
$74,675
$3,029,569
83.66
Page 130
85.44
87.28
113.18
66.49
77.12
71.92
103.69
53.32
99.85
67.27
57.45
26 MAY 2009
FINANCIAL SERVICES
ALL INCOME
35000000
30000000
25000000
Budget
Progressive Actual
20000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
E
JUN
MAY
CH
IL
APR
MAR
ARY
R
RUA
FEB
U
JAN
Y
R
R
MBE
BER
R
MBE
E
EMB
DEC
E
NO V
O
OCT
TE
SEP
UST
AUG
Y
JUL
4000000
3500000
3000000
Budget
Straight Line
2500000
Progressive Actual
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
E
JUN
MAY
CH
IL
APR
M AR
R
RU A
FEB
Y
Y
UAR
JAN
ER
EMB
DEC
R
MBE
E
NO V
R
O BE
O CT
BER
TEM
SEP
US T
AUG
Y
JUL
Page 131
14.2
26 MAY 2009
Accounts Payable as at 26 May 2009
Attachments:
Officer:
Schedule of Accounts Submitted 26 May 2009 for
Treasurer's Advance A/c
Director of Finance
Application
To consider the schedule of accounts to be paid as at 26 May 2009.
Background
CERTIFICATE OF TREASURER
SUMMARY OF SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS PAID
FUND
VOUCHER NO.
ELECTRONIC FUND
TRANSFERS
TREASURER’S ADVANCE
ACCOUNT FUND
AMOUNT
CANCELLED CHEQUES
FROM PREVIOUS MONTH
$5,363,743.07
149421 - 150189
EF000092
$3,379,314.82
148287
148753
149141
149227
149375
which was submitted to each member of the Council on 22 May 2009 has been checked and is
fully supported by vouchers and invoices which are submitted herewith and which has been
duly certified as to the receipt of goods and the rendition of services and as to prices,
computations, and costings and the amounts shown are due for payment.
TOTAL OF ALL OTHER ACCOUNTS OUTSTANDING AS AT 30 APRIL 2009
TREASURER’S ADVANCE ACCOUNT FUND
________________________________
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
Page 132
$377,425
26 MAY 2009
CERTIFICATE OF MAYOR
SUMMARY OF SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS PAID
FUND
VOUCHER NO.
ELECTRONIC FUND
TRANSFERS
TREASURER’S ADVANCE
ACCOUNT FUND
AMOUNT
CANCELLED CHEQUES
FROM PREVIOUS MONTH
$5,363,743.07
149421 - 150189
EF000092
$3,379,314.82
148287
148753
149141
149227
149375
which was submitted to each member of the Council on 22 May 2009 has been checked and is
fully supported by vouchers and invoices which are submitted herewith and which has been
duly certified as to the receipt of goods and the rendition of services and as to prices,
computations, and costings and the amounts shown are due for payment.
TOTAL OF ALL OTHER ACCOUNTS OUTSTANDING AS AT 30 APRIL 2009
TREASURER’S ADVANCE ACCOUNT FUND
$377,425
_____________________________________
MAYOR
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that the Schedule of Accounts be passed for payment.
Page 133
26 MAY 2009
ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS
to
01 April 2009
Amount
Date
30 April 2009
Details
MUNICIPAL FUND
01-Apr-09
0.00
To Advance Account
02-Apr-09
0.00
To Advance Account
03-Apr-09
0.00
To Advance Account
06-Apr-09
1,000,000
To Advance Account
07-Apr-09
0.00
To Advance Account
08-Apr-09
0.00
To Advance Account
14-Apr-09
0.00
To Advance Account
15-Apr-09
0.00
To Advance Account
16-Apr-09
774,000.00
To Advance Account
17-Apr-09
0.00
To Advance Account
20-Apr-09
106,000
To Advance Account
21-Apr-09
1,529,000.00
To Advance Account
22-Apr-09
42,000.00
To Advance Account
23-Apr-09
268,000.00
To Advance Account
24-Apr-09
58,000.00
To Advance Account
28-Apr-09
214,000.00
To Advance Account
29-Apr-09
0.00
To Advance Account
30-Apr-09
0.00
To Advance Account
Total
$
3,991,000.00
RATES - DIRECT DEPOSITS CLEARING ACCOUNT
01-Apr-09
3,624.46
Transfer to Municipal Fund
02-Apr-09
4,115.37
03-Apr-09
7,160.85
06-Apr-09
5,135.70
07-Apr-09
7,928.04
08-Apr-09
11,373.06
09-Apr-09
8,979.25
14-Apr-09
1,380.14
15-Apr-09
7,563.35
16-Apr-09
9,052.98
17-Apr-09
11,671.36
20-Apr-09
7,377.42
21-Apr-09
5,049.06
22-Apr-09
3,190.96
23-Apr-09
3,681.02
24-Apr-09
3,543.40
28-Apr-09
6,682.15
29-Apr-09
0.00
30-Apr-09
0.00
Total
$
107,508.57
TREASURER'S ADVANCE ACCOUNT
08-Apr-09
506,799.08
22-Apr-09
497,311.42
Net Payroll - City of Bayswater/Waves
20-Apr-09
130,765.00
ATO - PAYG Taxation - CV149927
24-Apr-09
130,359.00
ATO - PAYG Taxation - CV150076
Total
TOTAL
$
1,265,234.50
$
5,363,743.07
Page 134
Net Payroll - City of Bayswater/Waves
14.3
26 MAY 2009
Investment Portfolio as at 30 April 2009
Officer:
Director of Finance
Application
To present the investment portfolio as at 30 April 2009 for Council consideration.
Background
Comparison of Council’s investments with previous year:
$
General Funds
30 April 2009
Average
Rate
%
%
24,233,814
3.99
89.47
2,853,342
4.00
10.53
100.00
Trust
$27,087,156
30 April 2008
Average
$
Rate
%
23,609,066
7.99
2,735,430
7.92
$26,344,496
%
89.62
10.38
100.00%
Council’s investments are currently placed with financial institutions as follows :
Westpac
Bendigo Bank
Bank West
ANZ Bank
Total
8,077,322
5,800,290
8,329,618
4,879,926
29.81
21.42
30.76
18.01
100.00%
$27,087,156
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that the report on the investment portfolio as at 30 April 2009 be
received.
Page 135
INVESTMENT REGISTER
As at 30 April 2009
Invest.No. Lodged through - date Borrower
AGED PERSONS - CARRAMAR RESVERVE
40636 221749
27Feb09 WESTPAC
TOTAL AGED PERSONS - CARRAMAR RESVERVE
AGED PERSONS - MUNICPAL
61711 726608
27Feb09 BENDIGO BANK
71601 2211554
23Feb09 WESTPAC
71700 742574
06Apr09 BANK WEST
TOTAL AGED PERSONS - MUNICPAL
%
26 MAY 2009
Term Mature
Inv.Amount
Inv. Yield
Curr.Yield
4 4m
30-Jun-09
1,462,513.15
1,462,513.15
19,667.94
19,667.94
10,970.13
10,970.13
3.57 4m
4 127
4.3
85
30-Jun-09
30-Jun-09
30-Jun-09
2,584,388.13
500,000.00
800,000.00
3,884,388.13
30,578.28
6,946.12
7,893.56
45,417.96
17,065.73
3,971.06
2,855.17
23,891.96
30-Jun-09
146,773.35
146,773.35
2,039.01
2,039.01
1,165.69
1,165.69
Aged Homes - Mertome Caps
61607 221589
23Feb09 WESTPAC
TOTAL Aged Homes - Mertome Caps
4
Mertome Reserve
40337 221757
27Feb09 WESTPAC
TOTAL Mertome Reserve
4 4m
30-Jun-09
132,270.94
132,270.94
1,778.78
1,778.78
992.15
992.15
AGED PRUDENTIAL RESERVE
40436 221570
23Feb09 WESTPAC
TOTAL AGED PRUDENTIAL RESERVE
4
30-Jun-09
369,508.60
369,508.60
5,133.30
5,133.30
2,934.69
2,934.69
AGED UNIT VILLAGES RESERVE
40236 221765
27Feb09 WESTPAC
TOTAL AGED UNIT VILLAGES RESERVE
4 4m
30-Jun-09
36,730.29
36,730.29
493.95
493.95
275.51
275.51
City of Bayswater Hostel Reserv
62505 221722
26Feb09 WESTPAC
TOTAL City of Bayswater Hostel Reserve
4 4m
30-Jun-09
431,712.29
431,712.29
5,853.62
5,853.62
3,285.84
3,285.84
7.65 6M
30-Jun-09
278,534.68
278,534.68
16,535.02
16,535.02
13,243.27
13,243.27
4
30-Jun-09
914,245.60
914,245.60
12,700.92
12,700.92
7,261.05
7,261.05
4.25 3m
09-May-09
4.13 4m
20-May-09
3.55
30 29-May-09
4.2
90 13-Jun-09
4.2
91 21-Jun-09
4.2
91 21-Jun-09
2.95 12m
30-Jun-09
4.2
82 30-Jun-09
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,014,454.14
1,002,884.38
1,013,961.65
556,836.91
937,366.86
563,168.77
8,088,672.71
10,302.63
26,972.50
2,861.32
10,092.15
10,321.09
5,668.03
5,197.15
5,210.54
76,625.41
10,068.12
24,000.58
690.66
5,909.00
5,154.76
2,830.84
1,212.16
1,814.48
51,680.59
AGED LEAVE LIABILITY RESERVE
40132 700949
24Sep08 BENDIGO BANK
TOTAL AGED LEAVE LIABILITY RESERVE
Prudential Reserve - ILU
62603 221562
23Feb09 WESTPAC
TOTAL Prudential Reserve - ILU
71001
63801
70804
71202
70101
70201
25520
71102
GENERAL
036073 220 09Feb09 WESTPAC
48703
20Jan09 BENDIGO BANK
749074
30Apr09 BANK WEST
222389
16Mar09 WESTPAC
222565
23Mar09 WESTPAC
222573
23Mar09 WESTPAC
11AM AT CA 21Apr09 BENDIGO BANK
743556
09Apr09 BANK WEST
TOTAL GENERAL
MUNICIPAL - RESTRICTED CASH
70501 44039
30Mar09 ANZ BANK
TOTAL MUNICIPAL - RESTRICTED CASH
RESERVE
71301 44055
31Mar09 ANZ BANK
71401 740514
31Mar09 BANK WEST
71501 740516
31Mar09 BANK WEST
TOTAL RESERVE
41020
41220
59308
70703
TRUST - GENERAL
036-073 22 27Feb09 WESTPAC
036-073 22 27Feb09 WESTPAC
036-073 22 27Feb09 WESTPAC
44012
30Mar09 ANZ BANK
TOTAL TRUST - GENERAL
127
127
127
4
92
30-Jun-09
64,319.38
64,319.38
642.10
642.10
265.88
265.88
4
4.3
4.3
91
91
91
30-Jun-09
30-Jun-09
30-Jun-09
2,472,149.65
1,000,000.00
4,951,994.91
8,424,144.56
24,542.88
10,578.75
52,385.91
87,507.54
9,947.53
4,278.28
21,186.03
35,411.85
4 3M
4 3M
4 3M
4
92
29-Jun-09
29-Jun-09
29-Jun-09
30-Jun-09
60,604.84
74,974.04
374,306.07
2,343,457.21
2,853,342.16
810.28
1,002.39
5,004.42
23,394.72
30,211.81
458.27
566.93
2,830.37
9,687.36
13,542.93
27,087,155.84
304,607.37
164,921.54
8,077,322.11
5,800,289.67
8,329,617.82
4,879,926.24
27,087,155.84
29.81%
21.41%
30.75%
18.01%
100.00%
TOTAL INVESTMENTS
INTEREST EARNED:
Total Interest
Annualised Interest
Average Yield
Average Number of Days
304,607.30
1,099,762.10
7
7
4
100.2
6%
0
Page 136
WESTPAC
BENDIGO
BANKWEST
ANZ BANK
26 MAY 2009
INTEREST EARNINGS FOR YEAR 2008/2009
Date:
30-Apr-09
MONTHLY PROGRESSIVE INTEREST EARNINGS
Percentage of year elapsed:
Month
Municipal
Reserve
83.29
Trust
Total
Progressive %
of Budget
Jul-08
161,001
58,647
20,828
240,476
17.86
Aug-08
201,146
111,604
31,595
344,345
25.58
Sep-08
376,438
160,116
35,152
571,706
42.46
Oct-08
488,679
204,053
24,059
716,791
94.05
Nov-08
598,558
244,692
30,087
873,337
64.87
Dec-08
775,467
276,000
1,051,533
78.10
Jan-09
801,282
303,830
20,173
1,125,285
83.58
Feb-09
916,540
327,522
22,125
1,266,187
94.05
Mar-09
920,781
352,330
2,670
1,275,781
94.76
Apr-09
978,691
376,296
13,543
1,368,530
101.65
-
May-09
Jun-09
FULL YEAR BUDGET ESTIMATES
BUDGET
$
Municipal
$
925,818
Reserve
$
350,495
Page 137
Trust
$
70,000
Total
$
1,346,313
14.4
26 MAY 2009
Applicant:
Officer:
Director of Finance
Application
To consider a request from Bayswater Village Retail Traders Association for financial
assistance of $10,000 towards the 2009 Street Festival to be held on 1 November 2009.
Background
The Bayswater Village Retail Traders Association had its inaugural Street Festival in
November 2006 and a follow-up Festival in March 2008, with some 10,000 people attending
each event.
The festivals have been managed by Lead On, on behalf of Bayswater Village Retail Traders
Association.
The funding of the festivals is sourced from three areas as follows :
1.
2.
3.
LotteryWest grant
City of Bayswater
The business community
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
The Bayswater Village Retail Traders Association has written to Council advising that it has
again applied to LotteryWest for funding of $15,000. In addition to this it is also seeking
funding from other sources, i.e. Healthway, and has requested that the City of Bayswater
considers committing $10,000 to this event.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that an allocation of $10,000 for the 2009 Bayswater Street Festival be
included in the draft 2009/2010 Budget considerations.
Page 138
14.5
26 MAY 2009
Donation - Fresh Start
Applicant:
Officer:
Fresh Start
Director of Finance
Application
To consider an application for financial assistance towards the Fresh Start Recovery
Programme.
Background
Fresh Start Recovery Programme is dedicated to providing world’s best treatment and
rehabilitation to sufferers of addiction in an attempt to counteract the problem and the cost to
sufferers, their families and all Western Australians.
Addiction ruins lives, destroys families and weakens our society.
The organisation currently treats over 1,000 people per year from all areas of Western
Australia. In 2008, it had 6,500 presentations to the clinic for treatment, detoxification,
medical and allied health services.
The applicant has advised the following statistics for presentation of clients residing within
the City of Bayswater :
Maylands
Bayswater
Morley and Noranda
TOTAL
100
85
120
305
The cost of running the clinic is partially covered by public support, a state government grant
but mostly by Dr O’Neil and his family.
The applicant is seeking $8,000 from Council towards the continuation of this programme.
Fresh Start has extended an invitation to Councillors or officers of the City to attend one of
the clinic’s treatment days on any Wednesday or Saturday.
Comment
Fresh Start has not sought financial assistance from Council in the past, however considering
the number of people from the City treated by this organisation for their addiction, it is
suggested than an amount of $1,000 be donated.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that Council grants a donation of $1,000 towards the ongoing
fundraising campaign of the Fresh Start Recovery Programme to enable the
continuation of the treatment and rehabilitation of sufferers of addiction.
Page 139
14.6
26 MAY 2009
Donation - WA Police Legacy Child Safety Handbook
Applicant:
Officer:
Marsh Agencies Pty Ltd
Director of Finance
Application
To consider a request from Western Australian Police Legacy for financial support towards
the publication of its annual 'Child Safety Handbook' by way of taking out advertising space.
Background
First published in 1994 for WA Police Legacy, the 'Child Safety Handbook' is an Australiawide publication and has been in New Zealand since 2006.
This handbook is a guide for both parents and children to prepare for the unexpected. It
provides comprehensive information on a wide range of issues relevant to primary school
children about to embark on high school life. It deals with many personal safety strategies in
the home, school and community. This year the handbook is to be updated to include chapters
relevant to life in 2009. With the increasing danger of internet predators, it is now necessary
for our children to be knowledgeable about on-line safety. They also need to know the
dangerous effects and consequences of the use of drugs and alcohol. There is also help and
advice for children dealing with serious issues of today such as youth suicide and depression.
Free copies are distributed to all school children in year 7 throughout Western Australia each
year. This year distribution will coincide with Police Week in September and the book will
also be available at various events including the Perth Royal Show.
The advertisers supporting this book, its publication and distribution provide valuable
resources and financial support to Western Australian Police Legacy Inc. Western Australian
Police Legacy is aimed at rendering personal and/or financial aid, assistance and benefits to
surviving spouses, dependent children of deceased members and totally incapacitated
members, who were either serving or former police officers or persons employed in training to
become a sworn police officer.
Comment
In the past, Council has supported this Handbook by advertising each year since 2002 as
follows :
$380 in 2002, $385 in 2003 and 2004, $396 in 2005, $418 in 2006 and 2007 (with the
publication being arranged through Millbank Publications); and
•
$370 in 2008 (when Police Legacy arranged publication themselves).
Previously the City has taken out a 1/12 page advertisement which, this year, costs $480 plus
GST.
•
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that Council takes advertising space (1/12 page) in the WA Police
Legacy Child Safety Handbook at a cost of $480 plus GST.
Page 140
14.7
26 MAY 2009
Computer Monitors in Council Chambers
Officer:
Refer:
Director of Finance
Item 9.1 : Council 14.04.09
Application
To consider the introduction of monitors being installed onto the Councillors’ table in the
Council Chambers.
Background
At its meeting of 14 April 2009, Council resolved :
“that a report is brought for Council consideration on the introduction of computer
monitors in the chambers. The information to include, but not limited to options,
costs, savings and take into account Councillors who may want to retain the print
option rather than a paperless Agenda.”
The following are options that Council may consider :
Option 1:
To install an upright monitor for each Councillor in the Council chambers to allow the
viewing of the agenda during the course of the Council meeting (i.e. replicate what is
currently shown on the screens and monitor in the chambers).
Benefits:
1.
Simple to maintain.
2.
Can be linked in with the current system.
3.
Can easily be installed.
4.
Cost effective.
Constraints:
1.
Possible obstruction of viewing and working area on the desks.
2.
Non interactive - only displays what is shown on the current screen and monitors.
Costs:
Equipment
Samsung 943BW 19” widescreen LCD Monitors
5m VGA Cables
10m VGA Cable
Installation
1
Equipment Total
GST
Total
Unit Qty
Amount
10
12
1
2,481.30
239.40
39.00
1,360.00
4,119.70
411.97
$4,531.67
Option 2:
To continue producing the hard copy agendas and the agenda diskette.
Benefits:
No changes in procedures required.
Page 141
26 MAY 2009
Constraints:
Nil - Current systems are in place.
Costs:
Currently it costs the City approximately $26,438 per annum to produce agendas. This
equates to $21.60 per copy and approximately $2,238 per annum to produce the agenda
diskettes which equates to $7.80 per diskette.
Option 3:
To install interactive touch sensitive screens linked to a computer for each Councillor.
Benefit:
Each councillor can control his/her own agenda.
Constraints:
1.
Significant increase in costs.
2.
Difficult installation and high level of maintenance.
3.
Regular upgrades of computer system to ensure that processes, etc. are compatible with
current technology.
4.
Ensuring that each PC has the current agenda installed.
5.
Synchronisation with the process of the Agenda and Minutes Secretary.
Costs:
Estimated costs $30,000.
Option 4:
Councillors bringing to each meeting the laptops they have been issued with, and using them
during the meeting.
Benefit:
1.
Cost savings.
2.
Allows Councillors to control their agendas at their own pace.
Constraints:
1.
Set-up time.
2.
Desk space.
3.
Each Councillor would need to bring his/her computer to each Council meeting.
4.
Each Councillor would be required to load the computer with the latest agenda prior to
the meeting.
Costs:
Minimal – additional power points.
Comment
The above options are based on using the City’s computing expertise and resources.
Voting Requirements
Page 142
26 MAY 2009
Council Discussion:
There was discussion on each individual Councillor’s preference to retain a paper agenda
or to view the Agenda via monitor. Council resolved to install a central hub type set up to
enable the viewing of the Agenda via individual laptop computers as well as Councillors
being able to retain the paper Agenda system.
CR TERRY BLANCHARD MOVED, CR SALLY PALMER SECONDED that the report on
computer monitors in Council Chambers be considered.
At 7:36pm, the Executive Assistant withdrew from the meeting and returned at 7:40pm.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR TERRY BLANCHARD MOVED, CR MICHAEL SABATINO SECONDED that:
1.
The report on computer monitors be received.
2.
Council adopt option 4 with laptops being connected to a central hub so that all
Councillors’ monitors are on the same page at the same time.
3.
Any Councillor who wishes to maintain the paper Agenda can do so by informing
the Chief Executive Officer.
CARRIED
Page 143
14.8
26 MAY 2009
Local Government Reform
Officer:
Application
To report on the next four stages of the Local Government Reform Agenda over the period
May to August 2009.
Background
As reported on 24 March and 28 April, the Reform Timeframe is in five stages with a final
submission required to be lodged with the Minister for Local Government by 31 August.
In order to meet this deadline, there are numerous steps that need to be enacted over the next
four months which the Minister has laid down in his Reform Timeframe below, and he
suggests that all Councillors become involved in the process.
Timeframe/Tasks as Set Down by
Minister
Stage 2
April/May 2009
• Project team established (2-3 members
from each local government).
•
Action
Yes
Project team meets as required to
determine
preferred
amalgamation
structure.
Yes
•
Project team to determine appropriate
elected member representation and
methods for ensuring appropriate
community representation.
• Project
team to consider local
government regional grouping.
• Seek
State Government funding
assistance as necessary for preparing
Reform Submissions.
• If
required,
consultant/facilitator
engaged.
• Community consultation
undertaken
within each affected local government
and comments recorded.
Stage 3
May/June 2009
• Project
team
develops
Reform
Submission to include :
o preferred amalgamation structure or
other types of boundary adjustments;
o number of elected members; and/or
o regional grouping; and
o transition
timeline,
including
timeframe and estimated additional
transition costs.
Yes
Date
Planned For
Comment
24 March 2009:
Cr L Magro, Cr I McClelland, JP
Cr S Albert
• Met 6 April and 23 April
• Met with Town of Vincent 7
April
• Met with City of Swan 14 April
• Met with City of Stirling 16 April
• Town of Bassendean has now
advised that it is ready to meet
with City of Bayswater
Pending
24 March 2009
Ongoing
Partially Done
24 March
Councillor workshop
3 June
Councillor workshop
3 June
Pending
26 May meeting
Lindsay Delahaunty
-
Pending
June/July
Pending
End June
Pending
Pending
End June
End June
Pending
End June
Page 144
Timeframe/Tasks as Set Down by
Minister
Stage 4
June/July 2009
• Project
team
finalises
Reform
Submission and circulates to affected
local governments
• Each council passes a resolution to
proceed based on the findings of the
submission.
• Each council agrees to identify a date the
amalgamation is to take effect.
• Each council is to agree to a date at
which elected member numbers will be
reduced.
Stage 5
August 2009
• Local governments forward the Reform
Submission to the Minister for Local
Government by 31 August 2009.
Action
26 MAY 2009
Comment
Date
Planned For
Pending
Mid July
Pending
11 August
Pending
August
Pending
August
31 August
It should be noted that to fulfil the Minister’s requirement as laid down in his Reform
Timeframe we need to have a Council workshop in order to form a firm position on the whole
issue of amalgamation, and then to further pursue dialogue with our neighbouring councils.
We also need to research and develop a business case for our submission.
It is suggested that an initial workshop be held on this matter on 3 June and that Lindsay
Delahaunty (former Chief Executive Officer of City of Stirling) act as the facilitator for this.
The Minister has also announced the availability of a $10,000 grant to facilitate councils in
their journey for reform. An application for this grant is currently being prepared and is the
subject of Item 14.9 of this agenda.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that Council:
1.
2.
3.
Adopt the program as laid down by the Minister for Local Government in his
Local Government Structural Reform Process.
Hold a workshop on 3 June 2009 to discuss the Local Government Reform Agenda
process.
Adopt the Local Government Reform Committee Timeframe for the Reform
Process.
Page 145
14.9
26 MAY 2009
Local Government Reform Funding Program
Officer:
Director of Finance
Application
Council consideration of an application for funding to assist with the cost of the lead-up to,
and preparation of, the Reform Submission.
Background
When the Minister for Local Government announced the Local Government Reform Program
on 18 February 2009, he advised that the Program would culminate in a submission to the
Minister by 31 August 2009.
The purpose of the funding is :
“The objective of the Local Governance Reform Funding Program is to provide local
governments with financial assistance to assist with the preparation of a Reform
Submission in response to the Minister’s request that each local government inform
him of their intention for reform by 31 August 2009.
The detail of a Reform Submission will comprise an assessment addressing the
sustainability and increased capacity of local governments through consideration
of :
•
amalgamations/boundary adjustment
•
representation
•
regional groupings; and
•
amalgamation transition timeline.
When preparing a Reform Submission, consideration should also be given to the
Local Government Advisory Board’s (the Board) criteria for amalgamation.”
The local Government Advisory Board criteria for amalgamation are listed below with
particular emphasis on the first four :
1.
community of interest;
2.
local government viability;
3.
effective delivery of local government services;
4.
financial assessment;
5.
economic factors;
6.
demographic trends;
7.
transport and communication;
8.
history of the area; and
9.
physical and topographic features.
Page 146
26 MAY 2009
The criteria set by the Minister for the use of the funding to develop a Reform Submission
are :
“
• Council workshops;
•
local government staff consultation;
•
community consultation; and
•
research and report preparation”.
Financial Assistance
Every local government will be eligible for funding of up to $10,000 to assist in the
preparation of a Reform Submission to the Minister for Local Government.
Grants may only exceed this amount under exceptional circumstances approved by the
Minister for Local Government.
In order to conform with the Minister’s request for reform, the following tasks would need to
be undertaken :
•
Preliminary research on possible boundary change options canvassing the following areas
:
o
community of interest factors affecting current boundaries and external locations;
o
location of commercial and social infrastructure to accomplish sustainable centres
and viable catchment areas;
o
feasibility studies on potential size of a single local government covering a greater
area and likely economies of scale which may be realised;
o
review service delivery performance, identify gaps and opportunities;
o
review the ability to acquire sufficient and diverse rate base to facilitate community
and economic growth;
o
forecast the capacity to fund current and future service and infrastructure obligations;
o
review the ability to attract and retain appropriate professional expertise and skills to
deliver local government services and governance requirements;
o
review the organisations capacity to undertake long-term financial and strategic
planning;
o
predict demographic trends and future demands for current and new services;
o
research the future growth demands on Morley as a major regional centre providing
varied services to a wider catchment area;
o
review the City’s regional matters and the ability for current relationships to answer
the demands and challenges of the future;
o
review all transport, communications and social demands affecting the region; and
o
re-examine the natural physical and topographical features which affect the
efficiency of existing boundaries and quantify benefits gained by any extensions
proposed.
Page 147
•
•
26 MAY 2009
Examine the ability for a larger local government to become a responsible partner to State
and Federal Governments and deliver greater benefits to the wider community.
Examine the ability for a larger local government to provide greater political advocacy and
representation to a wider community.
These tasks would be achieved by engaging staff resources and consultancy expertise to
undertake the research and report preparation for the Council’s consideration.
Finalising the City’s submission will be achieved by the additional tasks and decision-making
process :
o
conducting council workshops to review the above information and canvas various
future strategic direction options for the City including boundary changes and
reduction of elected member representation;
o
convene further meetings with adjoining local governments to seek agreement on
proposed boundary changes, formation of regional groups, and resource sharing
opportunities;
o
undertake extensive community consultation by conducting a number of public
meetings at various locations within the City and convene special focus groups
applicable to economic and social matters;
o
undertake staff consultation inviting the opportunity to share information and
contribute towards the reform process; and
o
the preparation of a reform submission proposing the City of Bayswater’s preferred
option for boundary changes and elected member representation. Also identify the
benefits, efficiencies and capacity to be derived from a merger.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that an application be made to the Department of Local Government
for the full amount of $10,000 (for which the City is eligible) for financial assistance
towards the preparation of the Reform Submission to the Minister for Local
Government.
Page 148
14.10
26 MAY 2009
Further Legal Action - Property No.10516
Officer:
Director of Finance
CONFIDENTIAL ITEM
Application
To consider further legal action against the owner of property number 10516 due to unpaid
rates and service charges in excess of three years.
(b) The personal affairs of any person.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that Council:
1.
Agrees to proceed with further legal action to recover unpaid rates and service
charges for Property Number 10516;
2.
Agrees in the event that the further legal action outlined in (1.) above is
unsuccessful, to cause notice of the City’s intention to sell the property pursuant to
Section 6.68 (1) of the Act;
3.
Agrees to sell the property by public auction, not less than 3 months and not more
than 12 months from the date of the notice issued under (2.) above, if the
outstanding rates remain unpaid; and
4.
Notes that the City will distribute the proceeds of the sale of land in accordance
with Schedule 6.3 of the Local Government Act 1995.
Page 149
26 MAY 2009
15
REPORTS OF MANAGEMENT/ADVISORY COMMITTEES
15.1
Minutes of the Security Watch Advisory Committee – April 2009
Attachments:
Officer:
Minutes Security Watch Advisory Committee April 2009
Acting Director of Administration and Community Services
Application
To inform Council of the minutes of the Security Watch Advisory Committee Meeting held
on 20 April 2009.
Background
Attached is a copy of the minutes of the Security Watch Advisory Committee Meeting
meeting which was held on 20 April 2009 (refer to Attachment No. 1).
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)
CR TERRY BLANCHARD MOVED, CR SYLVAN ALBERT SECONDED the
Committee recommendation that the minutes of the meeting of the Security Watch
Advisory Committee which was held on 20 April 2009 be received and the
recommendations contained therein and listed hereunder be approved:
1.1
Security Watch Services Report – March 2009
That the Security Watch Services Report for the month of March 2009 be received.
1.2
Police Crime Statistics
1.
The Verbal report by the Officer in charge of the Bayswater Police Stations for the
month of March 2009 be received.
2.
The Crime statistics report for the month of February 2008/2009 be received.
1.3
Graffiti Programme Status – February 2009
That the Graffiti Programme Status Report for the period 1 February 2009 to
28 February 2009 be received.
1.4
Nyoongar Patrol in City of Bayswater
That the Nyoongar Outreach Patrol Services be utilised for a trial period at an
approximate cost of $2,400 with the Manager Rangers and Security, in conjunction with
local Police to determine the times and locations of the trial periods.
1.5
Security Watch Patrol, Eighth Avenue Maylands
That the Manager Ranger and Security Services advise the Security Watch Committee
of the time and date of all future Eighth Avenue Patrols, based on Reports by local
businesses and Police utilising the remaining funds allocated by Council, at the Ordinary
Council Meeting on 10 February 2009.
Page 150
2.1
26 MAY 2009
CCTV Cameras
That all Security Watch Advisory Committee Agendas include a specific item
concerning CCTV Cameras.
2.2
Blue Iris Registration – Office of Crime Prevention
That Council register CCTV locations and future installations with the blue iris CCTV
programme.
2.3
Anti Social Meeting – 23 March 2009
That Council write to the local trader groups to obtain a comment/information for the
following:
•
Prioritised locations for Lighting upgrades
•
Prioritised locations for CCTV cameras
•
Advise Council on known hot spots of anti-social behaviour in a priority order.
•
Advise Trader groups of the Blue Iris CCTV programme and encourage traders to
participate where possible.
Page 151
15.2
26 MAY 2009
Minutes of the Meeting of the YMCA Management Advisory Committee
Attachments:
Officer:
Minutes of the Meeting held on 13 May 2009
Agenda of the Meeting Held on 13 May 2009
Director of Finance
Application
To inform the Council of the minutes of the meeting of the YMCA Management Advisory
Committee which was held on 13 May 2009.
Background
A copy of both the minutes (refer Attachment 1) and agenda (refer Attachment 2) of the
meeting of the YMCA Management Advisory Committee, which was held on 13 May 2009,
are attached.
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
recommendation that the minutes of the meeting of the YMCA Management Advisory
Committee which was held on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 be received and the
recommendations contained therein be approved:
5.0
Financial/Manager's Reports (March 2009)
5.1
Morley Sport and Recreation Centre
That the financial/management report for March 2009 for the Morley Sport and
Recreation Centre be received.
5.2
Alma Venville Recreation Centre
That the financial/management report for March 2009 for the Alma Venville
Recreation Centre be received.
6.0
New Business
6.1
Morley Sport and Recreation Centre 2009/2010 Operating & Capital Budget
Proposal
That the proposed 2009/2010 operating and capital budget requests for the
Morley Sport and Recreation Centre be submitted to Council for
consideration.
6.2
Alma Venville Recreation Centre 2009/2010 Operating Budget Proposal
That the proposed 2009/2010 operating budget requests for the Alma
Venville Recreation Centre be submitted to Council for consideration.
Page 152
15.3
26 MAY 2009
Minutes of the Security Watch Advisory Committee – 11 May 2009
Attachments:
Officer:
Minutes of the Security Watch Advisory Committee
Application
To inform the Council of the minutes of the meeting of the Security Watch Advisory
Committee, which was held on 11 May 2009.
Background
Attached is a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Security Watch Advisory Committee,
which was held on 11 May 2009 (refer to Attachment No. 1).
Voting Requirements
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)
CR TERRY BLANCHARD MOVED, CR SYLVAN ALBERT SECONDED the
Committee recommendation that the minutes of the meeting of the Security Watch
Advisory Committee which was held on 11 May 2009 be received, and the
recommendations contained therein and listed hereunder be considered:
1.1
Security Watch Services Report - April 2009
That the Security Watch Services Report for the month of April 2009 be received.
1.2
Police Crime Statistics – March 2009
That:
1.
The Verbal reports by the Officers in charge of the Bayswater Police Stations for
the month of April 2009 be received.
2.
The Crime statistics reports for the month of March 2008/2009 be received.
1.3
Graffiti Programme Status - March 2009
The Graffiti Programme Status Report for the period 1 March 2009 to 31 March 2009
be received.
1.4
City of Bayswater CCTV Report
That the recommendation as contained in the attached "Confidential" Report be
adopted.
Page 153
26 MAY 2009
At 7:55pm, Cr Sylvan Albert withdrew from the meeting.
16
MAYOR’S REPORT
VOLUNTEERS LUNCH - WEDNESDAY 13 MAY 2009
Council takes great pleasure in using the occasion of National Volunteer Week to host a civic
lunch as a small thank you for all of the efforts of our Volunteers in helping to make this City
a great place in which to live.
Volunteers’ work is very important to the city and I can assure you, it doesn’t go un-noticed.
Volunteer Week is all about recognising the contribution of volunteers and encouraging new
volunteers to get involved in their communities. In the City of Bayswater we are extremely
fortunate to have so many dedicated volunteers to help out in so many different ways and in
so many different areas of the community.
BAYSWATER PADDLE CHALLENGE - SUNDAY 17 MAY 2009
The Mayor was delighted to be able to participate in the presentations of the 2009 Canoeing
Western Australia Paddle Challenge, the official opening event for the 2009 Avon Descent
season of which the City is pleased to be sponsoring again this year.
Due to the contribution of many, including the City of Bayswater, this event coincided with
the opening of a new facility for the Bayswater Paddlesports Club at AP Hinds Reserve.
The Club really has moved on from the days when it leased a portion of a shed from the ANA
rowing club to being housed in 2 sea containers to now having this fantastic facility.
AUTUMN RIVER FESTIVAL THANK YOU FUNCTION - MONDAY 18 MAY 2009
****************************************************
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow Councillors for attending functions on
behalf of the City of Bayswater.
Page 154
26 MAY 2009
At this time Cr Sally Palmer advised the Council and those present that the Autumn River
Festival Association in recognition of ten years of faithful service to the Festival.
At 7:57pm, Cr Sylvan Albert returned to the meeting.
17
AFFIXING OF COMMON SEAL
17.1
Authorisation for Affixing of the Common Seal
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR SYLVAN ALBERT MOVED, CR IAN MCCLELLAND, JP SECONDED that
approval be granted for affixing of the common seal to the following documents:
Document Details
No. of
Documents
Council
Resolution
Lodge Caveats on land title for the
properties for non payment of rates in excess
of 3 years.
Lot 264 River Road, Bayswater
163 Drake Street, Embleton
277 Railway Parade, Maylands
55 Copley Street, Bayswater
13/15-17 Anzac Street, Bayswater
46/81 King William Street, Bayswater
3 Casuarina Way, Morley
6/41 Wolseley Road, Morley
TPS 24 - Amendment No. 40
8
OCM 28/4/09
Item 14.13
3
TPS 24 - Amendment No. 42
3
Agreement to use facilities – 114 King
William Street, Bayswater (Halliday House)
– Bayswater Historical Society and City of
Bayswater
3
OCM 28/4/09
Item 13.2
OCM 28/4/09
Item 13.3
OCM: 14/4/09
Item 15.7
HHMC: 23/3/09
Item 1.1
For
Approval or
Ratification
Ratification
Ratification
Ratification
Ratification
CARRIED
Page 155
18
26 MAY 2009
DISCUSSION OF MATTERS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
At 7:58pm, the doors were closed to the public, and those present in the public gallery left
the meeting.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR SALLY PALMER MOVED, CR SYLVAN ALBERT SECONDED that the doors be
closed.
CARRIED
At 8:00pm, Cr Ian McClelland, JP withdrew from the meeting.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
At 8:01pm, CR SYLVAN ALBERT MOVED, CR MIKE ANDERTON, JP SECONDED
that Standing Orders be suspended.
CARRIED
The discussion on this item was deemed confidential by Council and as such the Item was
treated at confidential within the Minutes, although as the report had already been
distributed for public inspection, it remained visible to the public.
18.1
Location:
Attachments:
Applicant:
Owner:
Officer:
Refer:
No. 3 - Correspondence
Item 8.1 SCM : 18.0-4.09
Item 13.7 OCM: 24.02.09
Item 14.15 OCM 26.08.08
Item 12.3.7 OCM 22.04.08
Item 12.3.10 OCM 25.03.08
CONFIDENTIAL ITEM
Application
1.
Road, Bayswater.
2.
Council consideration is required in this instance as Council has previously resolved
that the City would not endorse an application for a Liquor Licence on the subject site at
the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 February 2009.
Page 156
3.
26 MAY 2009
A separate report relating to a scheme amendment to address ‘Local Shopping’ at the
subject property is on this agenda.
(d)
Legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and
which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting.
Voting Requirements
At 8:03pm, Cr Ian McClelland, JP returned to the meeting.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CR TERRY KENYON, JP MOVED, CR SALLY PALMER SECONDED that in light of
the letter received from Project Development (WA) Pty Ltd dated 25 May 2009, Council
seek written legal advice prior to making a decision on the matter.
CARRIED
The Acting Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Michael Sabatino
Cr Ian McClelland, JP requested that their vote against the resolution be recorded.
and
At 8:44pm, the doors were re-opened to the public, and several members of the public
returned to the meeting. At this time the Acting Chairperson read out the resolution.
Page 157
19
26 MAY 2009
ORDER OF BUSINESS
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Items of business were dealt with in the following order:
Item 1 through to Item 13.6. Item 13.8 through to Item 18. Item 18.1(13.7) through to
Item 20.
Page 158
20
26 MAY 2009
CLOSURE
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO DISCUSS,
THE ACTING CHAIRPERSON, CR MICHAEL SABATINO DECLARED
THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8:46PM.
Page 159

CITY OF BAYSWATER MINUTES FOR THE

Transcription

Similar documents

Free Quote D3

DISCIPLESHIP TRAINING SCHOOL (DTS)

Avanza`s Triarchic Model

Monterchi,

Application Form for Degree in Absentia

- Cairns Regional Council

college official`s report curry college

Nursing Education Initiative Application Checklist PLEASE

Sole Proprietorship Registration Form A

GSEP 2008 Application.indd