AGENDA

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 27 April 2016, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF AN ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Elected Members An Ordinary Meeting of Council of the City of Fremantle will be held on Wednesday, 27

April 2016 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street, Fremantle

(access via stairs, next to the playground in Kings Square) commencing at 6.00 pm.

Graeme Mackenzie CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 22 April 2016

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

AGENDA

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated Wednesday 23 March 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY MEMBERS TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

COMMITTEE REPORTS 5

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 6 APRIL 2016 5

PC1604-12 DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS FOR A TWO YEAR TERM 5

PC1604-13 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.20 - DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES - APPROVAL FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 7

PC1604-14 SCHEME AMENDMENT 69 ? BASIC SCHEME AMENDMENT TO CONTINUE SMALL SECONDARY DWELLINGS BY REMOVING SUNSET CLAUSE FROM LPS4 ? ADOPTION 17

PC1604-15 AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.3 ? MINOR AMENDMENT TO ALIGN LPP1.3 WITH THE NEW PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ? ADOPTION 22

PC1604-16 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 65 - ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS WHITE GUM VALLEY/BEACONSFIELD LOCAL CENTRE - FINAL ADOPTION 33

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 20 APRIL 2016 57

FPOL1604-5 WEED MANAGEMENT SERVICES 57

FPOL1604-6 2017/18 METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ROAD GROUP SUBMISSION 65

FPOL1604-7 ADOPTION OF THE STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN 2015-2025 69

FPOL1604-8 AMENDMENT TO SG-38 PURCHASING POLICY 73

FPOL1604-9 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO EXCISE PORTION OF LAND FROM RESERVE 37088 - PERTH WATER TRANSPORT PTY LTD 77

FPOL1604-10 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT MARCH 2016 82

FPOL1604-11 PUBLIC TOILET WORKING GROUP 92

FPOL1604-12 SOUTHERN METRO REGIONAL COUNCIL STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW 101

FPOL1604-13 ADVERTISING OF OBJECTS AND REASONS FOR DIFFERENTIAL RATES 2016-2017 107

FPOL1604-14 FINANCIAL COUNSELLING 110

FPOL1604-15 INNOVATIVE HOUSING WORKING GROUP - APPROVAL OF PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT 114

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 118

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 118

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 118

COUNCIL ITEMS 119

C1604-1 INFORMATION REPORT APRIL 2016 119

C1604-2 OVERDUE DEBTS REPORT-FEBRUARY 2016 120

C1604-3 REPORT ON PROPOSED SALE/LONG TERM OF FREMANTLE PORT BY STATE GOVERNMENT 122

C1604-4 2016 KINGS SQUARE EXTENSION REQUEST REPORT 125

AUDIT RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 13 APRIL 2016 131

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 131

AC1604-1 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT - DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR NEW OPERATIONS CENTRE (2 JONES STREET) 131

AC1604-2 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT - FREMANTLE OVAL LEASE 132

AC1604-3 INSURANCE RENEWAL REPORT 133

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

C1604-3 REPORT ON PROPOSED SALE/LONG TERM OF FREMANTLE PORT BY STATE GOVERNMENT 2

C1604-4 SIRONA CAPITAL – LETTER OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 3

C1211-2 PROPOSED KINGS SQUARE PROJECT BUSINESS PLAN (NOVEMBER 2012) - APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE 5

C1302-1 KINGS SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT BUSINESS PLAN – CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS AND FINAL ADOPTION 10

C1505-1 KINGS SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT – EXTENSION OF SUNSET DATE FOR QUEENSGATE DEVELOPMENT 23

PSC1302-27 KINGS SQUARE PROJECT - DESIGN COMPETITION 25

City of Fremantle

PAGE 5

COMMITTEE REPORTS

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 6 APRIL 2016

PC1604-12 DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS FOR A TWO YEAR TERM

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC 1002-45 (17 and 24 February 2010), C1006-3 (June

2010) and PSC1201-9 (18 January 2012 PSC), PSC1205-69 (2 May 2012), C1205-3 (23 May 2012), PSC1403-60 (19 and 26 March 2014), C1405-2 (28 May 2014)

Attachments: Nil EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In February 2010 the Council decided to establish a Design Advisory Committee (DAC) in accordance with clause 11.8 of LPS4. Following adoption of the Terms of Reference at that time, nominations were received for membership of the Committee. Five expressions of interest were received and in June 2010 those 5 nominees were appointed members of DAC. Every two years nominations for new DAC members are called for. The last time members were appointed was in May 2014 where 5 members were appointed with 2 additional deputies. Current membership terms expire in June 2016. In accordance with the terms of reference it is recommended that nominations for new DAC membership be sought through a public expression of interest process. BACKGROUND

On 28 May 2014 Council resolved: The following approach for the appointment of DAC members be endorsed:

1. That 5 members be appointed, with two additional deputy's 2. That the existing DAC Members who have re nominated be reappointed in the

interest of continuity 3. That the remaining 2 DAC members and an additional 2 deputy members be

appointed based on the merit of the applications and written references.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 6

COMMUNITY Expressions of Interests for DAC nominations will be sought for 14 days that will include advertisements in:

1. The Western Australian newspaper; 2. Australian Institute of Architects (WA) Chapter e-newsletter; and 3. The City web site.

PLANNING COMMENT

The Terms of Reference state that Committee members are appointed following a public process of expression of interest. Any replies to expressions of interest will be referred to Council. In addition to the specific technical skills and experience, selected members should enjoy considerable professional recognition and prestige. To demonstrate this each nomination should be accompanied by the names of a minimum of two professional referees and a curriculum vitae. These should be independent professional peers who can specifically attest in writing to the suitability of the candidate for membership the Committee. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic document: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

Improve physical presentation of the City’s streetscapes. Provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting

development and renewal in designated precincts within the City. Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan

Expressions of interest be publicly sought for Design Advisory Committee membership for a period of 14 days and a further report be presented to Council following assessment of the expressions of interest.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham

City of Fremantle

PAGE 7

PC1604-13 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.20 - DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES - APPROVAL FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING

ECM Reference: 117/062 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Manager Strategic Planning & Coordinator Heritage Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1511-9 & PC1602-6 Attachments: Previous item PC1602-6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present for Council’s consideration a draft local planning policy to provide guidance on the exercise of discretion to vary Local Planning Scheme site or development standards for heritage reasons in the determination of development applications. Council considered a previous report on this matter on 24 February 2016 (item PC1602-6) and resolved to authorise officers to prepare a draft local planning policy based on a number of principles set out in that item. This report presents the full text of a draft policy based on those principles. It is recommended that Council approve the draft local planning policy for the purposes of public consultation. Following the consultation period a further report will be presented to Council for consideration of any submissions received and a decision on final adoption of the policy. BACKGROUND

On 19 October 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) came into effect. The Regulations include a set of Deemed Provisions which are automatically ‘read into’ every local planning scheme in Western Australia. One provision of the Deemed Provisions – clause 12 – provides a discretionary power to a local government to vary any site or development standards in its scheme in order to facilitate the conservation of a place included on the heritage list or to preserve or enhance a heritage area. A report on the implementation of the Regulations (item PSC1511-9) was presented to Council on 25 November 2015. As part of its resolution relating to this item Council resolved that officers should prepare a draft local planning policy to provide guidance on the use of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions in the assessment and determination of development applications. The purpose of the local planning policy would be to provide a degree of certainty, consistency and transparency to decision-makers, developers and the community regarding the use of the discretionary power provided to the local government under the Deemed Provisions.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 8

A further report on this matter (item PC1602-6 – see Attachment 1) was presented to the Planning Committee and Council in February 2016. This report set out a number of suggested principles upon which the policy should be based for Council’s consideration and endorsement before officers prepared the full text of the draft policy. On 24 February 2016 Council resolved to authorise officers to complete the preparation of the draft policy based on the following principles:

1. Development applications seeking the exercise of discretion by the decision-maker to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions must include information which clearly demonstrates a physical relationship (including the nature and extent of the relationship) between the elements of the proposed development which require the variation and a heritage outcome which either (a) facilitates the built heritage conservation of a heritage listed place; or (b) enhances or preserves heritage values in a heritage area.

2. Development applications which seek to justify variations to Scheme site or development requirements solely on the basis that financial benefit derived from the development will be used to fund heritage works will not be supported.

3. The following criteria will be applied in assessing whether the relationship between a

development proposal and outcomes for a heritage place or area that would result from the proposed development, if it were approved, justify the exercise of discretion to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions:

There must be a net benefit to the public interest and the contribution the development makes to the public realm, e.g. streetscape, from the heritage outcome achieved through the variation.

The extent of the variation (e.g. additional building height) should be the minimum necessary to achieve the heritage outcomes in question.

The variation should be proportionate to the heritage values and level of significance of the place/area. The Statement of Significance associated with the listing of the heritage place/area will be the basis of considering the proportionality of the relationship between the proposed development and its effect on heritage values.

The spatial relationship including degree of proximity between the heritage ‘asset’ being conserved or enhanced and the development involving the variation.

4. The policy should clearly state that development applications involving potential

Scheme variations under clause 12 must include a written statement of justification provided by the applicant. The statement of justification must provide a clear rationale for the design approach adopted for the proposed development which requires the variation, and explain how it satisfies the ‘nexus’ (or relationship) test referred to in principle (1) above, including how it addresses the criteria listed in (3) above.

For further background information refer to previous item PC1602-6 in Attachment 1.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 9

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

As stated in the Background section of this report, with effect from 19 October 2015 the deemed provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) are read as constituting part of the current Local Planning Scheme. Clause 3 of the Deemed Provisions empowers a local government to prepare a local planning policy in respect of any matter related to the planning and development of the Scheme area. The provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions are clearly such a matter, and therefore the preparation of the local planning policy which is the subject of this report is authorised by the provisions of Clause 3. Clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions reads as follows:

(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in

this Scheme to –

(a) facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the register of

Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or entered in the

heritage list; or

(b) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

(2) A variation under subclause (1) may be unconditional or subject to any conditions the local government considers appropriate.

(3) If the local government is of the opinion that the variation of site or development

requirements is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality of the place or the heritage area the local government must – (a) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions for

advertising uses under clause 64; and (b) have regard to any views expressed prior to making its determination to vary the

site or development requirements under this clause. CONSULTATION

Subject to approval by Council as a draft for consultation purposes, community consultation on the content of the local planning policy which is the subject of this report will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. In this case, given the subject matter of the policy, it is recommended that consultation should include targeted engagement with specific stakeholders who are likely to have an interest in the matter, such as the State Heritage Office and Heritage Council, development industry peak bodies such as the UDIA, and community heritage interest groups e.g. the Fremantle Society. Consultation with Precinct Groups would occur in any event under the requirements of LPP 1.3 in addition to general advertising via the local press and the City’s community engagement webpage.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 10

PLANNING COMMENT

The full wording of the draft local planning policy is set out in the Officer’s Recommendation below. It has been developed from the principles endorsed by Council on 24 February 2016, as reproduced in the Background section above. In accordance with those principles, the key elements of the draft policy are as follows:

There must be a clearly demonstrated physical ‘nexus’ (meaning a relationship or connection) between the heritage purposes referred to in clause 12 (i.e. facilitation of the built heritage conservation of a State registered place or a place on the City’s heritage list under the Scheme, or the enhancement or preservation of heritage values in a heritage area) and the aspect of the proposed development which requires variation of a Scheme requirement in order for approval of the development to be entertained.

The extent of the demonstrated relationship must be strong enough to justify approving the development.

Where an application proposes a form of development that requires the exercise of discretion under clause 12 in order to be approved, the responsibility rests with the applicant to provide a clear written justification for the variation, explaining the rationale for the design of the proposed development and how it would satisfy the ‘nexus’ test. The policy expresses this obligation on the applicant as a requirement to submit a ‘Statement of Justification’ as part of the application.

The Statement of Justification must include an explanation of how the proposal addresses the criteria the decision-making body will use in assessing the proposal – i.e. the dot points in principle 3 from Council’s previous resolution as reproduced in the Background section above.

The City may request the applicant to provide additional information prior to determination of the application if it does not consider sufficient information has been provided in the initial Statement of Justification to enable a properly informed judgement of the merits of the application to be made.

CONCLUSION

The draft policy set out in the recommendation below is closely based on principles previously endorsed by Council in its resolution of 24 February 2016. The purpose of the policy is to provide suitable guidance to applicants and decision-makers (the City of Fremantle on the exercise of the discretionary power provided by clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions, in a form which is relevant to the context of planning and heritage issues in the City of Fremantle, to support a consistent and transparent approach to decision-making. Council is recommended to approve the draft policy for public consultation in accordance with the relevant statutory procedures and Council’s own policy on public consultation on planning proposals. Following the consultation period a further report will be presented to Council for consideration of any submissions received and a decision on final adoption of the policy.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 11

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve the following draft Local Planning Policy 2.20 – Discretion to vary Local Planning Scheme site or development requirements for heritage reasons for the purposes of advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.20

DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES

ADOPTION DATE: ??/??/2016 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND Under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), the Deemed Provisions contained in Schedule 2 of the Regulations are applicable to all local planning schemes, whether or not they are incorporated into the local planning scheme text. Accordingly these provisions are applicable to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (the Scheme). Clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions states:

(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in

this Scheme to –

(c) facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the register of

Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or entered in the

heritage list; or

(d) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

(2) A variation under subclause (1) may be unconditional or subject to any conditions the local government considers appropriate.

(3) If the local government is of the opinion that the variation of site or development

requirements is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality of the place or the heritage area the local government must – (c) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions for

advertising uses under clause 64; and (d) have regard to any views expressed prior to making its determination to vary the

site or development requirements under this clause.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 12

PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance on the submission, assessment and determination of applications for development approval in cases where the decision-making authority may consider exercising its discretionary power under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Regulations to vary any site or development requirement specified in the Scheme in order to achieve one or more the heritage purposes stated in clause 12(1). POLICY

1. Any development application which, in order to be approved, would require the exercise of discretion by the decision-maker to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions must include information which clearly demonstrates a physical relationship (including the nature and extent of the relationship) between the elements of the proposed development which require the variation and a heritage outcome which either (a) facilitates the built heritage conservation of a heritage listed place; or (b) enhances or preserves heritage values in a heritage area.

2. The information referred to in (1) above must be provided by the applicant in the form of a written Statement of Justification. The Statement of Justification must provide a clear rationale for the design approach adopted for the proposed development which requires the variation, and also explain how it satisfies the relationship (or ‘nexus’) test referred to in (1) above, including how it addresses the following criteria:

There must be a net benefit to the public interest and the contribution the development makes to the public realm, e.g. streetscape, from the heritage outcome achieved through the variation.

The extent of the variation (e.g. additional building height) should be the minimum necessary to achieve the heritage outcomes in question.

The variation should be proportionate to the heritage values and level of significance of the place/area. The Statement of Significance associated with the listing of the heritage place/area will be the basis of considering the proportionality of the relationship between the proposed development and its effect on heritage values.

There must be a demonstrable spatial relationship including a degree of proximity between the heritage ‘asset’ being conserved or enhanced and the development involving the variation.

The Statement of Justification may include drawings, photographs or other relevant information in support of the written statement. The Statement of Justification should describe the significance of the affected heritage asset(s), including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail in the statement should be proportionate to the assets’ importance, and as a minimum the relevant statement of heritage significance should have been consulted. The local government may request the applicant to provide additional information prior to determination of the application if it does not consider sufficient information

City of Fremantle

PAGE 13

has been provided in the initial Statement of Justification submitted with the application to enable the decision-making authority to make a properly informed judgement regarding whether the proposed development will enable one or both of the heritage purposes specified in clause 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Deemed Provisions to be achieved.

3. Development applications which seek to justify variations to Scheme site or development requirements solely on the basis that financial benefit derived from the development will be used to fund heritage works will not be supported.

4. The criteria set out in (2)i to (2)iv above will be applied by the decision-making

authority in assessing whether the relationship between a development proposal and the outcomes for a heritage place or area that would result from the proposed development, if it was approved, justify the exercise of discretion to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions.

5. When an application for development approval is granted on the basis of the

exercise of discretion to vary Scheme site or development requirements under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions, the decision-making authority may impose conditions on the approval or require other measures, e.g. a legal agreement between the local government and the owner of the land to which the approval relates, to ensure that the heritage outcome associated with the approved development is achieved when the development is undertaken. The details of the condition or agreement will depend upon the nature of the development the subject of the approval granted, and its relationship with the heritage outcome associated with the development.

Cr J Strachan MOVED the following amended Officers Recommendation: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve the following draft Local Planning Policy 2.20 – Discretion to vary Local Planning Scheme site or development requirements for heritage reasons for the purposes of advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.20 DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT

REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES

ADOPTION DATE: ??/??/2016 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND Under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), the deemed provisions contained in Schedule 2 of the Regulations (Deemed Provisions) are applicable to all local planning schemes, whether or not they are incorporated into the local planning scheme text.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 14

Accordingly these provisions are applicable to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (the Scheme). Clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions states:

(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in this Scheme to – (a) facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the register

of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or entered in the heritage list; or

(b) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area. (2) A variation under sub-clause (1) may be unconditional or subject to any

conditions the local government considers appropriate.

(3) If the local government is of the opinion that the variation of site or development requirements is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality of the place or the heritage area the local government must – (a) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions

for advertising uses under clause 64; and (b) have regard to any views expressed prior to making its determination to

vary the site or development requirements under this clause. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance on the submission, assessment and determination of applications for development approval in cases where the decision-making authority may consider exercising its discretionary power under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Regulations to vary any site or development requirement specified in the Scheme in order to achieve one or more the heritage outcomes stated in clause 12(1)(a) or (b). POLICY

1. Any development application which, in order to be approved, requires the exercise of discretion by the decision-maker under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions to vary any Scheme site or development requirement must include information which clearly demonstrates that an outcome of the proposed variation(s) will be to either:

a. facilitate the built heritage conservation of a heritage listed place; or b. enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

2. The information referred to in (1) above must be provided by the applicant in

the form of a written Statement of Justification. The Statement of Justification must provide a clear rationale for the design approach adopted for the proposed development which requires the variation, and also explain how it achieves one of the outcomes referred to in (1).

3. The Statement of Justification should address the following issues: a. the physical relationship (including the nature and extent of the

relationship) between the elements of the proposed development which require the variation and one of the heritage outcomes referred to in (1);

b. whether and, if so, how the heritage outcomes achieved through the variations make a contribution to the public realm (e.g. streetscape);

City of Fremantle

PAGE 15

c. whether the extent of the variation (e.g. additional building height) is the minimum necessary to achieve the heritage outcome;

d. the proportionality between the nature and extent of the variation sought and the heritage values and level of the heritage significance of the place or area;

e. the spatial relationship (including degree of proximity) between the place or heritage area (as the case may be) and the development in respect of which a variation is sought. The Statement of Justification may also address other issues which the applicant wishes the decision maker to consider.

4. The Statement of Justification may include drawings, photographs or other relevant information in support of the written statement. The local government may request the applicant to provide additional information prior to determination of the application if it does not consider sufficient information has been provided in the initial Statement of Justification submitted with the application to enable the decision-making authority to make a properly informed judgement regarding whether the proposed development will enable one or both of the heritage outcomes specified in clause 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Deemed Provisions to be achieved.

5. Development applications which seek to justify variations to Scheme site or

development requirements solely on the basis that financial benefit derived from the development will be used to fund heritage works will not be supported.

6. The matters set out in 3(a) to (3)(e) above will be considered by the decision-

making authority in assessing whether the relationship between a development proposal and the outcomes for a heritage place or area that would result from the proposed development, if it was approved, justify the exercise of discretion to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions.

7. When an application for development approval is granted on the basis of the

exercise of discretion to vary Scheme site or development requirements under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions, the decision-making authority may impose conditions on the approval. Such conditions may include a requirement for a legal agreement between the local government and the owner of the land to which the approval relates, to ensure that the heritage outcome associated with the approved development is achieved when the development is undertaken. The requirements of any condition will depend upon the nature of the development the subject of the approval granted, and its relationship with the heritage outcome associated with the development.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 16

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bryn Jones Cr Josh Wilson Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Jeff McDonald

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The following amended officer’s recommendation is provided to take account of revisions to the format of the draft policy recommended by the City’s legal advisors:

City of Fremantle

PAGE 17

PC1604-14 SCHEME AMENDMENT 69 ? BASIC SCHEME AMENDMENT TO CONTINUE SMALL SECONDARY DWELLINGS BY REMOVING SUNSET CLAUSE FROM LPS4 ? ADOPTION

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1010-201 – PSC 20 October 2010

PSC1101-12 – Council 25 January 2011 PSC1102-41 – Council 23 February 2011 PSC1107-136 - Council 27 July 2011

Attachments: PSC1107-136 - Council 27 July 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In late 2011, Small Secondary Dwellings were introduced into the Scheme as a planning response to the provision of small and more affordable housing types within established urban areas. This came as a response to lower levels of housing affordability, declining household sizes and City of Fremantle and state government strategic imperatives to provide for Perth’s future population. Due to the Small Secondary Dwellings concept being a radical approach at the time precautionary measures were built into the Scheme Amendment whereby the Small Secondary provisions would cease to have effect five years from the date of gazettal. These provisions were designed to minimise risks and any concerns of the Western Australian Planning Commission on endorsing the amendment and ensure that the City would have the opportunity to reassess the provisions, if necessary prior to the five year time limit. This report recommends the deletion of the two Clauses within the Scheme relating to the time limit of the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions prior to the provisions ceasing effect in their entirety. In order to ensure that the City retains the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions an approval from the Minister for Planning will need to be provided before 6 December 2016. Under the new Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) the timeframes for making an amendment to the Scheme are now prescribed which gives an indicative time on when an approval may be granted by the Minister. No modifications to the Scheme provisions for Small Secondary Dwellings are recommended as part of this report as a basic amendment is recommended (a simple text amendment with no consultation required) to ensure that the provisions relating to the five year time limit are deleted.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 18

BACKGROUND

In early 2011, the City of Fremantle saw an opportunity in the planning system to more effectively enable the provision of small and more affordable housing types within established urban areas. This came as a response to lower levels of housing affordability, declining household sizes and City of Fremantle and state government strategic imperatives to provide for Perth’s future population.

The Small Secondary Dwelling provisions were introduced to LPS4 on 6 December 2011 as part of Scheme amendment 46 (attachment 1) which was intended to assist as a planning mechanism that could allow for landowners with an existing Single House on a lot to potentially build an additional dwelling which would not be required to be rented by members of that family.

The planning system at the time of the introduction of the Small Secondary Dwellings provision however did not allow for members outside of the family occupying the main dwelling to live in an ancillary dwelling on site. This created a significant gap in housing typologies for small scale housing options. This formed one of the fundamental principles behind the introduction of Small Secondary Dwellings which would essentially eliminate the requirement for the occupants of the additional dwelling to be a family member. The Small Secondary Dwelling provisions were considered to be radical at the time due to the deviation from the acceptable development criteria of the R-Codes and that the provisions were at the time untested within Western Australia. The untested nature of the provisions was the basis behind incorporating the ‘sunset’ Clause which limited the duration of the provisions

effect under the Scheme to 5 years. This would allow for the provisions to be reviewed if necessary after the 5 year duration to ensure the City and the Commission remained to be satisfied with the provisions. In 2012 a review of the R-Codes introduced a similar approach to the Small Secondary Dwellings whereby the occupants of a Dwelling could be unrelated to the residents occupying the main dwelling on site. More recently, the changes to the Regulations that took effect in late 2015 have also provided additional opportunity for Ancillary Dwelling developments with provisions now allowing for certain exemptions from the need to obtain planning approval. Notwithstanding the changes to the R-Codes and the Regulations, differences remain between the ancillary dwelling provisions and the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions which provide a suite of options for residents and landowners within Fremantle. The receptiveness by Local Governments, the State Government, landowners and occupiers of Small Secondary Dwellings and Ancillary Dwellings has irrefutably increased since 2011. Notwithstanding the changes to the ancillary dwelling provisions of the R-Codes and the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations, the increased awareness that the Small Secondary Dwellings has bought to Fremantle has continued to encourage residents and landowners to consider these alternative housing options. The success of Small Secondary Dwellings was also recognised by the Planning Institute of Australia by being awarded the Planning Ministers Award and Best Planning Ideas Large Projects 2012 and Planner of the Year 2012 by the Local Government Planners Association.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 19

PLANNING COMMENT

Current Planning Framework Since the introduction of the Small Secondary Dwellings to the Scheme in 2011 there have been modifications to the R-Codes and most recently to the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations, which have significantly influenced ancillary dwellings. The changes to the R-Codes in 2012 removed the provision relating to who can occupy an ancillary dwelling while the changes to the deemed provisions now outlines certain development which is exempt from the need to obtain planning approval. While these changes have a significant impact on the advantage of ancillary dwellings it is considered that Small Secondary Dwellings continue to provide an alternative response to diverse housing options within Fremantle. Changes to the Ancillary Dwelling provisions within the R-Codes Many of the principles adopted as part of the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions were a response to the limitations experienced with the acceptable development criteria of the R-Codes and the impact this was having on the accessibility to alternative housing options. The most significant deviations from the R-Codes included the ability for independent occupancy of the dwelling, the exclusion of open space and car parking requirements, exclusion of a minimum lot size requirement and when specific criteria are achieved the exemption for the need to obtain planning approval. In 2012 a review of the Ancillary Dwelling provisions within the R-Code removed the provision relating to the occupant of the dwelling, which therefore allowed non family members to occupy the dwelling. This significantly changed the feasibility to this form of housing type and now allowed a greater flexibility as a Design Principle assessment could be used to assess dwellings that did not meet the acceptable design criteria. This has meant that the advantage of applying for an ancillary dwelling increased during this time however the certainty of receiving a planning approval was only achievable when all the acceptable development criteria were met. This has meant that while there has been an increased popularity towards ancillary dwellings, the Small Secondary Dwellings have continued to provide alternative benefit options. Introduction of Deemed Provisions within the Regulations The 2012 revision to the R-Codes removed the ‘family member only’ occupancy requirements however the requirement to obtain planning approval remained in place until the inclusion of

the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations were introduced in late 2015. One of the major changes that were introduced as part of the Regulations have been the Deemed Provisions which now outlines development for which a development approval is not required. This now allows for Ancillary Dwellings to be exempt from requiring planning approval when they meet all of the acceptable development criteria of the R-Codes and are not located within a Heritage Area and are not listed on the Municipal Heritage Inventory or State Heritage List. Small Secondary Dwellings already have a similar provision within the Scheme, which allows for the dwelling to be exempt when certain criteria are achieved. The criteria for

City of Fremantle

PAGE 20

achieving this exemption differs from the acceptable development provisions for ancillary dwellings and allows for an alternative options for landowners, should they wish to have the certainty of being able to build one of these housing types. In addition to the Small Secondary Dwellings having the ability of being exempt from requiring planning approval, there are also provisions, which relate to the advertising of applications that require approval. This also provides a level of certainty to the approval process for Small Secondary Dwellings and in which circumstances advertising is necessary. It is considered that the Small Secondary Dwellings continue to provide a diverse housing option unique to Fremantle Review Opportunities Diverse housing options have continually been a theme that the City has placed significant focus upon. It is considered that it is essential to retain the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions within the Scheme to ensure that a suite of diverse housing options are available for Fremantle residents and landowners. It has therefore been recommended that only the removal of the sunset Clauses is carried out in the immediate future to ensure that the entirety of the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions are not lost. This report primarily notes the importance of retaining the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions however it is envisioned that the opportunity for review of specific provisions can be integrated with the Local Planning Strategy and Scheme Review process which is anticipated to begin in late 2016. In addition to the Local Planning Strategy and Scheme Review Council has recently resolved to appoint an Innovative Housing Working Group, which could contribute towards a broader directional focus on Fremantle’s diverse housing options and has the potential to incorporate Small Secondary Dwellings within this initiative. Basic Scheme amendment On 19 October 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 came into effect, which replaced certain process provisions under the City’s LPS4. This includes provisions relating to scheme amendments. The Regulations apply a tiered approach to scheme amendments; basic, standard and complex amendments. These amendments have differing timeframes that are now prescribed within the Regulations which are dependent upon the complexity of the amendment. Based on the indicative timeframes outlined within the Regulations a Basic Scheme amendment could potentially be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and gazetted sometime in September 2016. It is considered that the basic Scheme amendment process outlined within the Regulations is appropriate for the removal of the sunset Clause. However any additional changes to the Scheme provisions would not be considered basic and the standard Scheme amendment process would need to be followed. This process could not feasibly be achieved before the five year expiry date under the sunset clause (6

City of Fremantle

PAGE 21

December 2016) and therefore is not recommended as it could prejudice retaining the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions as a whole. CONCLUSION The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council resolves to delete the sunset Clauses contained within the Scheme that relate to the Small Secondary Dwellings duration. The deleting of these Clauses has been recommended as this will follow the basic scheme amendment process which is envisioned by officers to be completed prior to 6 December 2016 when the Small Secondary Dwelling Clauses will otherwise no longer have effect in the Scheme. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and regulation 35 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, to adopt a basic amendment to the Local Planning Scheme No. 4. The amendment is adopted as follows:

i. Delete the following Clause in its entirety:

Under Part 5 – General Development Requirements

5.3.5.7 Except for the definitions of ‘grouped dwelling’, ‘small secondary dwelling’ and ‘single house’ all provisions of the scheme referring to small secondary dwellings shall cease to have effect on the date of the fifth anniversary after publication in the Gazette of the amendment introducing those provisions into the scheme.

5.3.5.8 Any small secondary dwelling approved, constructed or substantially commenced before the date on which the provisions of the scheme referring to small secondary dwellings cease operation shall thereafter be subject to clauses 4.8 to 4.12.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

City of Fremantle

PAGE 22

PC1604-15 AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.3 ? MINOR AMENDMENT TO ALIGN LPP1.3 WITH THE NEW PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ? ADOPTION

ECM Reference: 117/024 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1511-9 Attachments: Local Planning Policy 1.3

Previous item PSC1511-9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 25 November 2015 Council resolved to initiate a series of key actions required for the integration of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) with the City’s current planning framework. The Regulations were gazetted on 25 August 2015 and took effect on 19 October 2015, replacing the Town Planning Regulations 1967. This report forms one of the immediate actions identified as a necessary modification to the City’s current planning framework in order to create consistency with the Regulations. The purpose of this report is to update Local Planning Policy 1.3 to reflect the changes made as part of the introduction of the Regulations, specifically in relation to advertising time frames. BACKGROUND

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) came into effect on 19 October 2015. The new regulations represent a significant change to procedural aspects of the statutory and strategic planning system in Western Australia. As a result of these changes to the Regulations some aspects of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (the Scheme) and Local Planning Policies will require modification in order to ensure conformity with the Regulations. At the Ordinary Council meeting on 25 November 2015 Council resolved that a basic amendment was required for Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals. The primary modifications that are required relate to the changes in advertising timeframes that are now outlined within the Regulations. Additionally Local Planning Policy 1.3, also makes reference to Clauses within the Scheme that are no longer contained within the Scheme as these have also been superseded by the Regulations. These references require updating to reflect the correct reference that is now contained within the Regulations.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 23

PLANNIG COMMENT Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 The Regulations, as touched on above, have introduced a number of changes to planning process within Western Australia. The extent of the changes to the Regulations affecting the City of Fremantle’s strategic and statutory planning systems has been detailed previously in PSC1511-9 (Attachment 2) and is therefore not discussed in detail within this report. Among the changes the processes for public consultation and advertising for planning applications, structure plans, local development plans, local planning policies and scheme amendments have now been explicitly outlined within the Regulations and are no longer governed by Local Planning Schemes. Along with the main changes to the Regulations, those changes that affect LPP1.3 are primarily the duration of advertising notices and points of reference made to the Scheme which are now governed under the Regulations. These changes form the basis behind this amendment to LPP1.3. Track-based Scheme Amendments The introduction of a track-based approach to scheme amendments has differentiated the varying levels of complexity between scheme amendments and specified different timeframes depending on an amendment’s classification. The inclusion of standard and complex scheme amendments and their separate timeframes will need to be included within the table in Part 5 of the policy. The duration of notice for a standard and complex scheme amendment differ and therefore have been included separately within the table. Basic scheme amendments have not been included within the policy as these amendments do not require public advertising. Changes to Duration of notice Changes to the duration of advertising periods are now prescribed within the Regulations specifically for Scheme amendments (now standard and complex), Structure Plans, Local Development Plans and Local Planning Policy. It is noted that the duration for public notice prescribed for development applications remains the same as currently outlined within LPP1.3 and therefore does not require amendment.

Current duration Duration required as per the Regulations

Scheme Amendments (Standard)

42 days unless agreed otherwise by the WAPC

Not less than 42 days, unless agreed otherwise by the WAPC

Scheme Amendments (Complex)

Not less than 60 days, unless agreed otherwise by the WAPC

Structure Plans 42 days Not less than 14 days and not more than 28 days

Local Development Plans (previously referred to as Detailed Area Plans)

28 days Not less than 14 days

Local Planning Policy 28 days Not less than 21 days

City of Fremantle

PAGE 24

Reference to Local Planning Scheme no. 4 Provisions The report recently presented to Council on Basic Scheme Amendment 67 made several administrative changes to the Scheme as part of the necessary updates to ensure the City’s planning instruments are consistent with the new Regulations. These changes included the removal of any provisions that are now governed under the Regulations. To date, the City has approved and is awaiting determination from the Planning Minister for the Basic Scheme Amendment which will update these changes to the sections of the Scheme now governed under the Regulations. In light of these changes, LPP1.3 will also need to be amended to remove these same references to the Scheme provision which are currently going through the process of being removed from the Scheme. The relevant provisions previously referenced by LPP1.3 will need to be amended to reflect the appropriate provisions within the Regulations. Local Planning Policy 1.3 makes reference to several clauses contained within the Scheme that are now governed by the Regulations, including reference to:

Clause 6.2.6.1 – A proposed structure plan is to contain the following details

Clause 8.3 – Amending or revoking planning approval

Clause 9.4 – Advertising of applications

Clause 10.8 – Approval subject to later approval of details Local Planning Policy 1.3 will now reference the following provisions contained within the Regulations:

LPS4 provision to be replaced

Regulation provisions replacement

Clause 6.2.6.1 Clause 16 – Preparation of a structure plan

Clause 8.3 Clause 77 – Amending or cancelling development approval

Clause 9.4 Clause 64 – Advertising applications

Clause 10.8 Clause 74 – Approval subject to later approval of details

It is also noted that Detailed Area Plans are also currently referenced within LPP1.3 however Detailed Area Plans have been renamed since this time and are now referred to as Local Development Plans. Minor Amendment to Local Planning Policy The changes to the Regulations also modify how Local Planning Policies are amended and in what instance advertising is required. Under Cl. 5 (2) of the Deemed Provisions a local government may make an amendment to a local planning policy without advertising the amendment if, in the opinion of the local government, the amendment is a minor amendment. The amendment to LPP1.3 is considered to be a minor amendment due to the administrative nature of the changes proposed. Any other changes that are not administrative and classified as significant would require the Local Planning Policy to be advertised in accordance with the Regulations. Officers have not recommended any additional changes to the policy as the administrative

City of Fremantle

PAGE 25

amendments were identified as an immediate action by Council on 25 November 2015 (Attachment 2). CONCLUSION

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council resolves to make the necessary amendments to ensure that LPP1.3 is consistent with the new requirements for consultations as per the Regulations. It is proposed that an administrative amendment is carried out which is not considered to be a significant change to the existing local planning policy and therefore would not require the advertising of these changes. It is noted that any additional modifications would therefore not be considered to be a minor modification and would require further consultation to be carried out. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council adopts the amended local planning policy, LPP1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals, without modification, as below:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.3

Public Notification of Planning Proposals

ADOPTION DATE: 28 MAY 2008 and 9 July 2013 AMENDED: 25 MAY 2011, 26 June 2013, 27 April 2016 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4; RESIDENTIAL DESIGN

CODES (2010); PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (LOCAL PLANNING SCHEMES) REGULATIONS 2015

INTRODUCTION This policy provides guidance on the exercise of discretion under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in terms of when public notice is given, and the means and duration of public notice periods, pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations). The opinions of affected property owners and the general public can inform but cannot be a substitute for the exercise of professional advice by City officers. This policy does not replace or alter the Council’s obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, 1992. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

City of Fremantle

PAGE 26

1) To provide for a consistent approach on the circumstances when public notice is given, and the means and duration of public notice periods, of planning proposals,

2) To recognise the balance between the need for the community to be informed of, and have reasonable opportunity for input into, planning proposals, and the administrative need to process planning proposals in an efficient manner, and within prescribed statutory timeframes.

SCOPE OF THE POLICY This policy is applicable to the entire municipal area of the City of Fremantle and will be applied by the City when making discretionary decisions relating to public notice of planning proposals. Planning proposals in the context of this policy include development applications; Structure Plans; Scheme Amendments and Local Development Plan. For the purposes of this policy, in circumstances where consultation is undertaken it will include both the owners and occupiers of properties that, in the opinion of the City, may be affected by the proposal and/or other stakeholders where these are identified. The Policy also applies to Planning Applications for which the Council is not the final decision making authority. STATUTORY BACKGROUND The Regulations include provisions relating to the giving of public notice of development applications, Structure Plans, Local Development Plan and Local Planning Polices. Some requirements relating to the public notice of development applications are mandatory, while others provide the Council with discretion as to whether a proposal is advertised and the method of that advertising. The Regulations 2015 prescribe the means of public notice of a Local Planning Scheme amendment, and provide the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Minister with discretion to determine additional means of notice. Part 4 of the Residential Design Codes requires that the Council notify potentially affected neighbours in certain circumstances. POLICY 1. Requirement to give public notice of certain planning applications under clause

64 of the Regulations.

In addition to where notice is prescribed by the Regulations, public notice will also be given of the following Planning Applications prior to consideration for approval where the application: a) involves the complete demolition of a building where the building is located

on a site listed on the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 of the Scheme or within a Heritage Area designated under clause 7.2 of the Scheme,

OR

City of Fremantle

PAGE 27

(b) involves a subdivision or survey strata creating more than twenty (20) lots and the proposal has not previously been advertised as part of a Scheme Amendment or Structure Plan,

OR (c) Involves a significant exercise of discretion in terms of the Local Planning

Scheme, Residential Design Codes or Policy provisions

OR

(d) Has significant strategic planning impacts in terms of the implementation of a strategic planning objective, the scale of the development, or are significantly different from the predominant and expected pattern of land use within the locality.

1.1 Notwithstanding the above, planning proposals that do not meet the above criteria are able to be advertised, at the discretion of the Manager/Coordinator Statutory Planning if it is considered in the public interest to do so.

2. Significant planning applications

Where a planning application meets any 2 of the criteria above, that application shall be considered to be a significant application in terms of this policy.

3. Evidence of non objection

Notwithstanding the above, the Council will waive the notification requirements in respect of residential planning applications involving the exercise of discretion under the Residential Design Codes or Council Policy in cases where: (a) The application involves the notification of one neighbour only (see note 4 at

the end of this policy), OR (b) The applicant provides a copy of the plan including a certification by the

owners and occupiers of the adjoining property stating that they have no objections to the proposal. Signatures should include all persons shown as owners on the Certificate of Title and ownership details will be confirmed. The certification must include:

The full name of the owner/s or occupier/s certifying non objection clearly printed in capital letters and a signature;

A statement printed in capital letters indicating no objection to the proposal; and

A current contact address printed in capital letters and a contact telephone number.

4. Refusal of applications without giving of public notice

Any planning proposal may be refused by the Council without the giving of public notice.

5. Means and duration of notice of planning proposals

City of Fremantle

PAGE 28

Standard

application Significant application

Scheme Amendments Structure Plan and Local Development Plan

Local Planning Policy Standard Complex

Time period (1)

14 days 28 days Not less than 42 days

unless agreed otherwise by WAPC

Not less than 60 days

unless agreed otherwise by WAPC

SP – not less than 14 days and not more than 28 days. LDP – not less than 14 days.

Not less than 21 days

Local newspaper notice (2)

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sign on site (3)

No Yes Yes, if rezoning is proposed for land

Yes Yes No

Notice to owners and occupiers

Yes, adjoining properties only (4)

Yes, 100m radius (5)

Yes, 100m radius (5)

Yes, 100m radius (5)

Yes, 100m radius (5)

No

Web site No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Precinct groups (6)

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Community Information session (7)

No Yes Yes (8) Yes (8) Yes No

Government Gazette

No No Yes Yes No No

Numbers in brackets ( ) refer to Explanatory Notes at the end of this policy.

6. Additional public notice of proposal previously advertised

(a) Where a planning proposal is subsequently modified prior to its final

determination and additional variations arise from the modifications; or

(b) Where an application to amend an existing planning approval is received

under clause 77 of the Regulations, and additional variations arise from the

proposed amendments;

City of Fremantle

PAGE 29

Additional public notice shall be given in the same manner under the provisions of this policy as if the modified/amended proposal was received as a new development application.

7. Amendments to Structure Plans

Amendments considered to be minor amendments to a Structure Plan are not required to be advertised under Clause 29 (3) of the Regulations. Public notice will be given of any other application to vary a Structure Plan as if it were a new plan.

8. Approval subject to later approval of details

Where a planning application has been approved subject to later approval of details under Clause 74 of the Regulations the subject applications for further approval will not be notified for public comment unless specified in the original approval or required by the Scheme and/or policy.

9. Planning Proposals where the Council is not the final decision maker

Public notice will be given of planning proposals where the Council is not the decision maker in the same way as those where the final decision is made by the Council. A full copy of any submissions received will be forwarded to the decision maker. Council is not responsible for informing any submitter of the decision maker’s final decision.

10. Holiday periods

An additional 14 days will be added to any notice period prescribed under this Policy where any part of the notification period falls within the following dates: (a) Between 15 December and 15 January (b) Between one week before and one week after Easter Sunday

11. Notification of interested parties that a matter is listed on a Council Standing

Committee Agenda

(a) Applications for approval to commence a use or to commence or carry out development – the landowner, applicant and all parties who have made a submission will be notified in writing of the date at which an item will be listed on a Standing Committee agenda.

(b) Planning proposals that alter the development potential of land which have not previously been advertised – regardless of the recommendation of any report, notification that an item that affects the development potential of land will be considered by a Standing Committee will be undertaken in accordance with Explanatory Note (4) and will also include the landowner and the applicant.

(c) Planning proposals that alter the development potential of land which have previously been advertised - the landowner, applicant and all parties who have made a submission will be notified in writing of the date at which an item will be listed on a Standing Committee agenda.

Should a Standing Committee refer the item to full Council for determination, the same parties referred to above shall also be notified of the date of the Council meeting.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 30

In all cases, staff will endeavor to ensure that the written notification is mailed on the Friday prior to the scheduled meeting date.

12. Notification of the Council/Committee/City decision

The applicant, the owner and all authors of written submissions will be advised of the decision of the Council/Committee/City in the form of a written notification of the decision and any associated conditions, advisory notes or refusal reasons.

13. Availability of documents

All plans and written information forming part of the proposal shall be made available for public viewing and access during the public notice period of that proposal. The documentation may be viewed at the City’s Service and Information counter without an appointment and copies of the plans and related information will be provided on request. When a development application is submitted, the plans and written information forming part of the proposal will be copied and given to an interested party on request during the public notice period. On this basis making an application for development approval is taken as having given consent to the City providing to members of the public copies of plans and written information forming part of the proposal.

14. Requests for changes to public notice periods

Requests for extensions or reductions of public notice periods prescribed by this policy will not be approved by staff. Staff will make every reasonable effort to make the Council aware of any submissions received after closure of notice periods.

15. Opportunity for applicant to respond to submissions

Copies of written submissions will be given to the applicant to provide the applicant the opportunity to respond to issues raised in any submissions. Personal details such as names, telephone numbers and addresses however will not be given to the applicant.

16. Submissions reported to Council Officer reports to Council will include a summary of the issues raised in any of the submissions received as part of the advertising process. If the text of a submission is to be included in the report, the author’s personal details will not be identified. Full copies of submissions are available to Elected Members upon request but will not be made available to members of the public unless required by law. Where an interested party does not respond to an invitation to make a submission on a proposal, Council will not view this as signifying no objection to that proposal.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

City of Fremantle

PAGE 31

(1) For development applications the time period shall be deemed to have commenced one day after the date shown on the letters that are sent to owners and occupiers by the City. For all other planning proposals the time period for advertising shall commence on the date public notice is published in a local newspaper.

(2) A local newspaper notice is an in a local newspaper, run for two consecutive

weeks during the advertising period. Newspaper notices are arranged by the City with the costs payable by the applicant.

(3) A sign on the site shall be erected in a prominent position on the site to the

satisfaction of Council. Where land subject to a proposal has more than one street frontage or where a site is very large, the applicant shall locate one sign in a prominent location and shall provide sufficient additional signs on each street alignment. The sign/s should be erected on the property boundary or within 0.5m of the boundary and be clearly visible from outside of the property boundary. The sign/s should be maintained in a good condition for the duration of the advertising period. The City will provide the specific requirements of the sign (eg timing, lettering size and overall sign dimensions) to the applicant after the application is lodged a preliminary assessment is made as to whether a sign on site is required. Any signage will be in accordance with the City’s Style Guide. Responsibility for the costs, erection, maintenance and removal of sign/s lies with the applicant.

(4) Means a letter to all owners and occupiers of all abutting properties (those sharing any common boundary and including diagonally opposite or those separated by a right-of-way or access way less then 6.0m in width) as shown at examples a, b and c below excepting in the case of an application for discretionary approval relating to a side or rear setback variation behind the building line, or to the privacy requirements contained within Element 6.8 of the Residential Design Codes 2010, where only the owner/occupier of the property onto whose boundary the discretion is sought will be notified.

Example (a) Example (b)

Example (c)

Subject

Site

Subject

Site

City of Fremantle

PAGE 32

(5) Means a letter to all owners and occupiers of all properties which fall wholly or

partly within a radius of 100 metres from the boundary of the subject land on

which the development is proposed.

(6) The Precinct groups will be requested to formally comment on all applications under this policy other than standard applications. Precinct groups will be given the standard consultation period.

(7) A community information session on the proposal will be held with invitation

extended to Elected Members, interested community members, and applicants. The information session will be held during the public consultation period, normally at least one week prior to completion to enable participants to make a formal written submission to Council after the session.

(8) Community information sessions are only required for significant scheme

amendments. A significant scheme amendment as determined by the Manager Planning Policy and Projects would include (but not limited to) large scale rezoning, an amendment that has significant strategic planning impacts or an amendment that is significantly different from the predominant and expected pattern of land use in the area.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

City of Fremantle

PAGE 33

PC1604-16 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 65 - ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS WHITE GUM VALLEY/BEACONSFIELD LOCAL CENTRE - FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 218/072 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PC 6 April 2016; Council 27 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: SPC1506-3 (24 June 2015)

SPC1505-2 (27 May 2015) SPC1503-1 (25 March 2015) SPC1409-03 (24 September 2014) PSC1403-47 (26 March 2014) PC1614 (27 January 2016)

Attachments: Report to Ordinary Council Meeting - 27 January 2016 (PC1614) Advertised proposed modified scheme amendment provisions Schedule of submissions on modification

Figure 1. Originally advertised amendment area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this item is to report on the submissions received during the consultation period for the modifications made to Scheme amendment 65, and to recommend that Council adopt the amendment with further modification to address issues raised in the submissions.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 34

Council initiated proposed scheme amendment No. 65 to the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4 or Scheme) for public consultation in June 2015. The amendment proposed inserting two new sub areas into Schedule 12 for the White Gum Valley/Beaconsfield Local Centre and surrounding Residential area. The new sub areas contained an area A and area B. Each area proposed additional density (up to R80/R100) and height requirements (four to five storey) where specific criteria could be met. Following the consultation period during late August to October 2015 and extended into November, Council considered the amendment and resolved at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 27 January 2016, to significantly modify the proposed amendment as a result of submissions received during this time. The modifications were advertised for public comment for 21 days as per the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations 2015). Submissions were taken for an additional two weeks after this. The City received 47 submissions during the public consultation period for the modification to the amendment. Concerns raised in the submissions related to building height, vehicle traffic and parking, heritage and existing character of the area and the boundary of the proposed amendment areas A and B. Several submissions additionally suggested alternatives and further modifications. Officers have taken the alternatives suggested in the submissions into consideration and recommend further modifications to the Scheme amendment. The further modifications propose including select properties fronting South Street into the amendment area only, a building height buffer to the Residential zone for all development, a reduction in building height overall and additional specific criteria to meet when proposing development on these sites. BACKGROUND

In 2014 the City undertook investigations regarding its ability to encourage higher density mixed use and residential redevelopment along South Street, one of the City’s key public transport routes connecting a number of employment and service areas between Fremantle and Murdoch. At its Ordinary Meeting 26 March 2014 (refer to Council item PSC1403-47 for full background) Council adopted an initiative to amend LPS4 to provide for higher density development along South Street. Three locations along South Street were identified as being suitable for more intensive mixed-use redevelopment (refer to SPC1409-03 24 September 2014 for background).

City of Fremantle

PAGE 35

Figure 2. Proposed planning scheme amendment areas No. 64, 65 and 66

Council initiated proposed scheme amendment No. 65 to the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4 or Scheme) for public consultation in June 2015. Following the consultation period during late August to October 2015 and extended into November, Council considered the amendment and resolved at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 27 January 2016, to significantly modify the proposed amendment as a result of submissions received during this time. The previous report presented to Council on 27 January 2016 (PC1614) is contained within this report as Attachment 1. DETAIL Proposed amendment The subject area of the proposed amendment - Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley local centre - is zoned Local Centre and Residential. These areas have a current height limit of up to two storeys and a low housing density (R20, R20/25 and R30). The advertised Scheme amendment proposed:

Retaining the existing zoning (Local Centre and Residential), densities (R20, R25/25 and R30) and height requirements as ‘base’ development standards;

A minimum height of two storeys along South Street in area A to ensure redevelopment of the commercial hub is consistent with its purpose and location as a key transit route into the city; and

Individual development controls for the Local Centre zone (Area A) and Residential zone (Area B) to allow for redevelopment through additional residential density and building height (as per below).

AREA A: In the Local Centre zone denoted in the Scheme amendment as Area A (refer to figure 1) a higher density (R100) with a maximum building height of 12 metres (external wall height) and 15 metres (top of pitched roof) was proposed where specific development controls could be met. The proposed specific development controls relate to building height, street setbacks, vehicle access, activated ground floor frontages and minimum open space requirements.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 36

AREA B: In the Residential zoned area denoted in the Scheme amendment as Area B (refer to figure 1) a higher density (R80) and additional height (see below) was proposed where specific development controls could be met. The proposed specific development controls include a minimum site area of 1 000 sqm (most likely to be achieved through amalgamation of existing lots) and coordinated access points to minimise individual access points by vehicles to South Street. Building height proposed in Area B:

12 metre external wall height and 15 metre pitched roof height in the areas directly bordering Area A

9 metre external wall height and 12 metre roof ridge height within 15 metres from the boundary of Area B and residential zoned properties outside of Area B

6 metre wall height and 9 metre roof height within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area B. This is the same height limit as already applies to the existing adjoining residential properties in the area.

Modified amendment At its ordinary meeting Council resolved to modify the amendment based on the submissions received to include six additional properties into the White Gum valley amendment area. The six properties are 20-26 Taylor Street and 242-246 South Street, White Gum Valley or the Childcare centre and adjoining single house lots, as shown on figure 3 below.

Figure 3. Advertised amendment area and modifications to include properties into amendment area

A full description of the advertised proposed modified amendment is included in Attachment 2 of this report. CONSULTATION

Community consultation was undertaken from 22 August 2015 to 12 October 2015 with the consultation period subsequently extended to 16 November 2015 to allow for further consultation – 87 days in total. Following Council’s resolution to advertise the modification the modification was advertised for 21 days from 6 to 27 February 2016 as the Planning and Development (Local Planning

City of Fremantle

PAGE 37

Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations 2015). Submissions were additionally taken for two weeks after this time. The advertising on the modification consisted of:

Public advertising notice in the Fremantle Herald local newspaper – 6 February 2016;

An information package including a frequently asked questions, Scheme amendment report, and submission forms made available at the City offices and on the website;

Notice being placed on the City of Fremantle website for the duration of consultation period;

Letters of notification and inviting comment on the proposal to various service agencies, government organisations and landowners and tenants within at least 100m the amendment area.

Additionally an officer, upon invitation from councillors and residents, meet with residents of Taylor, Stoke and Yalgoo Streets to answer any planning related questions. Officers also presented on the amendment at the White Gum Valley precinct meeting Tuesday 1 March 2016. Summary of Submissions Advertised proposed amendment The City received 33 submissions on the previously advertised proposed amendment. Nine agencies and 24 owner/occupiers in the White Gum Valley and Beaconsfield areas made submissions on the amendment. Position and number of submissions -

Position Number

Object 10

Support 7

Neutral - no objection/no comment 4

Neutral - comment 12

Total 33

Summarised comments from submissions in support of the amendment:

The Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley Local Centre hasn't seen changes for a long time. The changes are adequate and will go a long way to ensuring the ongoing viability of the Beaconsfield local centre. The proposed injection of higher density will encourage greater development, which will ultimately lead to more business, more shops and more people shopping in and around this specific area.

Approve changes as proposed with potentially greater density increases in the area A to R120 or R160 if feasible.

Two submissions proposed extending amendment area B.

Consider the types of uses in the area to create a sense of community. Summarised comments from submissions that object to the amendment:

The proposed height limit will result in buildings up to 5 storeys in height. This is inconsistent with local character/amenity;

City of Fremantle

PAGE 38

Higher density development will increase traffic and result in more congestion and parking issues on adjacent streets;

The validity of the 1000sqm site area requirement in area B and the ability to amalgamate with the neighbouring property was questioned.

Heritage listed property or property with heritage value could be an issue for redevelopment.

Modified proposed amendment The City received 47 submissions on the modifications to the Scheme amendment. One submission included 20 signatures. Three submissions were from agencies/government departments and the remainder (44 submissions) were from owners or occupiers of properties in White Gum Valley and Beaconsfield. Position and number of submissions -

Position Number

Object 39

Support 4

Neutral - no objection/no comment 2

Neutral - comment 2

Total 47

The submissions on the modifications raised similar issues to those addressed in the first submission round. Additional comments have been summarised below. Summarised comments from submissions in support of the amendment:

Paired with light rail it would be fantastic.

Support for the creation of a higher density activity node.

Area A should be allowed to go to at least 6 storeys and R120 density. Summarised comments from submissions that object to the amendment:

Some objectors generally support higher density development on South Street to improve amenity and ambience of the area.

Some submissions do not support any development in the area and suggest alternative locations within the City of Fremantle.

Most objections solely or additionally do not support R80/high density and 4/5 storey height in area B. The reasons presented for the objections included:

The streets/streetscapes in area B are considered established/ character/historical/heritage and inappropriate for higher density development.

The streets in area B have ongoing traffic and pedestrian safety issues due to existing conditions which are expected to worsen through high density development.

The existing and mature trees in the area and heritage, listed and non-listed, houses should be retained.

The expected higher density development type is low quality and would attract low socio-economic groups.

Some submissions questioned the 10m setback to South Street imposed through the Primary Regional Road reservation.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 39

Several submissions suggested alternatives to the proposed scheme amendment. The alternatives included:

Local structure/development plan process

Hero sites

R40 in Area B

Delete area B from amendment Attachment 3 (Schedule of Submissions) provides a full list of the submissions with officer comments in response. PLANNING COMMENT

The purpose of advertising modifications to an amendment is to gain public comment on the modifications. Few submissions directly addressed the modifications. Instead the submissions received raised similar issues to those addressed in the first submission round and brought up additional issues and alternatives for Council to consider. The subjects discussed in the report presented to Council 27 January 2016 (refer to attachment 1 - PC1614) included the following:

Height

Maximum building heights

Setback of development

Boundary change to area B

Housing Authority: Proposal to extend area B to the west

Planning Solutions: Proposal to extend area B the east

Six various land owners: Proposal to extend area B down Fifth Avenue

Boundary of area A and B

Validity of development in area B

Traffic movements and vehicle parking

Heritage

Minor wording change The modifications to the amendment submission period received more submissions than the first full and extended submission period. New subjects and alternative suggestions were put forward in the submissions received. These suggestions and as well as subjects not fully explored in the first round of submissions have been reviewed and in light of the additional submission comments officers propose further amendments to the Scheme amendment. These matters are discussed below. Heritage Within the Scheme amendment area nine properties are on the City’s heritage list (2 Fifth Avenue, 1, 3, 4 and 6 Central Avenue and 199, 201, 205 and 211 South Street – refer to properties shaded in figure 4 below). The area is not within a heritage area and there are no heritage listed properties in Elizabeth, Stokes or Taylor Street. Inherit (the State Heritage Office’s public record of heritage properties), however, does contain non-statutory notes on the following properties within the Scheme amendment area: 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 Stokes Street, 208, 213 and 221 South Street, 7 Central Avenue and 10 Fifth Avenue.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 40

Figure 4. Heritage listed places in proposed amendment area

A heritage listing is not intended to exclude a property from redevelopment. Accordingly for this reason heritage listed properties were not excluded from the amendment area. Notwithstanding, officers acknowledge that redevelopment would need to be more carefully considered to ensure new development is in keeping with the heritage significance of the place and, comparatively to a vacant site, redevelopment could be considered more constrained. Previously to the gazettal of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations 2015) all applications for the demolition of a primary building/structure on any property within the City of Fremantle, regardless of heritage listing, required planning approval. Applications for demolition were than assessed under clause 5.15 demolition of buildings and structures of LPS4. Clause 5.15, introduced into the Scheme through Scheme amendment No. 26 (gazetted 12 March 2010), provides criteria based on the cultural heritage significance of the place to determine planning applications for demolition. Clause 5.15 of LPS4 is provided below: Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

(a) has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and

(b) does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality in which it is located.

The Regulations 2015 introduced deemed provisions that permit demolition of buildings/structures without the need to gain planning approval where the place is not heritage listed and not within a heritage area. The City still receives any application for demolition on a heritage listed property or in a heritage area and assesses the application on the criteria of clause 5.15 of LPS4. However, buildings that are not on the heritage list or in a heritage area can be demolished without this assessment or planning approval needed as per the Regulations 2015 deemed provisions.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 41

As Scheme amendment No. 65 is not within a heritage area demolition of structures or buildings on non-heritage listed properties is permitted as per the Regulations 2015 deemed provisions. The feedback given to officers verbally and in the submissions from owners/occupiers of non-heritage listed property in Elizabeth, Taylor and Stokes Street, White Gum Valley and Central Avenue, Beaconsfield is that the historic nature of houses and other structures in these streets and their streetscapes are considered of value to residents. There is a concern that providing these properties with additional development potential could result in these buildings and structures being demolished without further heritage assessment or planning approval. The general feedback from these areas is a preference for no redevelopment if this results in an increased opportunity for potential heritage buildings to be demolished and streetscapes to change. The City will be looking into these areas for the review of the City of Fremantle Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and the Heritage List under LPS4 to provide greater heritage protection. The priority areas as set by Council at their Ordinary Meeting of Council on 27 January 2016 (PC1616) are as follows -

Parts of the suburb of Beaconsfield not included in the South Fremantle Heritage Area (generally the area east of Mather Road and the South Fremantle High school).

The whole suburb of White Gum Valley.

Parts of the suburb of Fremantle east of Hampton Road, Ord Street and James Street

Depending on funding allocated and resources obtained to review these areas the timings for these heritage review projects are between one and three years. Owners are encouraged to put in their own applications and provide information to the City on their properties to be considered as part of the review(s). Primary Regional reserve on South Street Setback of buildings The Primary Regional Road Reservation of South Street is applicable to the Scheme amendment area. This means that 10m into the front of every property fronting South Street in the Scheme amendment area has the Primary Regional Road Reservation over it (Refer to the red reservation in figure 1). Any development applications received along this proportion of South Street requires referral to Main Roads for comment. If Main Roads provide an objection to a development application than the Western Australian Planning Commission becomes the decision making authority on the application. In the past Main Roads have allowed some types of temporary structures in the road reservation, however in recent years Main Roads have not permitted any development within the reservation apart from vehicle access and parking. Accordingly the amendment proposes a minimum 10m and maximum 12m street setback to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback, to align with the reservation. Several submissions referred to the road reservation and the need for greater certainty on what can be achieved in this area and when any upgrades would happen. As part of the Scheme amendments proposed along the South Street transit corridor the City has met with Main Roads WA and the Department of Transport to discuss the Metropolitan Region Scheme Primary Regional Road Reservation along South Street between Hilton and

City of Fremantle

PAGE 42

Beaconsfield / White Gum Valley. Both Main Roads WA and Department of Transport have not been able to provide any timeframes for upgrades or modifications to the existing road configuration and both agencies do not support relinquishing control of the MRS road reserve to the City of Fremantle, or the development of built form which would compromise the future utilisation of the MRS road reserve. Officers therefore consider there are no grounds to change the setback. On a positive note Main Roads WA and the Department of Transport appear to have a positive response to a joint State and Local Government approach to interim treatments within the road reservation, including potential improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the provision of public art and alfresco dining areas to enhance the public and private realm. Engagement with these agencies on the design guidelines for the area (see discussion below on area of amendment) will be valuable. Conversely, the Department of Planning have consistently advised officers that they would ‘not support any development within the South Street Primary Regional Road Reservation’. Alternatives to the amendment The proposed amendment would by the very nature of the proposal (i.e. increased density and height) change the existing streetscape, open space on private land and character of proposed areas A and B. During the public comment period the City received a large proportion of submissions from landowners and occupiers in or directly abutting area B. These submissions objected to the amendment largely for reasons around the existing character of the place and the desire to protect this character in area B. Several submissions proposed alternatives to the amendment. These alternatives are discussed below. Local Structure/Development plan Several submissions suggested the proposed amendment process be changed to a local structure/development plan process similar to the former Kim Beazley School Site. The submissions suggest this process would include further community input, better community buy in and coordinate development of the area better. Officers consider a local structure plan process to not be an appropriate planning mechanism for redevelopment of the amendment area due to changes in the planning regulations and the structure plan process. The Regulations 2015 Since the former Kim Beazley school site structure plan was adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission on 24 September 2014 the Regulations 2015 have come into effect and structure/development plan content and process has changed. The Regulations 2015 have downgraded the status of structure and development plans from documents of similar status to the Scheme to documents of similar status to a local planning policy; decision-makers are to have ‘due regard’ to the structure/development plan when assessing development applications in these areas, but the provisions in a structure plan are not binding.

Additionally what structure and development plans are to contain under the Regulations 2015 has been reduced. Structure plans now provide the basis of zoning and density for areas only. Structure plans no longer provide comment on design outcomes or provide

City of Fremantle

PAGE 43

mechanisms to achieve better planning outcomes. A local development plan is additionally required to provide detail however, “is not to be used purely as a means to vary the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-codes” (Framework for local development plans, WAPC, August 2015).

Structure plan process requirements The process to undertake a structure plan is lengthy and requires landowner buy-in to be successful. The area would first need to be rezoned to ‘development zone’ through a Scheme amendment to the City’s LPS4. Following rezoning all current zoning and density requirements would effectively be deleted and any more than minor development would not be allowed. Landowners would then need to coordinate the development of a structure plan and local development plan for the area. The structure plan process is a similar process to a scheme amendment process in that it requires a public comment period, Council consideration and the WAPC as the determining body. This whole Scheme amendment and Structure plan process would likely take at least 18 months to complete. Overall the comments in the submissions do not appear to support undertaking a comprehensive and co-ordinated landowner/occupier process for comprehensive redevelopment of the area as outlined above. Officers consider this planning mechanism better suited to sites with few landowners or greenfield sites and do not support this alternative approach for the amendment area. Suburb wide plan Some of the submissions received questioned the specific area of the amendment, being on South Street and over the suburbs of Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley. These submissions suggested as an alternative to the amendment that local area wide plans for Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley be completed. While officers understand the desire for the local qualities to be included in the amendment, officers consider this approach contrary to the intent and purpose of the amendment. The purpose of Scheme amendment No. 65 and associated amendments along South Street was to encourage higher density mixed use and residential redevelopment along the City’s key transit corridor connecting the employment and service areas between Fremantle and Murdoch. Officers consider the amendment purpose still relevant and advise against expanding the Scheme amendment process for amendment No. 65 to become a community plan. Alternatively, a local area wide planning review will be completed as part of the larger planning strategy and Scheme review (the subject of a report Council in the near future) planned for late 2016/2017. In the interim Council could consider drafting design guidelines for the Scheme amendment No. 65 area. A design guidelines approach has been adopted by Council for the Scheme amendment No. 64 – Hilton Local Centre area. Including the Scheme amendment No. 65 area into the work being carried out on the design guidelines for Scheme amendment No. 64 would provide a coordinated approach to higher density development along the transit corridor for South Street, help enhance the amenity and character of the area and be in keeping with the purpose of the amendment. Density decrease Many submissions mentioned height and density as key points of objection to the amendment. One submission suggested considering an R40 density coding, instead of R80, in area B to allow for redevelopment of the area without height above two storey,

City of Fremantle

PAGE 44

clearer building setback provisions and retention of the existing streetscape and buildings. The submission provided: This option allows for some redevelopment in the currently zoned R20/25/30 areas of Zone B, supporting extra dwellings on larger properties or through the amalgamation of rear gardens to form the required block size. The submission acknowledged that the downside of the proposal would be the loss of open space and trees which are valued by residents in this area. Council could consider decreasing the density in area B from R80 to R40 or R60. This option would address concerns raised in the submissions by reducing the height of new development to 2-3 storeys and the density/ number of potential new dwellings in the area. Both options would allow every lot in area B to develop at least one additional dwelling (minimum lot size required to consider subdivision: R40 440 sqm; R60 300 sqm) and overall would be in keeping with the purpose of the amendment – to increase density along South Street. The option however, would still present an opportunity for redevelopment though demolition and would likely change the existing streetscape in these areas. Submissions received on the amendment appear to not support this outcome. Accordingly officers do not recommend this option in area B. Hero sites One submission suggested the idea of ‘hero sites’. Hero sites have the potential for comprehensive development, as they are large sites in the ownership of one landowner. The submission suggests the sites on the western corner of Yalgoo and South Street and the eastern corner of Fifth Ave and South Street would meet these criteria. Officers further identified other multiple lots fronting South Street that are owned by one landowner (refer to figure 5). Officers support this idea and have used it to inform the alternative recommendation presented below.

Figure 5. Proposed area A and B multiple lots in the ownership of one landowner

City of Fremantle

PAGE 45

Retain area A and delete area B (Officer’s Recommendation) In general there is support in the submissions for increased mixed commercial and residential development along South Street. There is little to no support for comprehensive development in area B. Alternatively several submissions proposed zone B be removed from consideration in the amendment area. Excerpt from submissions:

“Removal of Zone B allows for the historical, environmental, and social context of White Gum Valley streets to be preserved, while also retaining the intent of the Planning Scheme Amendment to allow nodes of higher density with mixed commercial and residential along South Street.”

“I feel that South Street could meet the challenge of greater density with minimal damage to the local community if redevelopment was restricted to the already zoned mix of residential and non-residential uses along its edges. By intensifying these strips each side of South Street some consistency of built form could be achieved. Planning guidelines could recognise and possibly outline long term strategies for light rail and other innovative public transport systems.”

Officers consider there is scope to remove parts of area B and still achieve the purpose of the amendment i.e. encouraging higher density mixed use development along the transit corridor. Area A comprises of properties that are already zoned local centre and can provide for a mix of commercial and residential uses. Many of the property owners in this area own more than one lot side-by-side (refer to figure 5 above), meaning larger development sites and the opportunity for comprehensive redevelopment where a minimum lot size is met (e.g. >1000 sqm). The childcare Accordingly, in light of the views expressed in the submissions, officers propose including those properties in the local centre zone and comprising the childcare centre along South Street into the amendment area only and applying the area B height ‘buffer’ to these sites. This alternative approach would still achieve Council’s desire to ignite redevelopment of the transit corridor and would also address concerns raised in submissions.

Figure 6. New proposed modified amendment (Officer’s recommendation)

Area A/sub area 5.3.1 requirements Officers propose including all of the local centre properties, excluding 230 South Street, White Gum Valley (discussion on this below), into the Scheme amendment and allocating

City of Fremantle

PAGE 46

additional development requirements to the sub areas for White Gum Valley (sub area 6.3.1 - Area A) and Beaconsfield (sub area 5.3.1) (refer to figure 6). Officers propose the following modified planning requirements for sub areas 6.3.1 - Area A and sub area 5.3.1:

Retain proposed R100 density coding and other specific criteria as previously proposed for area A;

Reduce the height of development to 10 metre external wall height on development sites 1000 sqm and under where specific criteria are met. This would allow for the development of a three storey building with a 4m wall height (specific requirement) on the ground floor for commercial uses;

Allow for additional height i.e. 12 metre wall height, 13m top of external wall, 15m top of pitched roof, where the development site compromises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm and other specific criteria are met;

Apply the area B height buffer in area A in all instances where additional development requirements are being sought, i.e. development is to be reduced to two storey in height within 5 metres of adjoining residential properties; and

Require additional development criteria for any boundary walls to be no more than 3.5m in height (single storey) and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary on any boundary adjoining the Residential zone.

Many of the commercial property owners in Area A/the local centre zone own more than one lot meaning lot amalgamation to provide a sufficient development site area could be achieved. The incentive to achieve this is additional height requirements (i.e. from three storey to four storey height requirements) for development sites over 1000 sqm. A height buffer would be applicable to all development on the site to address the interface between the local centre and the adjoining residential zone i.e. two storey development within five metres of the adjoining low density residential zone. To further address the interface single storey boundary wall requirements are recommended. This requirement would ensure two storey boundary walls, as currently permitted under the R80 and R100 provisions of the R-codes, are prohibited from the area A and the Residential zone interface. The single storey boundary wall requirement would also ensure that development on this interface is similar to development that could happen on R20-R30 density coded properties. Officers propose deleting the property 230 South Street, White Gum Valley (Hey Joe Retro) from area A of the amendment area. This lot is an anomaly in the local centre zone in that it does not adjoin other local centre zoned lots and adjoins residential zoned land. Additionally the lot is small, approximately 369 sqm in size, and has a shallow lot depth (30m). These factors combined with the 10m Primary Regional Road setback requirement and the application of the height buffer to the two sides adjoining the residential zone, restrict development of this site to no more than what can currently be achieved under the R60 density coding requirements (where mixed use development is proposed) and two storey height limit of the Scheme. Accordingly, 230 South Street, White Gum Valley would gain no benefit from being in the amendment area and has not been included into area A of the amendment. Similarly, the smaller (approximately 440 sqm) commercial zoned properties of 226, 228 and 230 South Street, White Gum Valley have shallow lot depths (30m) also. Development up to four storey will be difficult to provide for on these smaller lots, especially with the 10m Primary Regional Road setback and application of the height buffer. Three storey (one

City of Fremantle

PAGE 47

more than they can do now) development may be possible, especially if lots are amalgamated. These lots have been retained in the amendment in the hope that the amendment provisions provide incentive to create a larger development area through lot amalgamation. The R100 density coding has been retained. The differences between the density codes R80 and R100 of the R-codes are the plot ratio requirements. R80 has a plot ratio of 1.0 and R100 has a plot ratio of 1.25. All other requirements under the R-codes are the same i.e. parking, setbacks, visual privacy etc. Additional to this the Scheme amendment prescribes the height (10-13 metre wall height), height buffer and street setbacks to South Street (10m). Ultimately development yield will be more restricted by other factors (i.e. building height and setback requirements) than by the density coding. Keeping the density coding at R100 provides more flexibility for development on site. Area B requirements Officers propose properties 20-26 (Lots 3 and 66) Taylor Street and 242-246 (Lots 32, 33, 34 and 35) South Street, White Gum Valley (an established Childcare centre and adjoining single house) be retained in the amendment as sub area 6.3.1 - Area B (refer to figure 6). Officers propose the remainder of proposed area B be deleted from the Scheme amendment. Officers propose the following planning requirements for the reduced area B:

Retain proposed R80 density coding;

Retain the height buffer as previously proposed in area B i.e. development reduced to two storey height within 5 metres of adjoining residential properties;

Retain the height requirement of the R-codes for R80 development i.e. 12 metre wall height, 13m top of external wall, 15m top of pitched roof, where the development site compromises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm; and

Require additional development criteria for any boundary walls to be no more than 3.5m in height (single storey) and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary on any boundary adjoining the Residential zone outside of area B.

The six lots included in area B of White Gum Valley are in the ownership of one landowner meaning lot amalgamation to provide a sufficient development site area could be achieved. The impact of comprehensive development on the site and the existing residential zone would be mitigated by the height buffer and single storey boundary wall requirements at the Area B and residential zone interface. Being that the site is zoned residential any development on the lots would have to be of a residential nature. Council previously considered the sites for inclusion into the amendment at the 27 January Ordinary Meeting of Council. A number of attributes on which to consider properties in the South Street transport corridor were used for consideration of inclusion of the sites. These considerations are still applicable. The table below summarises these considerations and specifies how the additional lots address these elements.

Matter Officers response Appropriate zoning under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and LPS4

The lots are zoned Urban under the MRS and Residential under LPS4.

Large development area The six lots measure 2,637m2 and are owned by one land

City of Fremantle

PAGE 48

(+1000m2) owner.

Alternative access roads to South Street

Future development of the six lots could take access from Taylor Street.

Development of an area that would have limited impact on surrounding low density residential dwellings.

One of the lots contains a single house. This lot adjoins a single house to the north. The remaining five lots contain a single house converted into a childcare centre and associated structures and outbuildings. The childcare centre adjoins five grouped dwellings on one parent lot. A height buffer (two storey for five metres and three storey for 15 metres from adjoining residential lots) and single storey boundary wall height requirements would apply.

Sufficient services in the area to support increased density.

The additional lots are considered to have the same services as those sites already included in the amendment area.

Identified heritage listing constraints which would encroach upon comprehensive development.

The lots are not heritage listed.

Regulations 2015 requirements The Regulations 2015 apply a tiered approach to scheme amendments; basic, standard and complex amendments. Scheme amendment No. 65 is considered a ‘standard’ amendment, because it matches key characteristics described in the definition of a standard amendment in the new Regulations as follows:

Amendment provisions are consistent with the objectives in the scheme for the zoning applying to the area subject to the amendment;

Minimal impact on land outside the area the subject of the amendment;

Amendment does not have any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts.

Modifications were made to the standard scheme amendment and an additional public consultation period of 21 days, as required by the Regulations 2015, was undertaken. In light of the issues raised in the submissions received in the public consultation on the modification officers recommend additional modifications. The proposed changes to the modified amendment are considered to not be significant. Therefore officers consider further advertising of the amendment would not be required. The reason for this view is the changes do not provide for additional development requirements or an increased Scheme amendment area over and above what has been advertised on two separate occasions. Conversely the modified amendment comprises of a reduced amendment area when compared to the original and modified amendment and overall reduced height requirements. The modified amendment also responds to comments made in submissions. The City has followed the standard and modified amendment process requirements of the Regulations 2015 to date and requests the Minister determines the modified Scheme amendment as a standard amendment with no further public consultation required. CONCLUSION

City of Fremantle

PAGE 49

The purpose of this item is to report on the submissions received during the consultation period for the modifications made to Scheme amendment 65. In light of the submissions received during the public comment period on the modifications to the amendment officers recommend further modifications to the Scheme amendment. The further modifications propose including select properties fronting South Street into the amendment area only, a building height buffer for all development, a reduction in building height overall and additional specific criteria to meet when proposing development on these sites. It is therefore recommended that Scheme amendment 65 be adopted with further modifications and sent to the Minister of Planning for final determination. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council –

1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and Attachment 3;

2. Resolve pursuant to regulation 50(3) and 51(7) of the Planning and Development

(Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to adopt the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 with modifications to address issues raised in the submissions:

a) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield by replacing Clause 5.1 Local Centre requirements with the following:

Zone (Within LPA Only) Maximum External Wall Height

Local Centre 5.5m (except within Sub Area 5.3.1)

b) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield by inserting the following:

LOCAL PLANNING AREA 5 - BEACONSFIELD

5.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREAS

City of Fremantle

PAGE 50

Sub Area 5.3.1

a) Within sub area 5.3.1, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and

Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub

Area 5.3.1, clause 5.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ of Local Planning Area 5 does not apply.

c) A minimum building height of 7 metres, including a building

façade on the South Street frontage which incorporates windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first floor level to create interest and a sense of activity within the building, applies.

d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance

with the criteria and standards set out in the table below:

Criteria to be met in order for additional development standards to apply

Additional development standards

Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions of

Table 1 – Zoning, residential land uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street, to ensure activation of development

Density a) Residential density

code R100. Height b) Where the development

site area comprises of a

City of Fremantle

PAGE 51

frontages to South Street. Vehicle access b) Vehicle access to development

sites with frontage to South Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties.

c) Vehicle parking shall only be

provided at the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.

d) For new development with frontage

to South St, a Traffic Impact Assessment is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and shall be submitted in support of application for planning approval.

Other design requirements e) In the part of all new development

with frontage to South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

f) The minimum street setback shall

be 10 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, and the maximum street setback shall be 12 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback.

g) To prevent excessive breaks in

building frontages to South Street, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to South Street is no more than 6 metres.

h) Open space can be reduced to 30%

where development respects

minimum land parcel of less than 1,000 sqm the following height requirements apply:

A maximum external wall height of 10 metres and top of pitched roof height of 13 metres.

c) Where the development

site area comprises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm or more the following height requirements apply:

The height requirements shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes for R80 coded land.

Height buffer d) Regardless of the

height requirement referred to above a height buffer shall apply to development as follows -

A maximum external wall height of 6 metres and top of pitched roof height of 9 metres for development in the sub area within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of the sub area.

A maximum external wall height of 9 metres and top of pitched roof height of 12 metres for development in the

City of Fremantle

PAGE 52

existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

i) At least 10% of the site area to be

landscaped with plantings and permeable surfaces.

j) Any wall on the boundary of a

residential zoned property outside of the sub area to be no more than 3.5m in height and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary.

sub area within 15 metres of residential zoned properties outside of the sub area.

Note: Where the above criteria are not met, the height requirements in 5.1 of Local Planning Area 5 above apply.

c) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley by replacing Clause 6.1 Local Centre requirements with the following:

Zone (Within LPA Only) Maximum External Wall Height

Local Centre 5.5m (except within Sub Area 6.3.1)

d) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley by inserting the following:

LOCAL PLANNING AREA 6 – WHITE GUM VALLEY

6.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREAS

City of Fremantle

PAGE 53

Sub area 6.3.1

a) Within sub area 6.3.1, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and

Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub Area

6.3.1 clause 6.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ of Local Planning Area 6 does not apply.

c) A minimum building height of 7 metres, including a building

façade on the South Street frontage which incorporates windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first floor level to create interest and a sense of activity within the building, applies within Area A.

d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance with

the criteria and standards set out in the table below:

Locations where additional development standards apply

Criteria to be met in order for additional development standards to apply

Additional development standards

AREA A Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions of

Table 1 – Zoning, residential land

Density a) Residential density

code R100.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 54

uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street, to ensure activation of development frontages to South Street.

Vehicle access b) Vehicle access to development sites

with frontage to South Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties.

c) Vehicle parking shall only be

provided at the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.

d) For new development with frontage

to South St, a Traffic Impact Assessment is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and shall be submitted in support of application for planning approval.

Other design requirements e) In the part of all new development

with frontage to South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

f) The minimum street setback shall

be 10 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, and the maximum street setback shall be 12 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback.

g) To prevent excessive breaks in

building frontages to South Street, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to South Street

Height b) Where the development

site area comprises of a minimum land parcel of less than 1,000 sqm the following height requirements apply:

A maximum external wall height of 10 metres and top of pitched roof height of 13 metres.

c) Where the development

site area comprises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm or more the following height requirements apply:

The height requirements shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes for R80 coded land.

Height buffer d) Regardless of the

height requirement referred to above a height buffer in Area A shall apply to development as follows -

A maximum external wall height of 6 metres and top of pitched roof height of 9 metres for development in Area A within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area A.

A maximum external wall height of 9 metres and top of

City of Fremantle

PAGE 55

is no more than 6 metres. h) Open space can be reduced to 30%

where development respects existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

i) At least 10% of the site area to be

landscaped with plantings and permeable surfaces.

j) Any wall on the boundary of a

residential zoned property outside of Area A to be no more than 3.5m in height and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary.

pitched roof height of 12 metres for development in Area A within 15 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area A.

AREA B a) The development site comprises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm.

b) Vehicle access to development sites

with frontage to South Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties.

c) At least 10% of the site area to be

landscaped with planting and permeable surfaces.

d) Any wall on the boundary of a

residential zoned property outside of Area B to be no more than 3.5m in height and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary.

Note: While amalgamation and joint development of adjoining sites is expected to be the predominant means of providing alternative access to South Street as required in part B above, alternative mechanisms such as the creation of easements or rights-of-carriageway may also be considered.

Density a) Residential density

code R80. Height b) The height

requirements shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes for R80 coded land.

Height buffer c) A height buffer within

Area B shall apply to development as follows -

A maximum external wall height of 6 metres and top of pitched roof height of 9 metres for development in Area B within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area B.

A maximum external wall height of 9 metres and top of

City of Fremantle

PAGE 56

pitched roof height of 12 metres for development in Area B within 15 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area B.

Note: Where the above criteria are not met, the height requirements in 6.1 of Local Planning Area 6 above apply.

3. That upon final adoption of Scheme Amendment No. 65 Council will, in

conjunction with the work being undertaken for Scheme amendment No. 64, prepare a draft Design Guidelines for the Scheme amendment No. 65 area.

4. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant

documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

5. Request the Minister for planning to grant final consent to the Scheme

Amendment No. 65 as referred to in (2) above. 6. Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that pursuant to the

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the amendment hereby submitted is considered to be a ‘standard amendment’ for the purpose of the Regulations.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

City of Fremantle

PAGE 57

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 20 APRIL 2016

FPOL1604-5 WEED MANAGEMENT SERVICES

ECM Reference: 146/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: SGS1507-4 Responsible Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and Project

Delivery Actioning Officer: Joanne Smith, Parks Manager Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: SDRCP 228 of 28 October 2000

SDRCP49 of 27 August 2001 SDRCP504-47 of 18 April 2005 SGS0606-14 of 28 June 2006 International Agency for Research on Cancer report, 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council requested a response to the 120% price difference between chemical and non-chemical weed treatment in the City. In the same period the City was made aware of an international agency assessment of glyphosate as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’. This report provides information relating to these two issues and a recommendation for continuing with the City’s current integrated weed management approach.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 29 July 2015 the Chemical Free Weed Management tender was considered and an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation was adopted: Council notes the 120% price difference between chemical and non-chemical treatment and request a further report in ways in which this price differential can be addressed. Council has considered this topic on a number of occasions since the introduction of the chemical free trials around 1997 and in addition to endorsing chemical free contracted services. The very first trails for this treatment provided comparable pricing between the application of chemical and the chemical free steam method. However, pricing abruptly rose immediately after the initial trial period because of:

Significantly higher levels of labour required for manual application and weeding methods; and

Sophistication of the steam applying equipment.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 58

After a formal recognition of this as the preferred method, the difference in price was clearly established in subsequent contract years. Reference is made to the attached items to Council:

In 2000 (Attachment 1) the cost for two non-chemical treatments each year was recognised as around 120% higher than the cost of two/year equivalent applications using the herbicide glyphosate. The cost comparison was determined from the then current cost of chemical free control ($109,000) compared to an equivalent contract quantity for chemical treatments, based on tendered rates for the City of Canning (at $49,000), thereby arriving at the 120% ratio.

In 2001 findings continued in the same manner (Attachment 2). This report also noted that the contract performance for weed control was ensured through continuous monitoring to equal “the results that could reasonably be expected by the use of chemical spraying. It is noted that these results can only be achieved through diligent contractor effort, (consequently involving a much higher labour content than under chemical spraying), and follow up by council staff to ensure that requirements are met.”

In 2005 (Attachment 3) Council considered progress of the chemical free weed control methods with the addition of the central business district and priority roads to the new contract. It was resolved in a specific instruction from Council, to complete a 12 month trial of chemical methods in specified locations.

In June 2006 (Attachment 4) the results of the trial work over the 12 months was examined to consider the consultation process and the results of the chemical and non-chemical control methods. The trial results showed that there was still a reasonable proportion of residents opposed to the application of chemical to the trial areas (around 4% by street or 6% by the number of residents), which translated to an expected 400 – 630 objections within Fremantle (compared to around 0.15% for Melville). This would have to be managed by staff to ensure that various sites were not sprayed with chemical sprays where objections were raised and acknowledged. Council resolved to continue with the chemical free method of weed control in footpaths, kerb lines and paved median islands.

COMMENT

The annual contracted services call for 2 treatments to residential roads and paths, 6 treatments to 10 priority roads and 6 treatments to the central business district. The increasing annual costs for this contract are related to:

More stringent traffic management requirements,

Labour rate increases for applying steam and manually removing persistent weeds,

The addition of new roads and paths in Minum Cove, Leighton, Taylor South, South Beach and many other small scale developments

City of Fremantle

PAGE 59

Return treatments to meet weed control service level criteria where growth is stimulated by unseasonal wet conditions, related to persistent perennial weed species or other specific conditions.

In terms of the price movement for the chemical free treatment, the costs have risen from $109,000 to $300,000 between 2000 and 2015, or an increase of 275%, significantly above inflation. A case for considering the use of chemicals Contract cost This may provide some impetus for tipping the balance against the use of chemical free treatment, providing that the cost of chemical application can be reliably confirmed for comparison and providing the costs for managing objections are properly considered. Additional dedicated officer time to process and manage objections and project manage such treatments may be added directly onto the cost of the weed treatments. Alternatively, some consideration may be given to the recommendations contained in the SGS0606-14 report of 28 June 2006 (Attachment 4), allowing for a combination of both treatments, depending on the areas treated. To summarise, the costs of chemical free weed control are recognised as being higher than chemical treatment, mainly as a result of the more intensive labour and number of treatments required annually. If the ratio of cost is to be verified again, this would require another comparison of the rate for chemical treatment for the municipality against the current tendered rate for chemical free treatment. The costs for administering the project, public consultation and managing the objections would need to be factored into the assessment. Concerns for use of the herbicide glyphosate The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) government agency is tasked with:

Registering agricultural and veterinary chemical products, permits and manufacturing licences.

Registering chemical products information, reviews, active constituents and uses.

Compliance enforcement.

Online services. Following an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) assessment of glyphosate in a group of chemicals that is ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ in March 2015 (Attachment 5), emails and news articles proliferated around the world alerting authorities, including local governments, to the review. A number of interpretations of this assessment have been circulated to the City of Fremantle in the previous 7 months. The IARC is an arm of the World health Organisation (WHO) which has received recent

City of Fremantle

PAGE 60

reviews of glyphosate health risk assessments from a number of agencies including a German agency for the European Union, BfR. As the chemical regulator in Australia, the APVMA’s role is to review all scientific material to consider a full range of risks (including risks of cancer to humans) and how they can be minimized:

The IARC assessment looks at the intrinsic toxicity potential or ‘hazard’ of the chemical glyphosate as

a cancer-causing agent only. Other components of the toxicity of glyphosate are not taken into account. As part of the regulatory process undertaken by the APMVA and pesticide regulators in other

countries, a hazard assessment is just one part of the overall risk assessment required to determine the

risks for people using a formulated chemical product.

It is not the role of the IARC to consider how a formulated chemical product is used, or how human

exposure can be minimised by following safety directions on a product label. In this regard, the findings of IARC cannot be directly compared to assessments conducted by regulatory authorities for

the purposes of approval or registration of a pesticide product, in which are included appropriate risk

mitigation measures to allow safe use.

Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, 8 March 2016

Website: n

In collaboration with the Office of Chemical Safety in the Department of Health, the APVAMA are reviewing the IARC publication to determine any regulatory actions required and whether glyphosate should be formally reviewed. The agency is also participating in international assessments by the WHO, United Nations, European and US environmental and food safety agencies. A joint re-evaluation of the herbicide will consider all adverse human health effects, scheduled for release in May 2016. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as part of the European Union, have recently considered an extensive body of scientific evidence including the IARC and BfR assessments and have concluded that glyphosate does not cause cancer in humans. The APVMA advise that:

Based on current risk assessment the label instructions on all glyphosate products—when followed—

provides adequate protection for users. People should follow the use and safety instructions on all chemical product labels as these are designed to reduce human exposure to the chemical product.

Staff and contractors of the City of Fremantle are bound to adherence to the proper use and safety instructions of all chemical products and are very aware of their duty of care to the public and themselves. The City also has a duty of care to its employees and to ensure that staff and contracted operators handle concentrate and spray applications strictly in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Parks and Landscape staff are only certified to Australian Quality Training Framework level 3 for chemical handling and application. On occasion when the City requires application of level 4 chemicals, such as boom operated broadleaf weed control on sportsgrounds, contractors certified to level 4 are employed.

Removal of pesticides in parks and schools in France

City of Fremantle

PAGE 61

In January 2016 the City’s Parks Manager met with the parks manager from Narbonne, France, a popular tourist destination close to outer Paris, and four other Perth parks managers from Gosnells, Swan, Perth and Kings Park as arranged between international professional organisations Hortis and Parks and Leisure Australia. A topic of much discussion was the recent legislation to ban pesticide use on parks throughout France by 2020. This excludes railways, airports and roadways. It is understood that the objective for the ban is aimed largely at reducing exposure to more vulnerable sections of the community such as children, pregnant women and the elderly; and to protect their predominantly surface drinking water catchments. Consideration of how WA’s hydrogeological, environmental, urban, economic conditions and pesticide practices may compare to France’s would be required prior to making any comment on this initiative. The APVMA would be the most reliable source for advice on appropriate responses for Australian conditions. Effectiveness of chemicals The control of weeds is essential for protecting agriculture, horticulture and amenity horticulture industries from biological threats and loss of production. Weeds and pests can also negatively impact reliant industries such as recreation, sport, tourism and other aspects of healthy communities and economic prosperity. Many weed species require targeted chemical treatments to eradicate them effectively and do not respond to mechanical methods such as hot water and hand pulling. In the City of Fremantle community members have planted tube stock into reclaimed land along the lineal walkway known as Hollis Link between Hampton Road and South Terrace, South Fremantle. The site was largely infested with Victorian Tea Tree and rogue couch. Because of the prolific seeding habit of the tea tree and the extensive underground runners of the couch, chemical control is required to eradicate the weeds to allow native planted species to compete and occupy the same space. In sports fields, serious turf weeds are targeted with broadleaf specific treatments to keep playing surface of an even cover and texture to prevent injury to players. Broad acre chemical spraying is undertaken after advertising the event in the weeks prior and advisory signage is placed on site until the chemical has dried. With good handling and application practices, such as avoiding wind drift, every effort is made to limit public exposure to chemicals. The Poisons Standards (the SUSMP) , March 2016 This legislated standard is prepared by the Australian Department of Health-Therapeutic Goods Administration and sets out poisons in schedules numbered from 1 to 10, 1 being the lowest toxicity and 10 being the highest. Glyphosate is listed as a Schedule 5 poison as is Asprin, many herbal oils, orange oil, camphor, epoxy resins in furniture, hydrogen peroxide in health and beauty products, nit and flea treatments containing Malathion, methylated spirits, paint and many other household items. It is important to consider the likely human exposure to the poison, not only how poisonous a substance is. Does the average person expose themselves to a greater risk from petrol fumes than herbicides, filling their car each fortnight or so? A resident’s exposure to the exhaust from a running vehicle and machinery operating the steam spray equipment may

City of Fremantle

PAGE 62

be exposed to a greater risk than the same person encountering glyphosate treatments. Throughout the City of Fremantle a number of different chemical treatments are required to control pests and diseases in public and private buildings and commercial sites. Health effects from poisons are typically accumulative and a whole range of possible sources would need to be considered before a health affecting cause could be isolated. Simply considering a choice between non-chemical or chemical weed control in roads, pathways and kerb lines based on resident objections to glyphosate spray omits consideration for broader consideration for sustainable living in the City of Fremantle. Water Use Steam applications utilise larger quantities of water in a higher application rate, than a lower application rate for glyphosate. If the water is returned to the environment to the same quality, is steam a responsible use of water? Integrated Weed Management An integrated pest and weed management approach to managing public landscapes in the City is aimed at minimising chemical use while maintaining parks, streets and bushland to an agreed level of service for the community. Treating pest species at the most effective time of the year and using the most appropriate methods will achieve the best control rates. Methods of control will be a combination of cultural, biological and chemical. The objective is to limit the use of chemicals, protect the environment and treat the target species only. A comprehensive weed management plan includes a comprehensive community and stakeholder communication strategy, and monitoring and review periods. It is recommended that Council consider the principles of an integrated approach and associated risk management.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

City of Fremantle

PAGE 63

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Community education and consultation is integral to any consideration for implementing a change to the City’s current practice of chemical free weed treatment to roads, footpaths and kerb lines.

CONCLUSION

The costs for non-chemical, weed control in the City of Fremantle is at a substantially greater cost than typical chemical methods due to greater labour intensity and equipment costs. The City’s current approach to using a mixture of weed control methods for an integrated management approach, achieves the most effective control under the current conditions. Should this approach be challenged with new information, a review of the City’s weed management methods against multiple economic, social and environmental criteria will be required.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council, 1. Continue with the City’s current integrated management approach to the control of

weeds in parkland, streets and bushland in the City of Fremantle 2. Consider the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority’s assessment

of glyphosate report when released and any implications for the City of Fremantle’s weed management approach.

Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording into point 1 as shown in italics below: 1. Accepts the cost of and continues with the City’s current integrated

management approach to the control of weeds in parkland, streets and bushland in the City of Fremantle

City of Fremantle

PAGE 64

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The committee acknowledges that the integrated management approach to controlling weeds is more expensive than other methods until further review of our options can be assessed. Cr A Sullivan put the amended Recommendation as follows:

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council, 1. Accepts the cost of and continues with the City’s current integrated

management approach to the control of weeds in parkland, streets and bushland in the City of Fremantle

2. Consider the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority’s

assessment of glyphosate report when released and any implications for the City of Fremantle’s weed management approach.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

City of Fremantle

PAGE 65

FPOL1604-6 2017/18 METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ROAD GROUP SUBMISSION

ECM Reference: 106/013 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and Project

Delivery Actioning Officer: Phillip Adams, Manager Infrastructure Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Opus International Consultants – Draft Summary

Investigation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Each year, the City is invited to submit for consideration projects qualifying for the Metropolitan Regional Road Group Rehabilitation Program. The closing date for submissions for the 2017/18 MRRG program is 29th of April and advice of the successful projects funded will be provided in May 2017. There is a limit of $750,000 that the City can apply in relation to grant funding for MRRG projects. The City will then be required to contribute a further $375,000 to take the total programme cost to$1,125,000. Infrastructure Projects is requesting that additional projects be included above this figure to create a stock of reserve projects. Where possible, the proposed projects will also incorporate pedestrian and cycling facilities. Any additional work (other than line markings) to accommodate these facilities will need to be sourced from other budgets.

BACKGROUND

The Metropolitan Regional Road Group (MRRG) Rehabilitation Program has been created to provide the basis of an unbiased approach to determining the condition and importance of potential grant funded rehabilitation projects. Each project is assessed using the approved accumulative points scoring system that considers road condition, surface age, volume of traffic and number of buses using the road. For the road condition, points are calculated whereby the total observed percentage of each defect is estimated and then multiplied by its level of severity by the factors of LOW – 3 points, MEDIUM – 5 points and HIGH – 7 points. The total points score of each defect are then given a weighting in relation to the severity of the defect or the disadvantages that the defect causes to the general motoring public i.e. ponding, roughness etc. The accumulated scores and points are submitted using the Project Assessment Form or similar. The following criteria apply to all MRRG rehabilitation submissions:

City of Fremantle

PAGE 66

• All District Distributor A and B roads are applicable for funding with no required minimum number of vehicles per day (vpd).

• All Local Distributor roads carrying greater than 2,000 vpd are applicable for funding. Local Distributors that carry less than 2,000 vpd, but have a calculated Equivalent Standard Axles (ESA) design traffic volume for a 20 year life of greater than 1 x 106 are also applicable for funding. All Sections on Local Distributor roads should be supported with a copy of a full week classified traffic count contained within the grant submission. Where a Section on a Local Distributor has less than 2,000 vpd, evidence should also be given as to how the future ESA volume has been calculated, including reasons for the growth factor and percentage of commercial vehicles chosen.

• Access Roads are not applicable for funding. • All Sections must have a minimum score of 700 points for the condition

assessment. Projects below this threshold will not be considered for funding. • A pavement investigation and design is required for all submissions.

COMMENT

The City of Fremantle engaged Opus International Consultants to prepare a Road Rehabilitation Project Submission for a number of roads within the City for funding consideration by the Metropolitan Regional Road Group. A draft summary of their investigation is shown in Attachment 1.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

It is intended to apply for projects over the $750,000 funding cap to ensure a stock of reserve projects should additional funding become available. The table above shows projects in excess of the cap to create a stock of projects. In anticipation of MRWA approving projects to the value of the grant funding cap, the City’s commitment will be $375,000. Should supplementary grant funding become available, the City’s contribution will be extended through the budget processes in mid-year review or separate item to Council. The funded cost to undertake the works relates only to the design and construction of the road resurfacing treatments. Ancillary works such as bike plan works, landscaping, artworks or decorative lighting to enhance the urban streetscape will need to be funded by the Local Authority. Strategic Projects and Urban Design The projects that have been put forward have been checked by the Strategic Urban Design officer for comment. The feedback was that they have no adverse effect on strategic projects or urban design aspects of the city. Site 6 & 7 – South Tce, South St to Douro Rd, is proposed as the pavement is reaching its end of life and starting to fail. This project, if approved will enhance the proposed streetscape improvements for South Tce. It would mean that the verge and traffic calming treatments would be complemented by a resurfacing of the whole road.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 67

Site 3 – Queen St, Cantonment St to Elder Place, is proposed as the pavement is reaching its end of life and starting to fail. This project, if approved could be incorporated with the future Queen Street streetscape improvements being development by Strategic Projects and Infrastructure Projects. If the timing does not align with the upgrade, this project could be put back to a later year and a reserve project brought forward. Legal

All designs will need final approval from Main Roads WA to be implemented. Operational

Capital works will need to be scheduled for the awarded projects in both 2017/18 and 2018/19. Organisational

Nil

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Asset Management and Services Plan 2014 - 2015 Strategic Plan 2010 - 2015

• Transport • Community Safety

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

As these projects are subject to approval by external parties, if approved community engagement will take the form of information and project communication. Community consultation will be undertaken in the form of advising residents of construction timings at least 2 weeks prior to construction. More substantial and extended community consultation processes will be undertaken for the South Tce & Queen St projects.

CONCLUSION

The 12 projects nominated for consideration in the 2017/18 Metropolitan Regional Road Group Rehabilitation Program have been selected to address the pavement surface being near its end of life. The projects have been selected based on criteria set out in the Metropolitan Regional Road Group Guidelines for the submission of road rehabilitation projects. The projects, if successful, represent a significant investment into the renewal of road assets for the city with the current funding arrangement offering an excellent opportunity for the upgrading of existing assets. Further project development (pavement testing to ascertain treatment and limits of works) is required on these projects and is currently being conducted on all sites by Opus International Consultants as a requirement of the pavement design. Final treatment

City of Fremantle

PAGE 68

selection and cost is still to be finalised as each projects requirements become fully captured in final design & consultation.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council supports the 2017/18 Metropolitan Regional Road Group (MRRG) Rehabilitation Program submission for the projects as listed below;

1. Collick St – South St to Joslin St

2. Hampton Rd – Duoro Rd to Hampton Rd (Northbound)

3. Queen St – Elder Pl to Cantonment St

4. South St – Solomon St to Mardie St

5. Parry St – South St to William St

6. South Tce – South St to Duoro Rd (Southbound)

7. South Tce – South St to Duoro Rd (Northbound)

8. McCombe Ave – South St to Winterfold Ave

9. Hampton Rd – Lefroy Rd to Scott St (Southbound)

10. Hampton Rd – North of Wray Ave to North of Fothergill St

11. High St – Parry St to Stirling St

12. Lefroy Rd – Gibson St to Shepherd St CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

City of Fremantle

PAGE 69

FPOL1604-7 ADOPTION OF THE STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN 2015-2025

ECM Reference: 030/017 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: SGS1512-5 Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Strategic Community Plan 2015-2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to adopt the City of Fremantle Strategic Community Plan 2015-2025.

BACKGROUND

Following the conclusion of the City of Fremantle Strategic Plan 2010-15, the City is required to develop a strategic community plan in accordance with the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) Framework and subsequent changes made to the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996. As a way of guiding the new strategic plan the City embarked on an extensive community visioning initiative (Fremantle 2029), aimed to get a better understanding of the community’s vision and values for the future of Fremantle. The workshops provided the participants with information about the long-term strategic issues facing council and an opportunity to have their say on key Fremantle issues as well as provide their vision for the future of Fremantle. Throughout 2013, four community workshops were held. Each workshop was centred on one of the four key visioning questions.

1. What do you value most about our community and place (Thursday 27th June 2013)

2. What do you think are the key issues we will face in the future (Thursday 25th July 2013)

3. What are our visions for Fremantle (Thursday 22nd August 2013)

4. What actions can be done at the local level to achieve our vision (Thursday 21st November 2013)

In addition, three stakeholder forums were held which included, a combined precinct group forum, a Fremantle Chamber of Commerce member’s forum and a forum at the Meeting Place. In total there were approximately 1,000 participants who came to one or more of these events. The issues most frequently mentioned by participants during the workshops included:

City of Fremantle

PAGE 70

slowing traffic and making the city better for pedestrians, cyclists and improving public transport

supporting independent small business and the creative sector

protecting and enhancing the natural environment, green spaces and heritage features of the city

improving the connectivity around Fremantle, especially to the waterfront. A community report forum was held on Thursday 4th December 2014 to present the findings of the Fremantle 2029 Visioning Project. Since the community visioning project concluded in 2014, council has implemented or initiated a number of priority projects that were identified as important to participants. These include establishing the Future Freo collaboration, the Green Plan review, the new Integrated Transport Strategy, Freo 2029 Transformative Moves and the newly released Economic Development Strategy. Council considered this report in December 2015, but sought to defer to allow elected members more time to consider whether any areas require further review.

COMMENT

Throughout 2015, the City held three internal workshops with Elected Members to examine the information and feedback from the community visioning process and develop a strategic community plan that incorporates the community’s vision and values with council’s long-term strategic objectives and vision for the future. The key themes that emerged from the visioning process were considered when identifying the focus areas for the new strategic community plan. The following table outlines the key themes from the community visioning process and the link to the focus areas within the strategic community plan;

Community visioning - Key themes

Strategic community plan - Focus areas

People A welcoming place for all people.

Health and happiness Creating an environment where it is easy for people to lead safe, happy and healthy lives.

Prosper A diverse and unique local economy and a recognised centre of excellence.

Economic Development Diversify and strengthen Fremantle’s economic capacity.

Plan A liveable city that serves its resident’s needs.

Transport and connectivity Enhance the connectivity throughout the City of Fremantle and other strategic economic hubs and population centres. Places for people Create great spaces for people through innovative urban and suburban design.

Green A city that values its environment and heritage.

Environmental responsibility Develop environmentally sustainable solutions for the benefit of current and future generations.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 71

Create A dynamic, innovative city with a strong knowledge economy and arts sector.

Character, culture and heritage Sustain and grow arts and culture and preserve the importance of our social capital, built heritage and history.

Decide A collaborative and connected community with a shared vision and good governance.

Capability Provide strong leadership through good governance, effective communication and excellence in delivery.

In accordance with regulation 19C, the community strategic plan will be reviewed at least once every 4 years.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

All costs associated with the strategic community plan will be allocated within the long term financial plan and annual budgets. Legal

The community strategic plan has been developed in accordance with section 5.56 of the Local Government Act 1995, regulation 19C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 and the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) Framework and Guidelines. Operational

The plan will be used to guide the corporate, business and financial planning for the City. Organisational

Council policy or procedures developed or reviewed after the strategic community plan has been adopted, will be aligned to the strategic outcomes and objective of the new strategic plan.

CONCLUSION

The proposed plan provides accountable targets and direction for the city to follow to achieve the common goals and aspirations of our community. It carries forward the good work undertaken from the previous plan and continues the journey towards revitalisation and collaboration.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

As the community strategic plan will form the main strategic document for the City, any new strategy or policy developed after the plan has been adopted will be done so in accordance with the strategic outcomes and objective of the plan.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 72

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Throughout 2013, four community workshops and three stakeholder forums were held with approximately 1,000 participants came to one or more of these events. A community report forum was held on the Thursday 4th December 2014 to present the findings of the Fremantle 2029 Visioning Project.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority Required

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council adopt the Community Strategic Plan 2015-2025 as attached to the Finance Policy, Operations and Legislation Agenda. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

City of Fremantle

PAGE 73

FPOL1604-8 AMENDMENT TO SG-38 PURCHASING POLICY

ECM Reference: 035/005 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Actioning Officer: Kevin Porter, Senior Contracts & Procurement Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Proposed SG-38 Purchasing Policy

Current SG-38 Purchasing Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is for Council to review and ratify amendments to Council Policy SG-38 Purchasing Policy with a view to harmonising it with the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 as amended on 1 October 2015.

BACKGROUND

The policies of the City, determined by Council, as required by Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), guide and inform management and the public about key Council principles. The purpose of Policy SG-38 is to maintain compliance with s.3.57 of the Act and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations) in relation to the Councils purchasing strategy of tender practices. The policy seeks to ensure consistency, sustainability and value for money outcomes for all purchasing activities for the supply of goods or services. This policy was last reviewed by Council on 28 April 2007 (Ref: SG38 Purchasing Policy).

COMMENT

Amendments to the Regulations were published in the Government Gazette on 18 September 2015 and took effect on 1 October 2015. The amendments are a result of recommendations made by the Local Government Steering Committee and the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC), with the aim of improving the purchase and tendering practices of local government. In addition to increasing the tender threshold, the amendments provide for the following: Tender Threshold The tender threshold has been increased from $100,000 to $150,000. For the purchase of goods and services under this threshold, the amendments have introduced the requirement for the purchasing policy to include the minimum number of oral and written quotes that must be received. If the contract for goods or services is expected to be more than $150,000 a public tender process is required.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 74

Amendments to r.11(2) of the Regulations relates to circumstances when tenders do not need to be publically invited. This includes when goods or services are obtained through:

The WA Local Government Association (WALGA) preferred supplier program; and

A person registered on the Aboriginal Business Directory WA for contracts worth $250,000 or less; or

An Australian Disability Enterprise.

Anti-avoidance provisions

Regulation 12 has been amended to reflect CCC recommendations that ensure contracts are not split for the purposes of avoiding the tender threshold. It is expected that if a local government reasonably believes that the purchase of a good or service from one supplier will exceed the tender threshold of $150,000 they should publically invite tenders. While no timeframe for the tender threshold has been included in the regulations, the guidance by the Department of Local Government and Communities (Circular No. 16-2015) is that local governments should consider the importance of testing the market through a public tender process for low value, repetitive contracts. A best practice suggestion is that if the tender threshold is reached within three years, then a public tender is invited for that good or service.

Varying a contract

Regulation 21A is a new regulation that provides that a contract with a successful tenderer cannot be varied once a local government has entered into a contract for the supply of goods or services unless:

The variation is necessary in order for the goods or services to be supplied and does not change the scope of the contract; or

The variation is a renewal or extension of the original term of the contract (in accordance with regulation 11(2)(j).

Panels of pre-qualified suppliers

Part 4 Division 3 has been inserted into the regulations to introduce the ability for local governments to create a panel of pre-qualified suppliers. There are some conditions on developing a panel including:

The need for a local government to develop a written policy outlining how the panel will operate;

How each supplier will be invited to quote;

Consistent communication with the panel; and

The recording and retention of quotes and purchases from suppliers. In establishing a panel, persons are to be publicly invited to apply. State-wide public notice is required and it must be open for at least 14 days following the first notice (not including the advertisement's publishing date).

City of Fremantle

PAGE 75

Once a panel has been established, local governments may enter into a contract (or contracts) with any of the pre-qualified suppliers. However, the contract(s) cannot exceed 12 months and cannot contain an option to renew or extend its term. If it is expected that a contract is to exceed 12 months the particular good or service should be put to tender. Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 has been amended to require local governments to carry out an audit of compliance for panels of tenders in accordance with s.7.13(1)(i) of the Act. As part of the review of this policy, the appropriate amendments to the Regulations have been reflected in the attached revised policy.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Financial risks include purchases by officers outside the banding suggested in the Policy, breach of the tender limits and potential breaches of the use of Panels of pre-qualified suppliers, outlined in the Regulations. Legal

The current Policy remains unaligned with the Regulations, as issued on 1 October 2015. Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil

CONCLUSION

It is recommended Council adopt the revised Policy – SG-38 Purchasing to ensure compliance with the current Regulations.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required

City of Fremantle

PAGE 76

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the amendment to Policy SG-38 Purchasing Policy as shown in attachment 1 of this report be adopted by Council CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

City of Fremantle

PAGE 77

FPOL1604-9 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO EXCISE PORTION OF LAND FROM RESERVE 37088 - PERTH WATER TRANSPORT PTY LTD

ECM Reference: L015 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: SGS1501-6 Responsible Officer: Tom Griffiths, Manager Economic Development &

Marketing Actioning Officer: Nadine Hume, Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Overview of Land to be excised and current Leased area

Letter of Support for PWT’s proposal from The Kiosk Department of lands advice email (confidential attachment under separate cover) Rottnest Express presentation (confidential attachment under separate cover)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Reserve 37088 is vested to the City for management with the provision to lease or licence any portion of the Reserve for a term not exceeding 21 years, subject to approval by the Minister for Lands. This item is for Council to consider approval to excise the portion of land from Reserve 37088 requested by the Department of Lands to enable a lease to be entered into by the Department of Lands and Perth Water Transport Pty Ltd (PWT) for the purposes of a commercial development. The item also seeks Council approval to surrender the existing lease between the City of Fremantle and PWT to enable the Department of Lands and PWT to enter into a direct lease agreement required for the proposed commercial development.

BACKGROUND

The City entered into a lease with Tony Dilatte for East Street Jetty 124-126 Beach Street, Fremantle for a term of Five (5) years effective from 1 July 1997 with two further terms of five (5) years each effective from 1 July 2002 and 1 July 2007. The leased area includes a small ticketing office and car park (a total of 4 233m2) with a permitted use of “ticket and booking office and parking area relating to Rottnest Island Ferry and Swan River Cruise Services”. While the car park is within the leased area, the City manages the car park as “Car Park 18” and retains all the income generated. On 12 September 2007 Tony Dilatte assigned the lease to Insight Corrosion Consultants Pty Ltd via a Deed of Assignment, with the City’s approval. Insight Corrosion Consultants Pty Ltd went into voluntary receivership in 2009 and assigned the lease to Perth Water Transport Pty Ltd (PWT) effective from 6 November 2009, with the City’s approval. At that

City of Fremantle

PAGE 78

time, the City granted two further terms of five (5) years each effective from 1 July 2012 expiring 30 June 2017 and 1 July 2017 expiring 30 June 2022. The current rental return for this lease is $19 560pa + GST with an annual rent review based on market valuation or consumer price index, whichever is greater. The market value of the premises is lowered by the fact the City retains all the income generated from the car park, which takes up a large majority of the reserve. Since the assignment of the lease to PWT, trading as Rottnest Express and Captain Cook Cruises, the ticket office on site has not been fully utilised. Captain Cook Cruises does dock on the jetty over the weekend and sometimes during the week; however there is limited use of the ticket office by PWT. It is believed that patrons of the kiosk opposite these premises utilise the car park. In late 2014 PWT requested a new lease based on a proposal to develop the site next to the ticket office. The proposal was for a hospitality venue to cater for local residents, visitors and ferry patrons. The proposal includes reinstating the ferry services to the site and development of a small bar café with alfresco area. The new proposed leased area was reduced to be only the portion of land required for the commercial development (360sqm) with a lease term of five (5) years with two further terms of five (5) years each. As the premises would not be managed under the company name of PWT, an ability to sublease to Governor Fitzgerald Holdings Pty Ltd was also requested for approval. Reserve 37088 is vested to the City for management with the allowance to lease or licence any portion for a term not exceeding 21 years, subject to Minister for Lands approval. The proposal from late 2014 was discussed with both the Swan River Trust and Department of Lands at the time; both organisations indicated their support for the concept. “In principle” support was requested from the Department for Lands for the lease but the City was advised that the new proposed lease for a “small bar, restaurant and ferry ticket and booking office” was outside of the parameters of the Management Order. Further advice from Department of Lands indicated that, as the proposed commercial operation did not align with the permitted use of the Management Order, that section of land should be excised from the Management Order and leased directly to the City by the State of WA under section 79 of the Land Administration Act, at a portion of market rate (commonly 25%). The market rate would be determined by a Landgate market valuation. Based on the above, Council resolved the following at January 2015 Ordinary Council meeting; Council approve 1. The City of Fremantle to enter into a Lease with the State of Western Australia

for a portion of Reserve 37088 to be excised from Lot 1989 on Deposited Plan 184292 and being the whole of the land in Crown Land Certificate of Title Volume LR3140 Folio 593

City of Fremantle

PAGE 79

2. Approve the Draft Lease as attached with the Strategic and General Services Committee agenda attachments of 21 January 2015 between the City of Fremantle and Perth Water Transport Pty Ltd, Anthony Charles Baker, John Hayward Goodbody, Scott Anthony Bailey and Guy Franklin Bailey.

3. Approve the Draft Sub Lease as attached with the Strategic and General

Services Committee agenda attachments of 21 January 2015 between the City of Fremantle, Perth Water Transport Pty Ltd, Anthony Charles Baker, John Hayward Goodbody, Scott Anthony Bailey and Guy Franklin Bailey and Governor Fitzgerald Holdings Pty Ltd, Scott Anthony Bailey and Timothy Crosland.

COMMENT

Once the Council approval was obtained in January 2015, Officers worked with PWT to implement the recommendation. However, the City was subsequently provided contrary advice by the Department of Lands on 12 May 2015, superseding its earlier advice from 2014. The latest advice is that Department of Lands and PWT should enter into a lease agreement directly. To enable this to occur, the City must agree to excise that portion of land so that management of the land reverts back to Department of Lands. Full notification is provided under confidential attachment. Since the latest advice was received from Department of Lands, PWT and Department of Lands have continued negotiations to finalise a lease agreement. This process has been lengthy as both parties have negotiated the details of alterations to the scope of the proposal. The proposed concept remains the same as the one presented to Council at its January 2015 meeting. Additional information regarding the proposal has been provided by PWT and included as a confidential attachment to this report. However, in order for both parties to execute the lease legally, the City must do two things:

relinquish the Management Order over the portion of land required for the commercial development; and

surrender the lease it has with PWT.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Should the City approve the request to excise a portion of land from the Reserve and surrender the lease between the City and PWT, future annual rental income of $19 560pa will be forfeited. Under the current lease, the City retains all the income from the car park that forms part of the current lease area. That arrangement will be unchanged if the City was to surrender the lease and excise the portion of land proposed for the commercial development.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 80

There is no consistent river service offered from the jetty on the Reserve and the use of the car park is sub-optimal. The City generated $39 757 in parking income from this car park in the 2014/15 financial year. The proposed reinstatement of the ferry terminal and the development of a hospitality venue are expected to increase utilisation of the car park. As a guide, an increase of car park utilisation by approximately 50% is required to offset the loss in rental income from the lease, if the City was to agree to the Department of Land’s request. Legal

If approved, the City will be required to provide formal approval of the portion of land to be excised from the Reserve to the Department of Lands. The City will retain Management Order over the remainder of the Reserve. A Surrender of Lease document will be drafted in line with the Commercial Tenancy (Retail) Act 1985, subject to the agreement being reached and finalised between PWT and the Department of Lands.

Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

PWT will be required to undertake community engagement if/when applying for a liquor license from the Department for Racing, Gaming and Liquor. The Kiosk located at 123 Beach Street (directly opposite the ferry terminal) previously indicated their support for PWT’s proposal which has been outlined in confidential attachment to this item. No other community engagement has been undertaken.

CONCLUSION

This site has been under activated for a number of years. The lack of activation has meant that the site has become a location often associated with illegal rubbish dumping. PWT’s proposal should contribute to the revitalisation of this area of Fremantle and support the future activation of the nearby Cantonment Hill precinct. The addition of a commercial development should help to attract more people to the area. Despite the loss of future rental income (which may be partly or fully offset by increased parking revenue in the future), the proposal is considered favourable for the City as it

City of Fremantle

PAGE 81

contributes towards the goals of the Fremantle Economic Development Strategy and should supplement the revitalisation of the Cantonment Hill area.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan For Council to approve; 1. The portion of land shown in Attachment 1 equating to 360m2 be excised from

Reserve 37088 managed by the City of Fremantle under Management Order, and reverted to the Department of Lands.

2. A surrender of the lease between the City of Fremantle and Perth Water

Transport Pty Ltd, subject to a lease being finalised between Perth Water Transport Pty Ltd and the Department of Lands for the portion of land shown in Attachment 1 being excised from Reserve 37088 and reverting to the Department of Lands.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

City of Fremantle

PAGE 82

FPOL1604-10 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT MARCH 2016

ECM Reference: 087/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement of Comprehensive Income – 31 March 2016

Statement of Financial Activity by Nature and Type – 31 March 2016 Statement of Net Current Assets – 31 March 2016 Statement of Financial Position – 31 March 2016 Schedule of Accounts Paid – 31 March 2016 Investment Report – 31 March 2016 Debtors Outstanding Report – 31 March 2016 Payment Report (EFT & Cheque) (viewed electronically) - March 2016 Payment Report (Purchasing Cards) for February 2016 (viewed electronically)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an analysis of year to date financial performance and forecasts based on

Statement of Comprehensive Income;

Statement of Financial Activity; and

Statement of Financial Position An analysis of financial performance based on The Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1) forecasts an end of year Operating Surplus of $337,272 a favourable variance of $601,522.

BACKGROUND

The following comments are provided on the key elements of Council’s year to date financial performance as at 31 March 2016 and forecast to 30 June 2016.

1. Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1)

Actual Financial Performance to 31 March 2016

Actual operating income of $65.38M is $264,174 more than the year-to-date budgeted income of $65.12M (refer explanation within the report).

Actual operating expenditure of $52.32M is $484,259 less than the year-to-date budgeted expenditure of $52.80M (refer explanation within the report).

City of Fremantle

PAGE 83

Actual operating surplus of $13.07M is $748K more than the year-to-date budgeted operating surplus of $12.32M.

2. Capital Works

Actual capital works of $7.39M (excluding committed expenditure) is $2.54M less than the year-to-date budgeted capital works of $9.93M (refer explanation within report).

Total forecast capital expenditure of $13.94M is $3.39M less than the total amended capital expenditure of $17.33M.

COMMENT

Operating Income, Operating Expenditure and Capital Expenditure graphs provide a comparison of how forecast income/expenditure is tracking to budget and the previous financial year. Comments are provided on each graph regarding current year to date financial position. Operating Income (excluding profit on disposal of assets)

Note: Operating income includes: rates, service charges, operating grants, subsides and contributions, fees and charges, interest earnings and other revenue. Non-operating (Capital Grant) income has been excluded for operating income.

Actual operating income of $65.38M is $264,174 greater than the year-to date

budgeted income of $65.12M. Total forecast operating income of $71.85M is $63K more than the total

budgeted income of $71.79M.

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Prior Year Actuals 41.05m 44.12m 46.72m 49.58m 52.32m 55.30m 58.07m 60.87m 63.67m 66.42m 68.70m 71.77m

Currrent Budget 43.25m 45.76m 48.83m 51.45m 54.17m 56.76m 60.21m 62.63m 65.12m 67.75m 69.91m 71.79m

Current Year Forecast 43.25m 45.76m 48.83m 51.45m 54.17m 56.78m 59.99m 62.71m 65.38m 67.83m 69.95m 71.85m

40m

45m

50m

55m

60m

65m

70m

75m

Operating Income ($m)

City of Fremantle

PAGE 84

City of Fremantle

PAGE 85

Operating Expenditure (excluding loss on disposal of assets)

Note: Loss on sale of assets has been excluded from the Operating expenditure. Actual operating expenditure of $52.32M is $484K less than the year-to date

budgeted expenditure of $52.80M. Total forecast operating expenditure of $71.52M is $538K less than the total

budgeted expenditure of $72.06M.

Capital Expenditure The following graph highlights that capital expenditure to date is significantly under budget.

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Prior Year Actuals 5.40m 11.22m 16.15m 22.00m 27.70m 34.74m 40.31m 45.78m 51.60m 57.13m 63.06m 71.07m

Currrent Budget 6.01m 10.10m 15.80m 21.74m 28.15m 35.43m 41.48m 47.11m 52.80m 59.01m 64.02m 72.06m

Current Year Forecast 5.98m 10.08m 15.79m 21.70m 28.12m 35.42m 41.19m 45.79m 52.32m 58.18m 63.21m 71.52m

0m

10m

20m

30m

40m

50m

60m

70m

80m

Operating Expenditure ($m)

City of Fremantle

PAGE 86

Notes: August 2014 Purchase of New Depot land for $7.8M

Note: Actual capital expenditure of $7.39M is $2.54M less than the year-to date budgeted expenditure of $9.93M.

Total forecast capital expenditure of $13.94M is $3.39M less than the total

budgeted expenditure of $17.33M. MAJOR VARIANCE ANALYSIS At its meeting on 29 July 2015 (Item SGS1507-9 refers), Council adopted nature and type as the preferred reporting format with 2.5% and $300 000 threshold as the levels for explanation of variances. The following is an explanation of significant Operating and Capital variances identified in the Statement of Comprehensive Income and Statement of Financial Activity:

Major Variance Items YTD Actual to Budget Variance

Employee Cost Employee costs are $644K under year to date budget mainly due to unfilled positions in a number of areas. Agency labour (included under Materials and Contracts) is $23K under year to date budget and increases year to date employment cost savings to $667K.

Favourable $644K Under budget 2.41%

Capital Grants and Subsidies Capital Grants and Subsidies are $504K greater than year to date budget mainly due to a timing difference in the receipt of grants funding for the

Favourable

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Prior Year Actuals 0.98m 9.12m 10.04m 10.92m 11.31m 12.40m 12.76m 13.40m 14.55m 15.12m 16.30m 19.50m

Currrent Budget 0.33m 1.63m 2.10m 3.24m 3.96m 5.43m 6.91m 8.11m 9.93m 12.12m 15.65m 17.33m

Current Year Forecast 0.33m 1.63m 2.10m 3.24m 3.96m 5.43m 6.17m 7.07m 7.39m 9.78m 13.07m 13.94m

0m

5m

10m

15m

20m

25m

Capital Expenditure ($m)

City of Fremantle

PAGE 87

following projects: $175k joint contribution from Town of East Fremantle for the road works at East Street. $208K funding from Main Road WA for National Black Spot Program and Road Project Grant Program at Queen Victoria Street. $75K funding from Lotterywest for Fremantle Town Hall Renewal project, which has not been included in 2015/2016 budget.

$504K Over budget 57.35%

Capital Works Actual capital expenditure of $7.385M is $2.54M less than the year-to date budgeted expenditure of $9.926M. Actual capital expenditure of $762K on infrastructure assets - parks is $448K less than the year-to date budgeted capital expenditure of $1.21M mainly due to reclassification of year to date expenditure of $300K on soft landscaping from capital expenditure to operating expenditure. Actual capital expenditure of $792K on freehold land and buildings is $1.19M less than the year-to date budgeted capital expenditure of $1.987M mainly due to the major work for the following two capital projects are carried forward to the next financial year: $862K budgeted capital expenditure on external conservation works to Fremantle Town Hall building is carried forward to the next financial year and the total capital expenditure will be $2.282M. $740,600 budgeted capital expenditure on refurbishing Cantonment Hill Naval Store to heritage standards and public access requirements is carried forward to the next financial year with the total amount of budget unchanged. Actual capital expenditure of $1.869M on land and buildings on reserves is $555K (22.90%) less than the year-to date budgeted capital expenditure of $2.425M. The capital expenditure on the Old Fire Station Works and the Hilton Community Centre are $240K and $194K under budget respectively at this stage, which is to be completed in this financial year. The capital expenditure on Fremantle Mens Shed is $460K under budget at this stage and it is forecasted that $110K capital expenditure on this project will be carried forward to the next financial year.

Unfavourable $2.54M Under budget 25.60%

Cash Investments The graph below summarise the maturity profile of the City’s investments at market value as at 31 March 2016.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 88

The chart below is showing the cash investments at the carbon support/non-support position financial institutions at 31 March 2016. There are $39.4M investments with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon, representing 78% of the total investments.

Note: Reference for financial institutions not supporting the unlocking of carbon is (http://www.marketforces.org.au/). Purchase Card Expenditure Reports March 2015 purchase card transaction reports will be provided at the next meeting. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charing Station In December, 2015 the City approved the award of contract FCC457/15 to construct an electric vehicle charging station in Fremantle. At the time of awarding this contract it was assumed the funds would come from the budget allocation but in fact the budget allocation does not provide for the full value of the contract. The current budget is $20,000 and the contract value is $169,970, albeit that $40,000 will be provided by the RAC. The original funding provided in the budget comes from a transfer of the Renewable Energy Investment Reserve. The full cost of this project is $216,733 inclusive of charger, battery storage, solar infrastructure and installation. The RAC have provided a grant to the City of $40,000 to support the development of the off-grid charging station and will provide the charger itself

at call 30 days 60 days 90 days 120 days 180 days 240 days 360 days

Sum of Amount $6.6M $2.0M $13.7M $9.8M $13.5M $2.0M $.5M $3.0M

$.0M

$2.0M

$4.0M

$6.0M

$8.0M

$10.0M

$12.0M

$14.0M

$16.0M

AMP, $5.2M, 10%

ANZ, $5.4M, 10% BOQ,

$9.0M, 18%

ME Bank, $3.0M, 6% NAB, $1.2M, 2%

Rural Bank, $7.0M, 14%

Beyond Bank, $1.5M, 3%

Suncorp,

$9.4M, 18%

Bendigo & Adelaide , $7.5M,

15%

Auswide, $2.0M, 4%

Investments at carbon non-

support financial institutions,

$39.4M, 78%

Counterparty Exposure

City of Fremantle

PAGE 89

($46,763) free of charge to the City also, reducing the City’s contribution to $129,970. There are a potential $30,000 worth of carbon credits (small scale technology certificates) to be generated from this project, which the City will apply for, register and retire once the project is complete, reducing the total spend against this project to just under $100,000. RAC had initially agreed to provide the charger and installation free of charge, the City was to site the infrastructure. On investigation on various sites it was found that a Western Power grid connected system, in the space available to site the chargers, was likely to have additional connection costs associated as it would require a significant upgrade to fully power the system which RAC would not cover. An estimated connection fee of between $50,000 and $70,000 and significant connection time lag was likely. In light of these issues, and the opportunity to enable a more innovative approach, an off-grid solar charger was considered to be the more environmentally, socially, politically and economically appropriate option. 1 x DC fast charge (30 mins), and 2 x 3 hour charge can be supplied simultaneously - all EV models, including custom, can be serviced by the system (a significant upgrade on existing charging stations in Queensgate carpark).The system has been fully designed for its capacity to take the maximum charging load and will also provide carpark shading. It is recommended that the budget for this project be amended to cater for this contract by increasing the transfer from the Reserve.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

This report is provided to enable Council to assess how revenue and expenditure is tracking against the budget. It is also provided to identify any budget issues which Council should be informed of. Legal

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 34 requires a monthly financial activity statement along with explanation of any material variances to be prepared and presented to an ordinary meeting of council. Under section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 12(1);

a) Council has delegated authority to the CEO under item 3.2, Accounts for Payment - Authorisation Of, to make payments from the municipal fund and trust fund.

The lists of accounts paid are presented in accordance with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 13(1) and (3) Operational

This report is provided to Council to assess operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities in the 2015/16 adopted budget.

Organisational

City of Fremantle

PAGE 90

No direct impact but results year to date may highlight matters that have arisen or may need to be addressed in the future.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil

CONCLUSION

The financial statements as attached for further review of payments made during March 2016, plus cash deposits at the end of March 2016. Also attached is the year to date statement of comprehensive income, statement of financial activity, statement of net current assets and statement of financial position for information.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority Required

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan

1. The City of Fremantle Financial Report including the Statement of Comprehensive Income, Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Net Current Assets for the period ended 31 March is received.

2. Council receives the payments authorised under delegated authority and

detailed in the list of invoices for March 2016, presented as per the summaries set out in the attached schedules and include creditors that have been paid in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

3. Council approve the following budget amendment for the Electric Vehicle

Charging Station;

Budget Category/Sub

Category

Existing Budget

Expenditure /(Revenue)

Variation to Budget Expenditur

e /(Revenue)

Revised Budget

Expenditure /(Revenue)

Account String (Budget amount refers to

this account))

Revenue

Operating Revenue 0 ($40,000) ($40,000) 55.53100.5961.00.00.00000

Transfer From Reserve

($407,282) ($129,970) ($537,252) 55.53100.3115.00.00.41301

Total Funding ($407,282) ($169,970) ($577,252)

Expenditure

City of Fremantle

PAGE 91

Capital Expenditure (Contracted Services)

$0 $169,970 $169,970 53.53100.1566.03.61.00000

Total Expenditure $0 $169,970 $169,970

Net Variation to Budget – Deficit/(Surplus)

($0) ($407,282)

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

City of Fremantle

PAGE 92

FPOL1604-11 PUBLIC TOILET WORKING GROUP

ECM Reference: 045/005 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and Project

Delivery Actioning Officer: Samuel Bryce, Manager City Assets Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Current Condition Matrix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Public Toilet working group was established to develop a plan to improve public toilet amenities in Fremantle, align the quality of public toilets with the public expectation and demand profile, identify priority areas for future development and identify design principles to reduce issues in new facilities. Council endorsement is sought for the recommendations listed in the Public Toilet Improvement Plan, together with consideration of the resulting impacts on future budgets.

BACKGROUND

The Public Toilet working group was formed in early 2015 and incorporated the following items as part of its scope of work:

Collecting data related to public toilets including locations, hours of operation and facilities.

Reviewing the cleaning program.

Reviewing public complaints relating to individual facilities.

Feedback from cleaning contractors about the delivery challenges.

Site visits to City of Fremantle toilets to identify and understand the issues and challenges related to each facility.

The working group met regularly to review the data and discuss draft ideas for input into a Public Toilets Improvement Plan. Public and contractor feedback data Information about the acceptability of the facilities usually comes to the city via public and contractor feedback. The following toilets receive the most feedback from customers and the cleaning contractor, in order of volume of complaints.

1. Kings Square public toilets:

City of Fremantle

PAGE 93

The data reveals that the majority of all complaints about public toilets relate to the quality of the Kings Square toilets prior to their renovation in September 2015. These complaints usually relate to:

Very poor service level condition and not meeting public expectations

Lack of public baby changing facilities in this central city facility and

Indicated high level of vandalism and antisocial behaviour

2. William Street (Queensgate) public toilets:

Very poor condition and not meeting public expectations

Vandalism and graffiti

Wet floors and

Poor signage

3. South Beach public toilets:

Are regularly blocked by paper, underwear or other garments.

Appearance being unclean, because floors are constantly wet by people arriving from the beach.

Backpackers lock the disabled change room to dry their washing.

Backpackers use toilet sinks for washing dishes and

No soap dispensers, which users of the neighbouring café find unsanitary.

4. Parmelia Park toilets:

Smells due to very old pipes within the facility that emanate odour regardless of how clean the facility is and

Incidents of anti-social behaviour

5. Arthurs Head toilets:

Use of toilets by homeless people for shelter.

Regular vandalism and

Regular items of drug paraphernalia dropped on the floors in multiple locations. General feedback about all public toilets from Elected Members, business and community includes:

Lack of clear signage and way-finding related to public toilets

Lack of public toilets on or near South Terrace

Toilets in general are not always clean and sanitary

Graffiti is very prominent leading to a further detraction of appearance

Inconsistent use of materials in maintenance after vandalism is repaired and

The requirement for a mothers and baby room to be provided in the inner city Site visits and audit

City of Fremantle

PAGE 94

In May and June 2015, the Working Group undertook site visits to the following public toilets:

Kings Square Toilets

William Street Toilets (next to Queensgate)

Market Street Toilets (disused, opposite Train Station)

Train Station Toilets

Esplanade Pump Station Toilets (adjacent EYP)

Esplanade Toilets 2 (western end)

Arthurs Head Toilets

South Beach Toilets

Parmelia Park Toilets

Bruce Lee Oval Toilets

Hilton Park Toilets

Booyeembara Park Composting Toilets

North Fremantle John Street Toilets; and

Port Beach

Fremantle Railway Station With regards to all the sites that were visited, the Fremantle Railway Station public toilets were the best in Fremantle due to the large areas of light and spacious design, robust materials and presumed observation within the Railway station. The site visits confirmed the data from public and contractor feedback. Officers undertook a follow-up audit to capture details of note in each facility. The full details of issues identified in each facility were recorded by officers, and captured in Attachment 1. Design impact on public toilet performance In addition the site visits also highlighted that some of the city’s public toilets are severely constrained by poor designs, which can result in:

Poor access and functionality in the public realm

Poor layout leading to user concerns about safety and

Difficulty for cleaners to deliver a satisfactory job New facilities It was also noted that there is a current need for updated or new facilities at:

South Beach, which is clearly under capacity for the amount and intensity of use it receives. It is unlikely that any further superficial maintenance or increased cleaning will have a substantive impact on the current condition and performance of the facility.

Esplanade Reserve, with the existing pump station facility close to the Youth Plaza not able to cope with the current or likely growth in users

City of Fremantle

PAGE 95

Cappuccino Strip, where there are no public toilets and visitors rely on private facilities of varying quality and support from businesses. The working group identified that there may be an opportunity to integrate public toilets into any future development behind Dome on the corner of Collie and Market Streets, which would benefit from further analysis and consideration.

In addition depending on the pace of development in the city, it is likely that new facilities may be required and thus some initial discussion and analysis should be undertaken. Notable examples currently identified are:

Princess May Park and

The northern end of Market Street in the area of Pioneer Park.

COMMENT

Public Toilet Improvement Plan Based on the analysis of the issues identified through site visits, audit and customer feedback, the Working Group identified the following Strategies for Action by Council for public toilets:

1. Immediate facility improvements 2. Cleaning and service delivery 3. Maintenance 4. Design excellence 5. New facilities 6. Partnerships

Suggested prioritisation of actions and timelines within each area are outlined as follows;

1. Immediate Facility Improvements

Strategic Action Actions Implementation Timeline

Est Budget

a) Upgrade Kings Square facility.

Repair and repaint facility. Consistent paint. Replace damaged tiles. Replace hardware with consistent and matching hardware. Remove clutter and tree material around entrance to improve visual amenity and openness. Install baby change facility in disabled toilet.

September 2015 Completed under direction of working group in Sept 2015

b) Upgrade William Street Automated Toilet

Investigate options to replace current facility with appropriate facility to meet public expectations. With understanding that future development may remove

June 2016

Utilise 15/16 budget $80k

City of Fremantle

PAGE 96

requirement for the facility.

c) Immediate action and improvements to all facilities to meet user expectations. Immediate action and improvements to all facilities to meet user expectations.

Roll-out maintenance and minor improvements to all facilities in order to: Remediate maintenance issues identified in Attachment 1 Create consistency of materials and fixtures in all facilities Improve look and feel of facilities

November 2016 November 2017 November 2018

$150k $150k $150k

d) Implement clear and coherent signage and mapping policy.

Ensure Public Toilets are clearly labelled as part of the new Way Finding maps Ensure all public toilets have acceptable and visible signage on and adjacent to them that enables viewing from a distance (as identified in Attachment 1).

September 2016 $100k

2. Cleaning and Service Delivery

Strategic Action Actions Implementation Timeline

Est Budget

a) Improve Cleaning and Service Delivery

Change cleaning contractor. Deliver strong contract management to ensure delivery of improved cleaning services. Establish robust reporting framework for cleaners that ensures all damage and vandalism to toilets is immediately reported. Implement new, innovative cleaning approaches addressing problem facilities – such as drying floors following mopping to minimise wet-tracking of dirt through facilities.

Ongoing Current Staff

b) Undertake business review of in-house versus outsourced cleaning.

Undertake business review about comparative effectiveness of outsourced versus in-house facility cleaning and make recommendations for future service delivery.

Nov 2016 Current Staff

City of Fremantle

PAGE 97

3. Maintenance – responsiveness and consistency

Strategic Action Actions Implementation Timeline

Est Budget

a) Develop a Maintenance Framework for Public Toilets

Develop a framework that prescribes maintenance standards and materials for all maintenance, such as: Paint colours (i.e. paint identifier) inside and out (so re-paints match) Light fittings Toilet fittings Basins Dryers Tile types and colours Implement Contract Audit system to ensure compliance with Maintenance Framework.

June 2016 Current Staff

b) Implement Maintenance Performance Criteria

Performance criteria for maintenance contractor to ensure performance against Maintenance Framework.

Actioned now as part of contract

Current Staff

c) Make building design changes that will improve safety, access, cleaning

Investigate other Local Authority approach through SWOT possible partner programme.

Aug 2016 Current Staff

4. Design excellence

Strategic Action Actions Implementation Timeline

Est Budget

a) Develop preferred design standards for public toilets.

Working Group to continue the development and engage a design consultant.

Aug 2016 $20k

5. New Facilities

Strategic Action Actions Implementation Timeline

Est Budget

a) New Facility at Kings Square to be staffed.

Investigate and implement best practice model for the planned facility at the new Kings Square development to be staffed and have a potential payment model.

TBC TBC

b) Develop concept designs for South

Manager City Asset to develop concept brief for South Beach

Sep 2016 $100K

City of Fremantle

PAGE 98

Beach Public Toilets & infrastructure

redevelopment

c) Develop a Business Plan for new facility Corner Collie Street and Market Street Fremantle.

Develop a Business Plan that evaluates options and models for developing a new Public Toilet Facility integrated within a new development on the corner of Collie Street and Market Streets.

Sep 2016 $20,000

d) Investigate options to upgrade the Esplanade Park pump station toilets.

Conduct an investigation to identify options to upgrade the Esplanade Park pump station toilets, including consistency with new Esplanade Master Plan.

Aug 2016 Current Staff

e) Develop a pathway for consideration of new facilities likely to arise in the next 10 years.

Consider new facilities that match strategic direction of Council and growth of Fremantle and include in 10 year budget.

Mar 2017 Current Staff

Budget summary and spend profile as outlined above.

Upgrade Kings Square facility.

Completed Dec 2015 Included within 2015/2016 CBD Public Toilet Upgrades

$55k

Upgrade William Street (Queensgate) facility.

Completed June 2016 Included within 2015/2016 CBD Public Toilet Upgrades

$80k

Minor Improvements

November 2016 New Budget 2016/2017 $150k

Minor Improvements

November 2017 New Budget 2017/2018 $150k

Minor Improvements

November 2018 New Budget 2018/2019 $150k

Signage Improvements

September 2016 New Budget 2016/2017 $100k

Develop design standards

August 2016 New Budget 2016/2017 $20k

South Beach New Development

September 2016 New Budget 2016/2017 $100k

City of Fremantle

PAGE 99

New facility Cnr Collie Street & Market Street Fremantle.

September 2016 New Budget 2016/2017 $20k

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Should council approve the indicated new budget items for financial year 2016/17 the increase to municipal funds will be $390,000 with a further commitment to fund $150,000.00 for financial year 2017/18 plus $150,000 for financial year 2018/19. The current Long Term Financial Plan 2015-2025 has an allocation for 2016/17, no allocation for 2017/18, $180,000 for 2018/19, $500,000 for 2020/21, and $750,000 for 2022/23 to 2024/25. Legal

Current status may lead to a potential for increased incidents/accidents under current conditions resulting in minor/major claims. Operational

Current operations are being affected adversely by the high volume of graffiti and antisocial behaviour being experienced; resulting in a high investment of resources both financially and allocation of time. Organisational

If the public toilet improvement plan is not adopted it may diminish public confidence and reduce patronage to the city.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

If the public toilet issues raised are not addressed it may diminish the city’s vision to be viewed as a great place to live, work and play through growth and renewal.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Continual community engagement will continue through the working group along with contractor and community feedback.

CONCLUSION

The Public Toilet working group is confident the Public Toilet Plan will deliver improved facilities in Fremantle that meet the needs of residents and visitors as well as respond to the future needs of the city.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority Required

City of Fremantle

PAGE 100

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan

1. Council endorses the Public Toilet Improvement Plan. 2. Council consider for inclusion in the draft 2016/2017 Budget the following

priority actions from the Public Toilet Improvement Plan:

a) $150,000.00 for improvements to all facilities to meet user expectations and address issues as they arise as per Attachment 1. Also an additional commitment to allocate $150,000.00 for the budget years of 2017/2018 along with $150,000.00 for year 2018/2019 to address this demand.

b) $100,000.00 to develop concept designs for South Beach Public Toilets

and associated infrastructure failures. c) $20,000.00 to develop a Business Plan for a new facility on the Corner of

Collie Street and Market Street Fremantle. d) $20,000.00 to develop preferred design standards for future public toilets

and e) $100,000.00 to implement clear and coherent signage (integrated with

current economic development way finding project currently underway). CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

City of Fremantle

PAGE 101

FPOL1604-12 SOUTHERN METRO REGIONAL COUNCIL STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW

ECM Reference: Nil Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and Project

Delivery Actioning Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and Project

Delivery Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Draft Strategic Waste Management Plan - Southern

Metropolitan Regional Council (viewed electronically)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to achieve Council endorsement “in principle” of the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council (SMRC) Draft Strategic Waste Management Plan (SWMP). The plan identifies the strategic direction for the SMRC over the short to long term future which will have significant impact for the City’s waste management operations and future financial budgets. The plan indicates an optimum model will include the transition to a three bin system and possible take up of and energy from waste solution should this technology become viable for the Perth Metropolitan area. Whilst the proposed general strategic direction and key actions are supported by officers, the City will require a proactive and flexible strategy as the transition progresses a staged approach to improved waste management for the region. The attached Draft SMRC SWMP provides sufficient detail of the scope, methodology and analysis undertaken by the consultants in preparing the Plan. It would be considered essential background knowledge when one is setting the strategic waste management direction for the City of Fremantle.

BACKGROUND

The Southern Metropolitan Regional Council’s (SMRC) on behalf of its member Councils have engaged MRA Consulting to review its Strategic Waste Management Plan. On the 7 September 2015 several elected members and the executive leadership attended a presentation of an overview of the Draft SWMP by the consultant at the City of Melville Civic Centre. The Consultant’s report notes that the City of Cockburn decided not to participate in the review of the plan which creates a degree of uncertainty for a collaborative implementation

City of Fremantle

PAGE 102

of a staged transition to improved waste management systems by members; however members should retain a proactive flexible response to any developments by the City Of Cockburn. The report provides adequate detail of the scope, methodology and analysis undertaken by the SMRC’s consultant and, the Draft SWMP sets the program and policies for waste management in the region for member councils including; City of Cockburn, Town of East Fremantle, City of Fremantle, City of Kwinana and City of Melville. Gaining an understanding of the Draft SWMP, particularly the attached executive summary, would be considered essential background knowledge when one is setting the strategic direction for the City.

COMMENT

The SMRC owns and operates the Regional Resource Recovery Centre (RRRC) on behalf of its member councils. The RRRC encompasses a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), Green Waste Facility (GWF) and a Waste Composting Facility (WCF). The latter is a composting, drum-based, Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) Advanced Waste Technology (AWT) facility and represented the cutting edge of waste management technology. .Since the project’s inception, the waste industry has changed in ways unforeseeable at the time. Landfill gate fees did not increase at the rate projected, while various Energy from Waste (EfW) technologies have developed, promising the same or higher diversion rates at lower gate fees. As a result, SMRC is considering the possibility of decommissioning the drum technology in the short (2018/2020) or long term (2020/2023), coinciding with loan repayment completion. Although the facility still achieves its diversion target at the promised cost, given newly available alternatives, SMRC can investigate transitioning to other system options to provide the same or better performance at lower cost. The Plan’s development and delivery methodology involved:

Characterising the existing waste management landscape for SMRC;

Forecasting future trends;

Establishing the Strategic Vision, Themes and Targets;

Forecasting future waste management needs;

Analysing two recycling collection options;

Analysing ten bin system collection and processing options (plus additional garden organic options);

Undertaking Multi-Criteria Analysis to prioritise options; and

Investigating alternative modes of governance for the region.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 103

The draft Plan is recommending the introduction of a three bin Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO) and the transition to residual waste processing at a future Energy from Waste (EfW) facility if economically sustainable. The introduction of the three bin system to separate the clean organics from residual waste should result in reduced contamination levels in the organics processed into the Waste Composting Facility at the SMRC’s Regional Resource Recovery Centre. It is also expected that there will a reduction in the City’s volumes that would go to the Waste Composting Facility. This issue will need to be addressed with the other members of the SMRC. The City has previously applied for grant funding from the Waste Authority for the implementation of a three bin system with a project roll out value in the order of $ 1.8 M. $ 1.2 M is the cost for providing a 120 L and kitchen counter bins. The balance will be the ongoing annual operating cost of $0.6 M or collection of the third bin. The Waste Authority confirmed in late 2014 that the City was eligible for funding of $ 0.37 M. The Waste Authority’s main deliverables for the introduction of a three bin system are to achieve; uniform industry practice and cost effectiveness, changes to behavioural patterns in waste segregation and disposal, a reduction in contamination levels in MSW organic stream and a reduction in volume of waste disposal to landfill. The draft Plan also recommends a trial of processing FOGO through the Waste Compositing Facility (WCF) at the Regional Resource Recovery Centre (RRRC) in Canning Vale to confirm economies of scale however the implications of carrying out a trial for some of the members due to their smaller service collection areas may be less practical. Officers propose Council considers giving “in principle” support for the Draft SWMP as it aims to rationalise costs, provide the foundation for improving the sustainability, performance of SMRC waste service practices and procedures, and assist in achieving the state’s waste diversion from landfill targets. The SMRC Draft SWMP also identifies 38 Key Actions starting on page (vii) of the executive summary that will be progressed, and it is accepted that further coordination and cooperation between individual members will be required when actioning. The actions regarding implementing fortnightly recycling collections do not apply to the City as it already offers the proposed service. The City’s draft strategic plan also identifies the transitioning to a three bin system as one of its key outcomes. The members implementing three bin systems across a region uniformly would be most beneficial towards achieving efficient use of resources, changes in community behaviour, consistency of the recycling message and service cost benefit for its communities.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

The City submitted an expression of interest (EOI) for the Better Bins Kerbside Collection

City of Fremantle

PAGE 104

Program in June 2014 and the Waste Authority has advised the City is eligible to receive funding up to $378,390 based on the kerbside services committed to in the EOI. The City’s estimated total cost (2014) to implement the three bin system of the Better Bins Program is $ 1,710 278. There are budget implications with the current amount allocated to the City and it is proposed that this is considered through the draft 2016/17 and following years budget processes. Legal

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act (WARR) Act is the primary Act governing resource recovery in Western Australia and outlines specific powers requiring Local Governments, to produce waste plans. The Waste Authority encourages the use of a three-bin system to provide increased source separation and higher recovery and diversion from landfill. Operational

The draft Plan is recommending the introduction of a three bin Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO) and the transition to residual waste processing at a future Energy from Waste (EfW) facility. The plan highlights the fortnightly co-mingled collection as being most economical and the City currently provides a fortnightly service recycling service with the option available to residents to use a 360L co-mingled recycling bin. The roll-out of the third bin will entail a project value of $ 1.9 M and will require all aspects of delivering a major project within the City. Organisational

The City of Fremantle is committed to a collaborative staged transition to implementing a three bin system plus transition to energy from waste when commercially viable to do so.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The City is currently finalising its Draft strategic Plan however the implementation of a three bin within the next 5 years is a key initiative going forward.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

As part of the roll-out of the program the City will be required to address measures to ensure the community understands the benefits of the system including a communication plan, the roll-out of better practice services and use of Australian Standard bin colours.

CONCLUSION

The SMRC are currently in the process of finalising the Strategic Waste Management Plan for its members and the draft plan provides a sound basis for setting direction for future years. It is considered that individual members support and align with a staged process as

City of Fremantle

PAGE 105

the SMRC transitions to improved systems and technologies of processing Municipal Solid Waste. The adoption of a transition plan by all the participants would be the first step in a process, which aims to rationalise costs, provide the foundation for improving the sustainability and performance of SMRC waste service practices and assists in achieving the State’s waste diversion from landfill targets. Whilst the Draft SWMP analyses in detail the combination of several bin combination the SWMP highlights the implementation of a three bin system is most preferred. The two largest member councils are indicating their intentions to move towards this option in the medium term and hence it would be financially prudent for the City to start the necessary budget planning for the implementation of a three bin system.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan

1. Council gives “in principle” support for the Southern Metro Regional Council Draft Strategic Waste Management Plan and its Key Actions be progressed in coordination with its member Councils.

2. Consider making provision in future budgets for the implementation of a three bin

system projected estimated to be a value of $1.9 M.

3. The City collaborates with member Councils in transitioning to a three bin system across the region uniformly that would achieve efficient use of resources, changes in community behaviour, consistency of service provision at cost benefit for their communities.

Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to remove the wording in points 1 and 2, as shown in strikethrough and include the wording shown in italics in part 3 as follows:

1. Council gives “in principle” support for the Southern Metro Regional Council Draft Strategic Waste Management Plan and its Key Actions be progressed in coordination with its member Councils.

2. Consider making a provision in future budgets for the implementation of a

three bin system projected estimated to be a value of $1.9 M.

3. The City collaborates with participating member Councils in transitioning to a three bin system across the region uniformly that would achieve efficient use of resources, changes in community behaviour, consistency of service provision at cost benefit for their communities.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 106

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

REASONS FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Committee felt that it could support the Metro Regional Council Draft Strategic Waste Management Plan. The removed and additional wording provides clearer indication of support. Cr A Sullivan put the amended Recommendation as follows: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

1. Council gives support for the Southern Metro Regional Council Draft Strategic Waste Management Plan and its Key Actions be progressed in coordination with its member Councils.

2. Consider a provision in future budgets for the implementation of a three bin

system projected estimated to be a value of $1.9 M. 3. The City collaborates with participating member Councils in transitioning to a

three bin system across the region uniformly that would achieve efficient use of resources, changes in community behaviour, consistency of service provision at cost benefit for their communities.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

City of Fremantle

PAGE 107

FPOL1604-13 ADVERTISING OF OBJECTS AND REASONS FOR DIFFERENTIAL RATES 2016-2017

ECM Reference: 152/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: SGS1504-2 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Objects and Reasons Statement for Proposed Differential,

Specified Area and Waiver/Concessions Rates for 2016/2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Legislation requires the objects and reasons for differential rates to be advertised before they can be adopted in the annual budget. However having followed the prescribed process Council does have the discretion to vary the rate in the dollar and minimum rate without further public advertising when it adopts its annual budget. No change in the number and type of differential rates is being proposed for 2016/2017 financial year.

BACKGROUND

It is recommended that all types of differential rate categories as per the 2015/2016 financial year continue for the 2016/2017 financial year.

COMMENT

The objects and reasons statement has been updated to now included information on differential rates, specified area and waiver/concession rates for the 2016/2017 financial period. For advertising purposes a 3.0% increase is proposed to be applied to the rate in the dollar and minimum payment for each of the differential rate categories in the upcoming budget. Using 3.0% for the purpose of public advertising does not bind Council to that increase in rates when Council adopts the 2016/2017 financial year budget, as Council still has the option to vary the rates in the dollar and minimum payment up or down to the advertised figures. Electors or ratepayers will have 21 days from the date of public advertising to make submissions in respect of the proposed rate in the dollar or minimum payment and any

City of Fremantle

PAGE 108

related matter. The City is required to consider any submissions received before imposing the proposed rate in the dollar or minimum payment with or without modification. With the Nightclubs differential rate, Landgate Valuation Services will not provide separate gross rental valuations for the nightclub area of a rateable property where it does not cover the whole property. From the commencement of this differential rate in 2011/2012 concessions were provided in the annual rates where the nightclub did not occupy the whole property. It is proposed to provide these concessions under similar conditions for the 2016/2017 financial year with the concession amounts for each nightclub being reflected in the 2016/2017 budget document along with other properties where rate concessions are applicable. The City currently levies two specified area rates being a CBD security levy and Leighton precinct maintenance levy to fund a safety and security strategy for a specified area of the Fremantle CBD and the above normal costs associated with maintaining the higher standard of landscaping of the Leighton residential area. Within the City boundaries there are a number of right of ways (ROW) and public access ways (PAW) that due to historical subdivisions or other varying reasons are privately owned. Being privately owned, these ROW’s and PAW’s are rateable under the Local Government Act 1995 however it is proposed within this financial year to seek Council’s approval that effectively from the 1st July 2016 any rates levied on these ROW’s or PAW’s be either waived in full or be subject to a concession up to 50%. Provision of such waivers or concessions would be under section 6.47 of the LGA and are applicable owing to the inability to recover the rates due to the owner/s being unable to be located or the very minimal, if any, tangible benefits to the known owners.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Differential rates represent a strategic approach to rating which is Council's major revenue source. There will be a minimal or nil cost in applying rates waivers or concessions on ROW’s or PAW’s as at this time the majority are non-rated due to inability to locate the owners and those that are rated are very small in number and revenue return. Legal

Local Government Act 1995 sections 6.33 and 6.36 on differential rates and requirement to give notice of certain rates. Local Government Act 1995 sections 6.47 on rate waivers or concessions. Operational

If advertising is approved, it will mean public advertising can occur and it would be possible to adopt the 2016/2017 budget at the 22 June 2016 ordinary Council meeting.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 109

Organisational

Not applicable.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil

CONCLUSION

It is recommended the proposed Objects and Reasons Statement for Differential, Specified Area and Waiver/Concession Rates for 2016/2017 be advertised for a minimum of 21 days in accordance with the statutory requirements so we remain within our time frame for the 2016/2017 budget process.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan In accordance with section 6.36 of the Local Government Act 1995 the City of Fremantle advertise for public comment the Objects and Reasons Statement for Differential, Specified Area and Waiver/Concession Rates for 2016/2017 as attached to the Finance Policy and Operations agenda 20 April 2016. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

City of Fremantle

PAGE 110

FPOL1604-14 FINANCIAL COUNSELLING

ECM Reference: 023/017 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: C1506-2 Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Beverley Bone, Manager Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Fremantle Financial Counselling Service (FCS) has been delivered with municipal funds since the cessation of the contract with the Department of Child Protection and Family Support. This covers the period from 1 October 2015 to 30 June 2016. Council is required to decide whether it will continue to provide the funds for the Financial Counselling Service at the Fremantle Community Legal Centre (FCLC) in 2016/2017 and thereafter.

BACKGROUND

The Department of Child Protection and Family Support (DCPFS) advised the City of Fremantle on 5 June 2015, that funding would cease as of 1 October 2015 for Financial Counselling Services provided at the Fremantle Community Legal Centre. At the Ordinary Council Meeting 24 June 2015, the Council resolved the following: “The City fund Financial Counselling Services for the 2015/2016 financial year for City of Fremantle residents only, at a cost of $125,395 with a review of the service in March 2016.” Since the cessation of funding from the Department of Child Protection and Family Support (DCPFS), the City has funded the Financial Counselling program to Fremantle residents at a cost of $70,317 to date and a projected end of year position of approximately $120,000. For the period 1 October 2015 to 29 February 2016, seventy cases were opened, compared to the same period year prior 1 October 2014 to 28 February 2015 where there were 113 cases opened. This reflects a decrease of approximately 40 per cent of new clients accessing financial counselling over the period. This is due to the City providing a service to City of Fremantle residents only as well as no longer processing utilities applications.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 111

COMMENT

Financial counselling services in the Perth metropolitan area are now operating under a new community partnership model, establishing a range of supports for people experiencing financial hardship. In September 2015, the State Government approved the transfer of financial counselling to the Department of Local Government and Communities (DLGC) from the Department for Child Protection and Family Support. DLGC now partners with the community services sector to provide financial counselling services, enabling individuals and families to become more financially capable and improve their ability to manage their financial situation. Services include direct support and community education. The new service model is to ensure flexibility and coverage of financial counselling across the Perth metropolitan area. Following a State Government tender process, a community sector partnership led by Anglicare WA and UnitingCare West was selected to cover the South West region that includes Fremantle. The ten organisations included in the partnership are UnitingCare West, Midlas, Blue Sky Community Group, The Spiers Centre, City of Wanneroo, Anglicare WA, Gosnells Community Legal Centre, Southcare, Mission Australia and the City of Cockburn. UnitingCare West are located at 10-12 Market Street, Fremantle, provide a full time financial counsellor that services the following areas: Fremantle, North Fremantle, East Fremantle, South Fremantle, Beaconsfield, Hamilton Hill, O’Connor, Samson, Spearwood, White Gum Valley, Mosman Park. The State Government has allocated $2 million dollars per year for contracted financial counselling services in the metropolitan area through to 30 June 2018.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Should Council resolve to cease the financial counselling serivce as at 30 June 2016, there are a number of program exit costs that would need to be considered as part of the 2016/2017 budget process. The program exit costs are likely to include staff redundancy costs and the increased administrative costs for Fremantle Community Legal Centre (FCLC) due to financial counselling no longer contributing to the operation of FCLC. It is anticipated that these once off costs will be approximately $75,000 and would be factored into the salary 2016/2017 budget allocation. Legal

Nil

Operational

If the City was to discontinue the service, ongoing clients at close of business 30 June 2016, will need to be transferred to UnitingCare West if they cannot be closed prior to this date. No new clients would be accepted as of end April 2016.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 112

Organisational

The FCLC will be impacted by the cessation of FCS, however the funds required by FCLC to mitigate this loss is significantly less that the cost to continue to provide FCS. It is estimated that this amount would be approximately $20,000.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil

CONCLUSION

The City was not included as part of the Community Sector Partnerships to deliver financial counselling under the State Government’s new funding model. UnitingCare West in partnership with Anglicare WA are funded to provide services to the region. UnitingCare West is based in Fremantle and provide the financial counselling service to the Fremantle area. New clients call the UnitingCare West financial counselling main phone number and are then offered an appointment at either Aberdeen Street, Perth or Market Street, Fremantle. At present, there is approximately a one week wait list for an appointment. Clients are offered appointments at either UnitingCare West locations in Perth or Fremantle in order to keep the waiting list to a minimum of one week. If Council decided to continue to provide a financial counselling service as part of FCLC, the number of days of the service may need to be reduced given the reduction in client numbers.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority Required

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan

1. The City continues to provide the financial counselling service to residents of City of Fremantle delivered with municipal funds.

Or

2. The City cease providing financial counselling services as of 1 July 2016 and work with UnitingCare West to transfer any open cases to their Fremantle based service.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 113

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Cr D Thompson MOVED to defer the item to an appropriate Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee meeting that occurs after the 2016/17 budget is adopted. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To consider the future findings during the budget deliberations.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 114

FPOL1604-15 INNOVATIVE HOUSING WORKING GROUP - APPROVAL OF PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT

ECM Reference: 097/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 (Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee) Previous Item: FPOL1602-2 Responsible Officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Draft Project Initiation Document

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its ordinary meeting in February 2016 Council resolved to appoint an Innovative Housing Working Group (Working Group) with the intent of this Group providing input and identifying innovative, sustainable and/or affordable propositions for the City of Fremantle housing market. Some of these propositions may be included for consideration into the forthcoming review of the City’s Local Planning Strategy which specifically focuses on innovation, sustainability and affordability. In order to progress work a Project Initiation Document (PID), which sets out the resource requirements, timings and anticipated outputs is to be brought to Council for approval. A PID has been drafted (see Attachment 1) and is based on the approach taken to deliver the Green Plan. It is proposed to have an officer from the Directorate provide professional services to the Working Group, estimated as about three months in total over the eight elapsed months the Group is scheduled to run. In addition a budget of $60,000 next financial year is sought to allow for the back-filling of the officer’s time and provide $25k for any external advice, graphic design and the like that may be required. A contingency of $10,000 is allowed for, subject to the monies being available.

BACKGROUND

At its ordinary meeting held 24 February 2016, Council adopted the following:

That Council: 1. Appoint an Innovative Housing Working Group to

a. Identify innovative, sustainable and/or affordable housing propositions that

may be included for consideration in the forthcoming City of Fremantle Local Planning Strategy review and in any subsequent Local Planning Scheme review.

b. Identify innovative and sustainable mechanisms for the provision of affordable housing in the City of Fremantle.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 115

c. Identify a demonstration project that combines affordable housing with sustainability outcomes.

2. Endorse the Instrument of Appointment and Project Delegation attached to this item and dated RP - 10 February 2016.

3. Appoint Cr Rachel Pemberton and Cr Ingrid Waltham to the Innovative Housing Working Group.

Before the appointment of all Working Group members can occur, Council is required to adopt a Project Initiation Document (PID) for this project.

COMMENT

The draft PID provides a project description, objectives, benefits and outputs this Working Group is to achieve. The Project Approach section in the PID outlines the appointment process for the Innovative Housing Working Group: the Group is to consist of two Elected Members (already appointed at February 2016 Council meeting), five community members and the Project Manager/Executive Officer. The additional five community members have not been selected to date: the proposed process to appoint these people is similar to that adopted by Council for the establishment of the Green Plan Working Group (e.g. Expressions of Interest). In summary, once the calling of the Expression of Interest process has been finalised and reviewed by the current appointed Working Group members, a report will be presented before Council, post adoption of the FY2016/17 budget, identifying Working Group members for final endorsement. In resource terms it is proposed to have an officer from the Directorate provide professional services to the Working Group, estimated as about three months in total over the eight elapsed months the Group is scheduled to run. In addition a total budget of $60,000 next financial year is sought to allow for the back-filling of the officer’s time and provide $25k for any external advice, graphic design and the like that may be required. This $60k request is in the FY2016/17 budget process as a proposed project. A contingency of $10,000 on top is allowed for, subject to the monies being available.

CONCLUSION

Council resolved to appoint an Innovative Housing Working Group with the intent of this Group providing input and identifying innovative, sustainable and/or affordable propositions for the city’s housing market. Before the Working Group can be formally established a PID is required. The attached drafted PID is recommended to be adopted for this project.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. Approve the Innovative Housing Working Group Project Initiation Document v3 and dated 8 April 2016.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 116

2. Request the Working Group to commence recruitment of the five community members and bring back to Council the recommended names.

Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include an objective 4 into the key information section on page 2 of the Project Initiation Document as well as updating table 1 and into part 3.0 Objectives of the Instrument of Appointment and Project Delegation as follows:

4. To provide advice and expert opinion on any potential demonstration

projects that are brought to Council that facilitate the development of innovative housing during the term of the Working Group.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION There may be an opportunity coming to put these ideas into practice, and the resources and intellectual capital that will be available in this working group could be invaluable. Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to remove the following wording from page 4, part 3.2 of the Project Initiation Document as shown below: Remove the text 'post adoption of the FY2016/17 budget' CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The council has endorsed the formation of this working group in February. In April it is being asked to endorse the working group once more. It is understandable that the council endorse the membership of the working group; however the council should not re-consider

City of Fremantle

PAGE 117

the formation of the working group in the budget considerations. In fact to reverse a decision of council is a serious matter that can only be done with good cause. Furthermore, this sets a terrible example for the formation of any other working groups. If a working group was established in August or September, would it need to wait until the next budget to get underway? The council requested that this working group be formed, it should now be allowed to get on with the work it has been asked to do. Cr A Sullivan put the amended Recommendation as follows:

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Approve the Innovative Housing Working Group Project Initiation Document

and dated 8 April 2016 with the following amendments:

a) Include an objective 4 into the key information section on page 2 of the

Project Initiation Document as well as updating table 1 and into part 3.0 Objectives of the Instrument of Appointment and Project Delegation as follows:

4. To provide advice and expert opinion on any potential demonstration

projects that are brought to Council that facilitate the development of innovative housing during the term of the Working Group.

b) Remove the text 'post adoption of the FY2016/17 budget' part 3.2 of the

Project Initiation Document (page 4).

2. Request the Working Group to commence recruitment of the five community members and bring back to Council the recommended names.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

City of Fremantle

PAGE 118

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

Nil.

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

Nil.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 119

COUNCIL ITEMS

C1604-1 INFORMATION REPORT APRIL 2016

ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FCC463/16 REAR FAÇADE MAINTENANCE TO THE EVAN DAVIES BUILDING

ECM Reference: 39/073 Author: Glen Dougall Director City Business The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Rear Façade Maintenance to the Evan Davies Building to be awarded to Colgan Industries Pty Ltd for the fixed sum of $107659.00 excluding GST plus 10% (10765.90) Continguency. The MPAP is comprised of the Director City Business, the Director Community Development, the Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery and the Director Strategic Planning and Projects or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager not involved as a requestor or evaluator), and one operational manager or coordinator who is independent to the area from which the contract or tender relates ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FCC464/16 FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE STAGED CONCEPT DESIGN RELATED TO MARKET STREET ACTIVATION

ECM Reference: 39/073 Author: Glen Dougall Director City Business The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Architectural Services for the Staged Concept Design related to Market Street Activation to be awarded to Coda Studio Pty Ltd for the fixed sum of $68490.00 ex Gst plus 10% ($6849.00) Coninguency. The MPAP is comprised of the Director City Business, the Director Community Development, the Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery and the Director Strategic Planning and Projects or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager not involved as a requestor or evaluator), and one operational manager or coordinator who is independent to the area from which the contract or tender relates

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

The information report for April 2016 be received.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 120

C1604-2 OVERDUE DEBTS REPORT-FEBRUARY 2016

ECM Reference: 085/002; 085/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 27 March 2016 Previous Item: SGS1509-3 of 16 September 2015 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Summary of Overdue Debts above Threshold

(Confidential Report under separate cover)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council resolved that bi-annually (March and September) a report with a confidential attachment be provided to the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee (Previous Strategic and General Services Committee) with details of overdue debts that exceed a threshold value of $10,000. BACKGROUND The report is part of a framework for the write off of bad debts that was endorsed by the Audit and Risk Management Committee on 16 December 2014 and referred to Council who endorsed the framework on 28 January 2015. COMMENT Compared to the report presented in September 2015 the total value of outstanding debtors shows a slight reduction from $126K to $115K. With two debtors no longer appearing on the list, the number of debtors being reported has reduced from seven to five. The confidential attachment contains comment and background in relation to the debtors listed in the report. A further report will be provided to Committee in two months’ time for approval to write off those debts that are considered bad or doubtful. RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Financial

The budget implications can be addressed in two parts:- 1. Cost of Credit Management. If an organisation does not have good credit

management then it will have negative budgetary impacts as cash will not be collected for the sales of goods and services made. It should be noted that even with good credit management, bad debts can still be incurred, but they normally arise within an environment where the risk and reward factors have been balanced to try and achieve the best outcome for the organisation. It is a requirement for completing annual financial statements that any potential bad debts are provisioned for and that is a cost to the budget in the year in which the provision is made.

City of Fremantle

PAGE 121

2. Cost to Budget of Writing off Bad Debts. Generally this is budget neutral as the city provisions for potential bad and unrecoverable debts and the city has been doing so for many years in accordance with accounting standards. As a consequence, approvals to write off bad debts will generally result in the cost being written back against the provision with no net impact to the current budget.

Legal

Section 6.12 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1995 provides authority for the Council to write off outstanding monies. Operational

The report is likely to highlight matters that have been or currently are the focus of operational activity. Organisational

It is possible that some of the matters highlighted are linked to current and evolving organisational plans. CONCLUSION That the information be received. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Nil VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority Required OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the Overdue Debt report for outstanding debtors exceeding 90 days and $10,000 in value as at 29 February 2016 be received.

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 122

C1604-3 REPORT ON PROPOSED SALE/LONG TERM OF FREMANTLE PORT BY STATE GOVERNMENT

ECM Reference: 103/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 27 April 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: MacroPlan Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following an announcement by the state government in 2015 that it was intending to privatise the Fremantle Port operations through the sale or long term lease of the Fremantle Inner Harbour, a Discussion Paper was prepare by the CEO that identified a range of strategic issues for the Council to consider in response to this proposal. Thereafter, the leadership of the City has been looking in more detail at some of the opportunities that arise as a result. One of the long held ambitions of the Fremantle community is better connections to the harbour waterfront, partly addressed through the Victoria Quay Mater Plan, but not addressed in relation to the eastern end of Victoria Quay, referred to as South Quay in this report. Being aware that the key driver for the state government is maximising the financial return for the state government, the CEO commissioned a report from MacroPlan to test whether the exclusion of South Quay from the proposed sale, and its redevelopment for commercial and public uses could be financially beneficial to government. In summary, the report shows that a significant financial return to government is possible through this process if South Quay is allowed to be freed of port operational requirements and redeveloped. It is acknowledged that the report does not assess the costs of relocating motor vehicle trade and bulk goods to Kwinana Port, but given the significant opportunities and returns to government identified in the report, it is recommended that government undertake investigations prior to finalising its documentation for sale or lease. The report is attached for information and receiving by council.

BACKGROUND

As per the executive summary

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 123

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

In all of the council’s strategic documents and plans, and all of the community feedback in relation to those plans, it has been clear that the people of Fremantle support a working port in Fremantle. Along with that has been a strong desire for better connections for people to the waterfront, including the harbour currently cut off by rail and port operational requirements. These two desires are not always congruent, but there are potential solutions that could be implemented that would significantly improve the current situation, including relocating some of the port trade either within the inner harbour or relocated completely to a second port at Kwinana. The state government’s announcement that it would privatise the port operations by the sale or long term lease of Fremantle port presents an opportunity to have a genuine dialogue about the future of port operations in the metropolitan area. It also presents a threat to the long held desire to create better waterfront connections if certain areas are “locked away” with that sale/lease for port operations for 50+ years. Recognising this threat and the potential opportunities, the City has commissioned a study to test the feasibility of releasing South Quay from port operational areas to allow redevelopment and connection to the city, without a cost to government. It was essential that study presented as a no cost to government potential given the government has made it clear that the purpose of the sale is to reduce government debt. The report attached demonstrates clearly there is a significant return to the state government, and a significant amenity and economic benefit to Fremantle with the proposal. On that basis this report should be looked at in more detail and expanded upon by the state government prior to entering into any port sale or lease. At the very least, it is essential that any sale or lease not restrict the opportunity to release South Quay in the short to medium term and not lock it away within an agreement to sell or lease purely for port operational purposes.

COMMENT

The Mayor and CEO have commenced a series of meetings with relevant government and opposition members of parliament to discuss the MacroPlan report. Early indications are that there is a level of support for this, albeit guarded given the process the government in undertaking in preparing documentation for the sale or lease.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Nil Legal

Nil

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 124

Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil at this time

CONCLUSION

The MacroPlan report clearly demonstrates feasibility for a “win-win” outcome for the state government and the city and community of Fremantle by allowing redevelopment of South Quay for non-port purposes and as such, at the very least, it is suggested that government should ensure South Quay is able to be released from port operational requirements within the term of any lease of the port. Ideally, it should be excluded but recognising the lead time for appropriate master planning for the area and development of more detailed proposals for development after that, such an outcome would establish a strong direction for the future.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council

a) receive the report prepared by MacroPlan entitled “Fremantle Port South Quay: Redevelopment Economic Benefit;

b) support the principle of releasing South Quay from any privatisation effort by the state government to allow the redevelopment for non-port operational purposes; and

c) authorise the Mayor to continue lobbying for this outcome with appropriate members of government and the opposition.

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 125

C1604-4 2016 KINGS SQUARE EXTENSION REQUEST REPORT

ECM Reference: 053/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 27 April 2016 Previous Item: C1211-1, C1211-2, C1302-1, PSC1302-27, SGS1408-

17, C1505-1 Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Jackson McDonald - Legal Advice (Confidential)

Sirona Capital – Letter of Request for Extension Previous Council Items

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City’s Economic Development Strategy adopted in 2010 identified the Kings Square precinct as a priority area for redevelopment, noting that the City owned significant property holdings in the precinct. With Myer not renewing its lease with the private owners of the Myer building (Sirona Capital) and Hoyts indicating to the City it would not renew its lease of the Queensgate Centre, early planning commenced to find solutions to this situation. Collaboration between the Myer building owners and the City led to a MOU being signed in 2011 that would provide an exclusivity period for Sirona to develop a proposal for a whole of precinct redevelopment. After 18 months of ideas exploration and due diligence assessments, the City developed a comprehensive business plan that was advertised for public comment in late 2012 which, following consideration of feedback on that business plan, was adopted by Council in February 2013. The business plan provided the details for an integrated project that would see the sale and redevelopment of council owned properties and the Myer building in the Kings Square Precinct for the purposes of commercial office and retail accommodation. The total floor area of the proposed developments is circa 30,000 square metres of commercial office space and 12,000 square metres of retail space providing a significant boost to the number of workers in Fremantle and meeting the Council’s economic development objectives for the revitalisation of the city. As this project is a fully integrated precinct project, the plan also requires the redevelopment of the City’s library, visitors centre, and civic and administration centre. The total project value is estimated at $220 million. Following the adoption of the business plan, the City entered into a formal contract (Project Development Deed or PDD) with Sirona which was formally signed on 10 May 2013. The period of the PDD was, after a formal extension in 2015, for three years expiring on 9 May 2016. During the last three years, as detailed in the information report in 2015 advising of the granting of a 12 month extension to the contract until 2016, Sirona has

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 126

demonstrated it has met the majority of requirements of the contract including achieving development approvals, paying its deposits to the City, and investing considerable funds into efforts to obtain a major tenant that would allow the project to proceed. Unconditional finance approval is the last pre-condition requirement prior to settlement and would likely only come with a major tenant pre-commitment. Rightly or wrongly, the major tenant being sought has been a state government agency. This is because in 2012 the state government announced a policy of decentralisation for state government agencies out of the Perth CBD, where rents were very high, to strategic metropolitan centres. In 2013, the government further announced that the Department of Housing would relocate from East Perth to Fremantle. Unfortunately the process for that to occur has moved much more slowly than had been hoped, however that process is now in its final stages and an announcement on the preferred site for that relocation is expected around August this year. Kings Square is one of two sites being considered by government. Sirona has formally written to the City requesting a short extension to the contract to allow the state government to complete its government accommodation tender process. If the Kings Square submission by Sirona is successful with government, the government office requirement will underpin this project and the project could commence as early as first quarter 2017. The Council has received legal advice on this matter which confirms it is open to the Council to grant an extension without the need for advertising a further business plan. Officers recommend that council agree to an extension of the contract to allow the government accommodation process to be completed, not only for the direct benefit of the Kings Square project, but for the strategic benefit of Fremantle generally.

BACKGROUND

Rather than repeat the full background to this large and complex project, copies of earlier reports to council are included in the attachments. Those reports provide information that was presented to council at the time of adoption of the business plan, the acceptance of Kerry Hill Architects (KHA) as architects for the City’s building, and the granting of a twelve month extension to Sirona in May 2015.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The key strategic issue for council to consider in relation to the request for extension to the contract is the impact this decision could have on the government’s commitment to relocating the Department of Housing to Fremantle. The expected number of office workers in this relocation is around 1,500 with a further 500+ to be employed in the retail side of the development. This adds a very significant economic boost to Fremantle and if it can be achieved will be the result of a very strong commitment and effort by the City and Sirona over the last three years.

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 127

Council committed to the Kings Square project in 2013 as a major catalyst development project in a tired part of the city. There has been a collective lobbying effort to have the government commit to Fremantle as a major strategic metropolitan centre ever since 2010 when the first Economic Development Strategy was adopted by Council. That effort has got us to a point where the government is only a couple of months away from finishing its processes and announcing the preferred proponent and location for a government office. Therefore, the key risk to be considered/question to be asked is – what is the outcome if we don’t grant an extension and the project falls over? We are at a point in the government process where submissions have been lodged and are currently being assessed by government. If an extension is not granted, there is a risk that the project falls over, the Sirona RFP for Kings Square is withdrawn and the government is no longer left with a competitive process – there is only one bidder to negotiate with. This creates the real possibility of the government stepping back from its commitment to proceed with the relocation. Add to this the implied message that the Council will be sending the government (and the development sector) – despite all of our lobbying for this to occur over the past 3 years, we’ve changed our minds and now we don’t want Kings Square redeveloped in the way that it was envisaged. In addition to the potential damage to the City’s reputation with the state government, there is also a reputational risk of damage with the federal government. The City has applied for a grant under the National Stronger Regions Fund (NSRF) of $10 million for this project. That funding application, if successful, provides for the public realm works within the precinct as well as support funding for the Library and Visitors Centre. This is the third time officers have submitted a funding application to the federal government under the NSRF scheme and feedback from the second round suggests that our application in round 2 was very close to being successful. Advice on how to improve the application, which has been incorporated into the round 3 application, gives officers a degree of optimism that the City could be successful this time. It was expected that announcements in relation to NSRF would be made in June, although the likely announcement of federal elections in July may delay the timing of any announcement. Nonetheless, officers are optimistic that this project will have a strong chance of being funded as it is the type of project NSRF will fund and the quality of our application is extremely high. To withdraw the application for funding now could have a negative impact on future funding applications with the federal government.

COMMENT

In addition to the broader strategic issues identified above, consideration needs to be given to the Kings Square project itself. The attached reports detail the considerations that have been given to this project to date.

What the previous reports do not address is the state government decentralisation policy for government office accommodation. This is critical at this time as the desire to have the state government underpin the Kings Square development has been a major factor in planning for more than three years.

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 128

It was in 2012 that the state government first announced its strategy to reduce its public service accommodation costs through decentralisation of government agencies to strategic metropolitan centres. In 2013 it announced that, among a couple of other relocations, the Department of Housing would be relocated from East Perth to Fremantle.

It was stated at the time that the government would require between 15,000 and 20,000 square metres of “A” grade office space. No such space was available in Fremantle so the government undertook a “market testing” exercise to ascertain where in Fremantle it could relocate an agency. There were three property owners that submitted an interest at that time, including Sirona’s interest in Kings Square.

Unfortunately for the Kings Square project and for Fremantle’s revitalisation efforts more generally, at about that time the Perth office market started a downward spiral in rental prices as the mining boom came to an end, causing an oversupply of commercial office space in the Perth CBD. That oversupply sits at around 20% capacity today and has been a major contributing factor to the time taken for government to work through the process to facilitate the announced relocation of the Department of Housing to Fremantle.

Both the City and Sirona have maintained lobbying pressure on the state government over this time to honour its announcement, achieved through numerous meetings with relevant Ministers, Chiefs of Staff, and Directors General. A number of meetings have also been held with the Premier, who has continued to offer his support for the relocation to Fremantle.

Finally, in mid-2015 the government called for formal expressions of interest (EOI) for the supply of up to 30,000 square metres of office space in Fremantle. It is understood only two EOI’s were submitted and in March 2016, the government invited both of those to submit more detailed “Request for Proposals (RFP)” for 20,000 square metres of office space. The RFP closed on 11 April.

Indications are that a final recommendation will be made to Cabinet mid-year with an expected announcement on the successful bidder to be known by August or September 2016.

An extension of 6 months would allow this RFP process to be finalised and it be known whether the Kings Square precinct is the selected location for the government office relocation. It is also recommended that a further 6 month extension be approved, subject to the CEO being satisfied that Kings Square is known to be the selected location. The further 6 months allows detailed negotiations of the essential terms of lease to be concluded between Sirona and government. Once the essential terms are agreed the project can actually commence.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Other factors to consider are the financial implications of the time change in the value of money in this project.

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 129

The contract is for the sale of three council owned properties at an agreed sale price. That sale price is based on 2012 valuations totalling $29.55 million. In order to assess the change in property values over the past three years officers sought a formal valuation update. That valuation advice has the properties valued at a total of $27.2 million – a reduction of $2.25 million. This is clearly an advantage to the City since the sale price is fixed under the contract. It should also be noted that the cost of capital has decreased since the business plan was advertised in 2012. The business plan proposed that the City use loan funding for the capital shortfall for the project. Loan borrowing rates have decreased since then and the outlook is for a potential further decrease in the short term rates with medium term (5 years) rates remaining at about today’s levels. The economic downturn provides a further benefit in that construction costs have decreased significantly in the past three years. State government has reported savings on budget estimates for large projects in the order of 30%. It is expected this lower cost environment will be sustained at least in the short term which provides an opportunity for the City’s buildings to be constructed at lower cost. Since the adoption of the business plan an opportunity to secure federal government funding ($10 million) to contribute to the project has also presented through the National Stronger Regions Assistance Program. The City has provided a funding application seeking funding for the public realm areas of the project including library, visitors centre, and open spaces. If this is secured the benefit to the City is enormous. A negative outcome from the time taken to secure a tenant is that the City has commenced the process of concluding tenancy agreements with tenants located in the Queensgate Centre. Over the three years since the agreement was signed this has seen the decline of approximately $800,000 per annum in rental income plus the costs associated with carrying vacancies where outgoings cannot be claimed from tenants. While the benefits of the delay are neutralised by the loss of rental income from the Queensgate Centre as tenancies have been vacated, the financial situation in relation to the original business plan have not changed significantly. Of course, if the federal funding application is successful the project finances are significantly strengthened in comparison to the business plan. Legal

Confidential legal advice is attached that concludes that it is open to the Council to agree to an extension of the contract, essentially because the terms and conditions of the contract have not varied. Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 130

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil

CONCLUSION

The request for extension by Sirona is made on the basis that the government accommodation RFP process has closed and it is expected that it will be announced around August or September whether the Sirona RFP for Kings Square was successful. The assessment of the impacts of time on the value of the contract to the City shows no significant variation to the value that was advertised in the business plan in late 2012. Given that the final decision of government will be known in the coming months, the potential strategic implications to Fremantle more generally from not granting this short extension, and there is no significant variation to the contract, it is recommended that council grant the extension periods requested.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council approve an extension to the sunset dates set out in the Project

Development Deed for the Kings Square Precinct Redevelopment under the following terms and conditions:

a) for a period of six months from 9 May 2016 to 9 November 2016; and

b) with the authority of the Chief Executive Officer, for a further 6 months to

9 May 2017, on the express condition that it be known to the City that Sirona has been successful in securing a state government commitment to accommodate an agency or agencies to the Kings Square development that allows Sirona to satisfy all pre-conditions for purchase.

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 131

AUDIT RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 13 APRIL 2016

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

AC1604-1 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT - DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR NEW OPERATIONS CENTRE (2 JONES STREET)

ECM Reference: 068/030 Disclosure of Interest: NIL Meeting Date: Audit & Risk Committee 13 April, 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Attachments: Detail Cost Implications for Redevelopment Options

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:

(e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal - (i) a trade secret; (ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or (iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of

a person

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 132

AC1604-2 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT - FREMANTLE OVAL LEASE

ECM Reference: L066 & Fremantle Football Club Disclosure of Interest: NIL Meeting Date: Audit & Risk Committee 13 April, 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Attachments: Legal Advice on lease between FFC and City

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:

(e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal - (i) a trade secret; (ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or (iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of

a person

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 133

AC1604-3 INSURANCE RENEWAL REPORT

ECM Reference: 042/018 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Audit & Risk Committee 13 April, 2016 Previous Item: Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:

(e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal - (i) a trade secret; (ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or (iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of

a person

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 134

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

The Council adopted a Community Engagement Policy in December 2010 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1.

The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2.

The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3.

The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.

These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6.

No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 135

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

limitations associated with the issue.

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8.

The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9.

The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10.

City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11.

The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 136

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12.

As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.

Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13.

The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14.

In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15.

Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16.

Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 137

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; 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; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 138

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 27 April 2016, 6.00 pm

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 2

C1604-3 REPORT ON PROPOSED SALE/LONG TERM OF FREMANTLE PORT BY STATE GOVERNMENT

ATTACHMENT 1 MacroPlan Report Available under separate cover and on-line or printed on request.

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 3

C1604-4 SIRONA CAPITAL – LETTER OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 4

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 5

C1211-2 PROPOSED KINGS SQUARE PROJECT BUSINESS PLAN (NOVEMBER 2012) - APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE

DataWorks Reference: 053/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Special Council 12 November, 2012 Previous Item: C1211-1 Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Kings Square Project Business Plan (November 2012)

(available on website)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To consider advertising of the proposed Business Plan for the Kings Square Project in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995. In particular for the proposal to dispose of the Queensgate Carpark, Queensgate Centre and Spicer Carpark properties to Sirona Capital Management Pty Ltd or a wholly owned Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) subsidiary set up for the purpose to re-develop these properties. The proposal also provides for the redevelopment of the Council owned properties based in Kings Square as an integrated redevelopment of the area.

BACKGROUND

In October 2011 the City of Fremantle entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Sirona Capital to progress discussions on the possibility of an integrated development of the City owned and Sirona owned properties adjacent to the Kings Square site. These properties include the current Myer building, Queensgate Car Park, Queensgate commercial building, City administration building, the titled property in front of the Myer building and the Spicer property on William Street. The proposal also considers implications for the public area of Kings Square in accordance with the Urban Design Plan adopted by council in June 2012. On 5 November, 2012 the City considered the Business Case report for the proposal at a Special Council meeting held for that purpose. At this meeting the Council resolved the following;

1. Council receive and accept the Kings Square Development Business Case (October 2012) report provided by Leedwell Strategic providing a positive Net Present Value and the capacity for the City to implement the project,

2. Council receive and accept the RSM Bird Cameron Report on the due diligence of Sirona Capital proving the capacity for Sirona Capital to implement the project, and

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 6

3. Approve the development of a draft Business Plan on the proposal for the Kings Square Project to present to council for consideration.

COMMENT

The draft Business Plan has now been prepared in accordance with the above resolution. The proposed Plan provides for the disposal of three council properties to Sirona Capital Management Pty Ltd (or it’s wholly owned SPV) with certain development requirements as an integrated outcome with the adjoining property (Myer Building) which is owned by Sirona Capital Management Pty Ltd. Also for the re-development of the City administration activities on its Kings Square owned properties.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

The Business Case report provides a base case scenario providing a positive NPV over a 20 year period. The proposal itself requires council to consider providing additional funds of up to $15.5 million to undertake the redevelopment of City owned property which under the base case is provided by way of debt funding paid back within a 10 year period. Legal

The proposed Business Plan is required to be advertised in accordance with section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995. The minimum advertising period is 42 days. In accordance with the Act any submissions received during the advertising period are to be considered by Council before the Plan is considered for adoption, with or without amendment. Operational

The proposed Plan will be advertised in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and placed on the council website. A public information session is also being arranged for early December to allow for interested members of the public to receive presented information on aspects of the Plan. Organisational

Nil.

CONCLUSION

The discussion in relation to Kings Square has been in place for approximately 15 months and is now at the point of being ready to consider a formal proposal. The detail contained within the draft Plan provides a full explanation of the various aspects of the project and is now provided for public comment before council formally considers its position on the proposal.

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 7

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The draft Plan proposes outcomes that relate directly to the City of Fremantle Strategic Plan 2010-2015 and related plans.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The proposed Plan will be advertised in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995. The City is also arranging a public information session on key aspects of the Plan in early December, 2012.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED an amendment to the table in part 6.2, page 25 to change the word 'target' with the word 'requirement' for 5-Star Green Star and 5-Star NABERS and add the words 'or equivalent' after the word 'ratings'. SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED an amendment page 21 by adding an additional dot point 4 to Building 1 Concept and page 22 by adding an additional dot point 5 to Building 2 Concept which reflects the following wording;

'Design requirement 5-Star Green Star and 5-Star NABERS ratings or equivalent for a high-quality and environmentally conscious office and retail environment'.

SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 8

CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED an amendment to Building 2 Concept on page 22 to proposed plan to;

i. Delete the line 'Council End of Trip Facilities' and moving the 220sqm area allocation to 'Council Services' above, and

ii. Adding the words 'end of trip facility' to the line 'CORE Administration'. SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council approve the advertising of the draft Kings Square Project Business Plan (November 2012) as amended in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995. SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 9

Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 10

C1302-1 KINGS SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT BUSINESS PLAN – CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS AND FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 053/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 11 February 2013 Previous Item: C1211-2 Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Summary of public submissions received (available on

the website)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council adopted a draft business plan in November 2012 for the sale and redevelopment of a number of properties in the Kings Square precinct. In accordance with the Local Government Act requirements, the plan was advertised for public comment. A total of 27 submissions have been received and are required to be considered by council. Council may adopt the Business Plan with minor amendments without the need to readvertise. If major amendments are made the Plan is required to be readvertised for a further period of 6 weeks. The majority of submissions made comment on 2 key matters:

1. Urban design issues relating to the opening of Newman court to vehicular traffic and the perceived loss of public and/or green space in Kings Square;

2. The building architecture as shown in the images in the Business Plan. Whilst council has adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Kings Square, the issue of traffic in Newman court will need to be resolved separately to this process as the Guidelines provide flexibility on this matter. Detailed design of the public realm spaces will need to be undertaken once council decides to proceed with the redevelopment proposals. To address the many concerns about the architecture, it is suggested by officers that council give consideration to conducting an architectural competition for its proposed new library, visitor centre, civic centre and administration building. Details of the conduct of such a competition will be the subject of separate report to council through the Planning Services Committee. A summary of submissions is included in Attachment 1 together with a suggested brief response to each matter raised. A more detailed written response will be provided to each submitter following the council’s determination of submissions. Council is now required to determine whether it will adopt the Business Plan with or without amendment, or not adopt the plan.

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 11

BACKGROUND

Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Sirona Capital Management Pty Ltd, the owners of the Myer building in October 2011. The purpose of the MOU was to allow exclusive negotiations to occur to determine the feasibility of entering into a transaction whereby Sirona obtains the ability to refurbish or develop all or part of the Council owned properties in a manner that, amongst other things, is commercially viable and broadly achieves the Council’s objectives. Those council owned properties are:

Queensgate Centre

Queensgate Car park

Spicer Site

City’s Administration, Library and Civic Centre Council entered into the MOU with Sirona because Sirona had recently purchased the Myer building immediately adjacent to the council’s properties and therefore offered the potential for an integrated development of all of the sites, initially including the retention of the Myer store. The discussions centred on the outcomes that were being sought by both parties as well as the vehicle under which those outcomes could be achieved. At a Special Council meeting on 5 November 2012 Council adopted the Business Case and subsequently on 12 November 2012 adopted the Draft Business Plan for advertising for public comment as required by the provisions of the Local Government Act. A total of 27 submissions were received and a summary of those submissions is provided at attachment 1 together with a brief response to the matters raised. COMMENT Of the submissions that raised concerns about the proposed development, two key matters were raised consistently:

1. Urban design issues relating to the opening of Newman court to vehicular traffic and the perceived loss of public and/or green space in Kings Square; and

2. The building architecture as shown in the images in the Business Plan. Whilst council has adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Kings Square, the issue of traffic in Newman court will need to be resolved separately to this process as the Guidelines provide flexibility on this matter. Detailed design of the public realm spaces will need to be undertaken once council decides to adopt the Business Plan. To address the many concerns about the architecture, it is suggested by officers that council give consideration to conducting an Architectural competition for its proposed new library, civic centre and administration building. Details of the conduct of such a competition will be the subject of separate report to council through the Planning Services Committee.

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 12

Another important issue raised in the submissions by the Fremantle Society, is the issue of the sale of the Queensgate Car Park. The submission queried the logic of that sale being included in the business plan. In response to that query the following summary is provided. Sale of Queensgate Car Park It is understood that the primary concerns about the sale of the car park were strategic concerns:

1. A potential loss a car parking spaces in the city if the property were to be

redeveloped;

2. A potential for loss of car parking for the general public if all or most of the

available bays were allocated to tenants of the redevelopment;

Following discussions with Sirona it has been agreed that Sirona will commit under a deed to the retention of a minimum of 500 parking bays in Queensgate for shopper/general public parking. Matthew McNeilly makes the comment that in all likelihood the number of bays available for general parking will be around 600. Sirona is also prepared to commit under deed to a guarantee that the car park will remain as a car park. On the latter point, Sirona advises that the car park will be required at the absolute minimum for the term of lease of the anchor tenant (likely to be a supermarket), which would probably be 20 years.

Other reasons given for considering retention of the car park were:

1. Retain the cash flow from the car park.

The loss of revenue will, at least in part, be offset by rate revenue from private ownership. This was addressed in the business case.

2. Council retains control of car parking rates across the city.

The reality is that major retail tenants in the development, as well as major office tenants will require cheap parking rates for customers. For example, it is highly likely whoever owns the car park will be under pressure to allow free parking for the first 2-3 hours. The control of this and other incentives are best provided by the owner of Queensgate office building and Myer building so that he is able to negotiate overall packages of rent and parking. Council should not be involved in this. 3. The sale price does not reflect replacement cost for another equivalent car park.

This is true. An equivalent car park constructed may cost up to $30 million (land costs included). However, the car park was valued by qualified valuers and in terms of a return on investment the valuation is generous. The gross return on the car park at valuation is just over 7%, excluding depreciation. Taking into account the staffing costs, maintenance and operating costs including power etc, the net return on valuation is minimal. The higher the valuation figure of course the smaller the return margins become. This simply shows that car parks are not a ‘highest and best use’ of land and therefore valuations do not reflect replacement costs. Further, the valuation provided was based on a time period when the city was NOT providing any free parking in Queensgate. We are now providing the first hour free.

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 13

Had the valuation been undertaken with the hour free in place, the valuation would have been less than what was provided. Extrapolated, assuming that Sirona will offer 2-3 hours free parking, then the valuation of the car park is even less. This suggests that the city is achieving a sale price at the top end of the valuation spectrum for this building.

Once the Business Plan is adopted by Council, the detailed design work can commence as can the preparation of the detailed contract documents, all as contemplated in the MOU. Processes will be established to facilitate the detailed design work for the city’s facilities and the public realm spaces, while the formal contract documentation will be prepared by Sirona’s lawyers as required under the MOU in conjunction with the city’s lawyers.

Individual letters responding to the submissions will be provided acknowledging the submission and providing more personalised response to the issues raised.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Final adoption of the business plan will commit council to the plan and the costs and benefits as detailed in that plan. Legal

The Business Plan process is a process legislated under the Local Government Act and the consideration of public submissions on the plan is part of the process. Council can now either adopt the business plan without modification or with minor modification, or it can make major changes to the plan and resolve to readvertise, or it can reject the business plan completely.

Operational

Adoption of the plan will cause the next steps in this major redevelopment to be commenced. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The majority of submissions that did not support the plan, did so on the basis of a dislike of the images provided in the plan. Those images were for illustrative purposes only and do not represent the final building designs, as was noted in the business plan. There was also strong commentary about the dislike of opening Newman Court for vehicular traffic. The other strategic comment made was about the future supply of car parking in the city, which the council has already considered in much detail. It should also be noted that council is currently preparing a strategic parking strategy for the city. Given that the concerns raised can be addressed as the project progresses it is recommended that council adopt the business plan.

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 14

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

As detailed in the business plan

PRECINCTS AND OTHER COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS PLUS OTHER CONSULTATION

This item is the consideration of the public responses to the business plan.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority Required OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Adopts the Kings Square Project Business Plan with minor amendment to

correct rounding errors in section 8.3 on pages 37 and 38. 2. Resolves to proceed with the major land transactions that are proposed in the

Kings Square Project Business Plan and as amended in part 1 above. 3. Authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to execute the contract

documents once prepared and certified by the city’s legal representatives. 4. Requests officers prepare a report for consideration by council on the

processes and costs involved in conducting an architectural competition for the design of the city’s proposed new library, civic and administration buildings.

5. Requests officers prepare a report for consideration by council on the

processes for developing the detailed design for the public realm spaces in the precinct.

ADDITIONAL OFFICER COMMENT Part 1 has been modified to better reflect the change required to the Business Plan. A new part has been included at part 2 as suggested by council solicitors to ensure that the major land transaction component of the business plan is also formally resolved, just to ensure the resolution reflects the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995.

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 15

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED the following amendment (as shown in italics) to part 1 (b) of the amended officer's recommendation to read as follows; 1. That council adopts the Kings Square Project Business Plan with the

following minor amendments:

(a) to correct rounding errors in section 8.3 on pages 37 and 38; and (b) amend the Business Plan at clauses 6.5 and 6.8 to vary the sunset

provisions from a blanket 3 years for all council owned sites, to 3 years for the Spicer site (being a stage 2 element) and 2 years with a further 1 year option being allowable at the discretion of the CEO provided significant progress can be demonstrated by Sirona toward securing the development, of the Queensgate Centre and Queensgate Car park.

SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Sam Wainwright

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

The Queensgate centre and car park redevelopment is part of stage 1 of the redevelopment project and as such council is keen to see this progress in a timely manner. To allow 3 years without demonstrable progress could potentially 'mothball' the sites unnecessarily and therefore it is suggested that the 3 years proposed in the plan be reduced to two, with a caveat that the CEO can allow a further 12 months extension if Sirona can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the CEO that there has been significant progress toward securing the development outcome.

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 16

Cr Sam Wainwright MOVED the following alternative amendment (as shown in italics) to part 1 (b) of the amended officer's recommendation to read as follows; 1. That council adopts the Kings Square Project Business Plan with the following

minor amendments:

(a) to correct rounding errors in section 8.3 on pages 37 and 38; and (b) Make the key objective use for the Spicer site under section 6.4 (page 27) of

the Business Plan to be for diverse housing and change section 6.2 (i) (page 25) incorporating targets for low income, affordable and accessible housing similar to those achieved in the Deed for the development 19-21 & 23-25 Burt St.

SECONDED: Cr D Hume LOST: 1/8

For Against

Cr Sam Wainwright Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION 1. While facilitating the provision of diverse and affordable housing and the

establishment of a new hotel both satisfy objectives in the City's Strategic Plan, there is no question that a diverse housing development would respond to a far more urgent social need. The City will be, and should be, judged on how it responds to this need.

2. A consequence of the gentrification of Australia's inner city suburbs has been to push people on lower incomes towards the periphery. We see this pattern across greater Perth and within the City of Fremantle itself. Paradoxically this means that wealthier inner city suburbs typically have far better access to civic facilities and public transport/cycle routes. The use of the Spicer site for diverse housing would put people on low incomes (pensioners, students and others) and people with reduced mobility within walking distance of good public transport and other facilities.

3. The City needs to help facilitate the qualitative increase in the stock of diverse and

affordable housing in the inner city. In the course of debate around Amendment 49 it was suggested that the City could lead by example in facilitating a diverse housing development on one of its own sites. However with the disposal of the Point St site it is not clear that there will be any immediate opportunities to do this

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 17

elsewhere in the CBD. The Burt St development while very welcome, is effectively replacing low income housing stock that used to exist at Burt St itself and the Henderson St warders cottages.

4. There is nothing to suggest that a housing development would not be just as

successful (if not more so) at stimulating the social and economic activity that it is hoped will be achieved through the Kings Square development more generally, in turn creating the basis for a hotel development

5. New diverse housing and hotel space are both objectives of the Strategic Plan.

However a hotel development may happen without the specific intervention of the City, particularly if the regeneration of the Kings Square precinct creates and demonstrates the market for it. By contrast, an inner city diverse and affordable housing development is very unlikely to happen without government intervention (be it federal, state or local).

6. In traditional European town centres the more prestigious hotels and restaurants

typically face the Town Square itself or the main thoroughfare leading from it to the railway station. While the City may not control such sites, there are nevertheless a number of other sites such as those on the northern side of Queen St and the western side of High St that would work just as well for a hotel, if not better, and more successfully activate Kings Square proper. It has been suggested that a hotel operator might be able to purchase and incorporate the Henderson St cottages. This is a secondary consideration and in any case is not dependant on the exact location of a hotel.

7. It is possible that an unexpected but severe economic downturn will reduce the

expected revenues from the City's own commercial properties within the Kings Square precinct before all the debt for the project has been paid off, thereby placing pressure on the City's overall budget. In such a circumstance it would be far preferable to have created a stock of diverse housing on the Spicer site whose need would be greater than ever, rather than a luxury hotel that may longer be needed or even viable.

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 18

Cr Sam Wainwright MOVED the following amendment to include an additional part 6 to read as follows; 6. Ensure that adequate baby changing and feeding places are part of the

community facilities. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Sam Wainwright

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION A number of councillors have received strong community feedback requesting that the new public toilet facilities be of a high standard; being both pleasant and either staffed or benefiting from strong passive surveillance. Included in this feedback has been the request that the City also provide safe and pleasant places to change and feed babies. Cr Sam Wainwright MOVED the following amendment to include an additional part 7 to read as follows; 7. Recommends the use of council reserves to cover anticipated revenue

shortfalls in years 5 and 6 of the plan as part of the 10 year budget deliberations.

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Sam Wainwright

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 19

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Based on current economic conditions the business plan anticipates the project generating sufficient revenues to service its own debt, except in years 5 and 6. The City could meet this shortfall by imposing a special rates rise and/or cutting services. Alternatively it could do so by drawing on its reserves, that is converting reserve capital into Kings Square capital. While this council can not bind future councils to any particular budget formulas, it can clearly state its intent. Cr Rachel Pemberton MOVED the following amendment to include an additional part 1 (c) to read as follows; (c) to include, in relation to the disposal of the Queensgate Car park at 20

Henderson Street, Fremantle, that, if permitted by law, agreement should be

reached with the operator of the car park to ensure the continued availability

of a minimum of 500 car parking bays for general public parking, with a fee

structure that encourages off-street parking in preference to on-street

parking, for a period of 5 years from the date of signing of the executed

contracts in part 3 below.

SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Sam Wainwright

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 20

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To ensure there is sufficient affordable public parking in the CBD in the short to medium term and that the council's recent marketing and signage strategy that seeks to encourage people to use the car park is not undermined by significant changes to fees and access. It will also give the council time to develop and implement a CBD parking strategy to ensure adequate parking arrangements in the long term. Cr Rachel Pemberton MOVED the following amendment to include an additional part 8 to read as follows; 8. requests officers to include consideration of children’s play space in the

design of the public realm spaces in the precinct. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Sam Wainwright

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The centre of town is widely regarded as a haven for parents of young children. I would like to ensure that a similar space be created within the new kings square, perhaps as an extension of the outdoor library, civic building (toilets and baby change facilities etc) or outdoor room. Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED the officer's recommendation as amended; COUNCIL DECISION Council; 1. Adopts the Kings Square Project Business Plan with the following minor

amendments:

(a) to correct rounding errors in section 8.3 on pages 37 and 38;

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 21

(b) amend the Business Plan at clauses 6.5 and 6.8 to vary the sunset provisions from a blanket 3 years for all council owned sites, to 3 years for the Spicer site (being a stage 2 element) and 2 years with a further 1 year option being allowable at the discretion of the CEO provided significant progress can be demonstrated by Sirona toward securing the development, of the Queensgate Centre and Queensgate Car park.

(c) to include, in relation to the disposal of the Queensgate Car park at 20

Henderson Street, Fremantle, that, if permitted by law, agreement should be reached with the operator of the car park to ensure the continued availability of a minimum of 500 car parking bays for general public parking, with a fee structure that encourages off-street parking in preference to on-street parking, for a period of 5 years from the date of signing of the executed contracts in part 3 below.

2. Resolves to proceed with the major land transactions that are proposed in the

Kings Square Business Plan and as amended in part 1 above. 3. authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to execute the contract

documents once prepared and certified by the city’s legal representatives 4. requests officers prepare a report for consideration by council on the

processes and costs involved in conducting an architectural competition for the design of the city’s proposed new library, civic and administration buildings

5. requests officers prepare a report for consideration by council on the

processes for developing the detailed design for the public realm spaces in the precinct

6. Ensure that adequate baby changing and feeding places are part of the

community facilities. 7. Recommends the use of council reserves to cover anticipated revenue

shortfalls in years 5 and 6 of the plan as part of the 10 year budget deliberations.

8. requests officers to include consideration of children’s play space in the design of the public realm spaces in the precinct.

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 22

SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 8/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Sam Wainwright

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 23

C1505-1 KINGS SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT – EXTENSION OF SUNSET DATE FOR QUEENSGATE DEVELOPMENT

DataWorks Reference: 053/004 Author: Graeme Mackenzie - Chief Executive Officer

At the Special Council meeting of 11 February 2013, Council resolved to proceed with the Kings Square Project through the final adoption of the Kings Square Project Business Plan. In adopting the Business Plan, Council resolved (in part) as follows: “….to vary the sunset provisions from a blanket 3 years for all council owned sites, to 3 years for the Spicer site (being a stage 2 element) and two years with a further 1 year option being allowable at the discretion of the CEO provided significant progress can be demonstrated by Sirona toward securing the development of the Queensgate Centre and Queensgate car park.” During the development of the formal contract between the City and Sirona, it was agreed that the “significant progress” test should be clarified in the contract. It was negotiated that if Sirona could demonstrate the following key elements of the contract, it would be deemed they had achieved significant progress and the Queensgate sunset date would be extended as of right. If they weren’t achieved, the CEO still had the discretion to grant the extension as provided by the resolution of Council. The requirements to be demonstrated to achieve an automatic extension were:

1. Within 12 months of the date of the contract, lodged a development application for the Queensgate development for approval;

2. By no later than 20 days before the sunset date procured agreement in the form of a deed, from any tenant whose lease does not contain a redevelopment clause, that the tenant agrees to vacate its leased premises within 12 months after the settlement date;

3. Incurred and paid costs and expenses of at least $300,000 in progressing the Queensgate development;

4. Provided the City with information of its targeted debt to equity ratio and its progress toward obtaining unconditional finance approval for the Queensgate development.

The contract was duly executed on 11 May 2013, satisfying the requirements of the Local Government Act to implement the Business Plan within 6 months of adoption by Council. The execution of the contract is the commencement date of the term of the contract. On 13 April 2015, Sirona wrote to the City providing information to satisfy the requirements of the contract and seeking agreement from the City that the above conditions had met and therefore the sunset date be automatically extended. The CEO was not satisfied that the condition relating to vacant premises requirement had been met, since negotiations were ongoing with one remaining tenant.

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 24

Consequently the CEO advised Sirona that the City did not agree to an automatic extension to the sunset date. However, the negotiations with that tenant were progressing (and have actually now been finalised), sufficient to believe that the requirement would be met, albeit later than the date required. As this was the only matter that was prohibiting the automatic extension of the sunset date, the CEO exercised his delegated authority to approve the extension of the sunset date in accordance with the resolution of council of 11 February 2013.

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 25

PSC1302-27 KINGS SQUARE PROJECT - DESIGN COMPETITION

DataWorks Reference: 053/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Planning Services Committee 20 February 2013 Previous Item: C1302-1 Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Development Services Actioning Officer: Strategic Urban Designer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report recommends that a two-stage architectural design competition be conducted to select a design concept approach and design team for development of the City’s Core Facilities and adjacent public realm in Kings Square, comprising library, civic chamber, administrative and surplus offices, council services, urban room, café and specialty retail as identified in the adopted Kings Square Project Business Plan.

Stage one would be open to all architects across Australia, and may attract international attention.

Up to four submissions from stage one would be shortlisted by a competition jury to proceed to stage two and, except for the eventual winner, would be paid an honorarium of $15,000 each.

The winner of stage two would be commissioned to develop the design and complete the project.

A competition jury would be appointed that comprises a majority of design professionals, as well as representatives of the client and the future users of the development.

An appropriately qualified competition advisor would be appointed to manage the competition and to act as an impartial intermediary between all participants in the competition.

Endorsement of the competition would be sought from the Australian Institute of Architects.

The proposed competition process could be conducted over approximately 20 weeks.

Public exhibition of all entries will be held at the conclusion of the competition.

This report also estimates that the costs to conduct the competition would be up to $125,000 that will need to be allocated in the council’s budget.

BACKGROUND

At a special meeting on 11 February 2013 the Council adopted the Kings Square Redevelopment Business Plan. The business plan addresses the redevelopment of City owned properties in and around Kings Square as part of an integrated development with the former Myer site to achieve the primary objectives of:

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 26

1. A civic, retail, commercial and community hub reflecting its unique place as the centre of Fremantle and creating a vibrant, active and safe place for citizens and visitors and,

2. A leading edge development demonstrating confidence in Fremantle as a place to invest.

A key outcome of the business plan is to provide improved civic, community and administrative facilities on the City’s properties within Kings Square. An urban design strategy for Kings Square was adopted by Council in June 2012, specifically to guide any future development of the key City owned properties in the Kings Square area and as a basis for any future upgrading of the public domain of Kings Square and Queen Street. In particular when addressing potential redevelopment of the Town Hall Centre, the strategy recommended that “the building on the city triangle must be of the highest quality to reflect the civic importance of the square and the uses within and demonstrate a high standard of sustainable building design.” Amendment 49 to LPS4 was gazetted on 18 January 2013 and established the primary planning requirements for the key development sites in and around Kings Square, including the heights of buildings and their setbacks from their road boundary. A Local Planning Policy for Precinct 5 – the city centre area incorporating the Kings Square properties – was adopted by Council in November 2012 and formally came into effect following gazettal of Amendment 49. The policy incorporates design and land use provisions that complement the primary planning requirements of Amendment 49. At the Special Council meeting on 11 February 2013 it was also resolved that the Council: Requests officers prepare a report for consideration by council on the processes and costs involved in conducting an architectural competition for the design of the city’s proposed new library, civic and administration buildings, and Requests officers prepare a report for consideration by council on the processes for developing the detailed design for the public realm spaces in the precinct. This report proposes a design competition process that is considered suitable for the City’s new core facilities in Kings Square and identifies what areas of the adjacent public realm could be included in the scope of the competition. It is of interest to note that an architectural competition was held in 1881 for the design of the Fremantle town hall and municipal chambers.

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 27

COMMENT

The Australian Institute of Architects’ Guidelines for Architectural Design Competitions identifies that a competition is appropriate when the project:

Is of public significance

Will benefit from a wide degree of design investigation

Is to be on a significant or unusual site

Will benefit from the public interest that a competition can generate

Where design excellence is a high priority. Development of new core facilities for the City in Kings Square would meet all of these criteria. Design competitions can take different forms, however for this project a ‘two-stage competition’ is considered to be the most appropriate. It would encourage architects to undertake a broad exploration of design concepts in the first stage and allow a selected shortlist of entrants to undertake a more detailed development of their designs in the second stage. A two stage competition:

Attracts more entries by reducing the amount of work required in the first stage submission

Is an excellent process for selecting a limited number of promising concepts that can be further developed in the second stage, and

Provides the opportunity for comments by the client and the jury to be addressed in the second stage.

Design is the key selection criteria for an architectural competition, although experience and capacity of the consultant team is also given consideration to ensure that the proposed design can be successfully implemented. In contrast to a typical tender process, fees are not a selection criteria in a design competition. The competition brief can either fix consultancy fees or indicate a range that would be appropriate for the project. It is proposed that the scope of the competition include all of the proposed City Core Facilities in Kings Square as identified in the Kings Square Redevelopment Business Plan. Entrants would need to give consideration to the relationship with the adjacent town hall building, the proposed redevelopments of the former Myer and Queensgate buildings and the adjacent areas of public realm. The design of the new City core facilities buildings will need to allow for construction in two stages, as follows: Stage one - library, civic chamber and café Stage two – council offices and service tenancies, additional office and retail and urban room. Entry to the stage one would be open to all architects across Australia, and could even attract international attention. Stage one would be limited to 3 weeks with entrants required to submit a design concept approach to demonstrate an appreciation of the project and an understanding of the site and its context – particularly the character of Fremantle and its architectural qualities and how they could apply to the site.

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 28

Submissions would also identify the consultant team and their design capacity, experience and resources. It is proposed that up to four submissions would be shortlisted by the jury to proceed to stage two to prepare a more detailed design concept within 4 weeks. Stage two teams would be paid an honorarium of $15,000 each, except for the winning team that would be invited to proceed with design development and documentation of their winning design concept and complete construction of the project. There would be no prize money. A selection panel / jury would be appointed to select the shortlisted submissions from stage one and to select a winner and second place in stage two. The selection of an appropriately qualified jury ensures expert judgement in the competition judging process. Architects are generally more willing to enter competitions where they are confident of the ability, expertise and independence of the jury. Input and endorsement of the competition by the Australian Institute of Architects would be sought in order to attract the widest possible interest from the architectural profession. The jury would comprise a majority of design professionals, together with representatives of the client and the future users of the development. It is recommended that the jury be composed of the following:

A representative of the Australian Institute of Architects

Two members of the Fremantle Design Advisory Committee

Two representatives of the client – elected member and officer – to be nominated by the Mayor and CEO

A representative of the eventual community users of the building – with library, arts, cultural and/or sustainability interests – to be nominated by the Mayor and CEO.

Preferably at least one of the client or community representatives should be a design professional to ensure the jury has a majority of design professionals in accordance with AIA guidelines. If there is an even number on the jury the chair would have a casting vote should the jury be tied. Jury members would be reimbursed for lost income and travel and accommodation costs where appropriate. An appropriately qualified competition advisor would be appointed to manage the competition and to act as an impartial intermediary between the client, the jury and the Institute of Architects. To ensure impartiality, the advisor should be an independent architect capable of managing the competition objectively, with the welfare of all participants in mind. The advisor must have no pecuniary interest or vested interest in the project. The advisor would be paid a fee and appropriate reimbursement of expenses. Probity, legal and cost estimating advice would also be required during the competition process. It is estimated that the cost to conduct the competition would be up to $125,000, as follows:

Advertising, printing, etc $15,000

Honorarium for shortlisted teams $45,000

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 29

Costs for jury members, competition advisor and other advice $50,000

Contingency $15,000 There is no 2012/13 budget allocation to conduct the competition therefore the Council will need to consider funding the competition as part of its mid-year budget review. It is anticipated that the timing of this process will cross over into the next financial year, therefore approximately half of the funding should be required for this financial year and the other half in the 2013/14 budget. The following program and timeline is anticipated for the 2 stage competition: Task week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Council decision to proceed

Engage competition advisor

Appoint jury members

Prepare competition conditions and brief

Advertising and registrations of interest

Stage one

Jury to select shortlist to proceed to stage two

Stage two

Jury to assess stage 2 proposals

Announcement of winner and second place

Commence public exhibition of all proposals

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

An additional budget allocation will be required in the 2012/13 budget to conduct the competition. The competition will also commit the Council to engaging the winning team and to funding consultancy fees to implement the project, or to funding alternative

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 30

compensation to the winning team should the project not proceed beyond the competition stage. Legal

The competition conditions will be drafted with legal input, particularly regarding the terms and conditions of the commission to be offered to the winner. Operational

Implementing a design competition is a major exercise that will require significant input from a number of officers in addition to external assistance and advice. Organisational

An application for planning approval for the development will still be eventually required for consideration by Council and the DAP.

CONCLUSION

Given the significance of this site and the civic importance of the building and its uses, and to achieve the required level of design excellence identified in the Kings Square urban design strategy, it is recommended that the Council conduct a two-stage architectural design competition to select the design concept approach and design team. The winning architect will be commissioned to develop the winning design concept and complete the project.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

An architectural design competition will provide an ideal process to achieve a high quality building as required by the Council’s Kings Square urban design strategy.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The competition program proposes public exhibition of all entries after completion of stage two. This could include a public selection process to determine a “peoples prize” which would help generate community interest in the project; however this would not have any bearing on the jury’s choice which must be independent and final.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Absolute majority required.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That: 1. A two-stage architectural design competition be conducted for the selection of a

design concept approach and consultant team for development of the City’s Core Facilities in Kings Square, comprising library, civic chamber, administrative and

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 31

surplus offices, council services, urban room, café and specialty retail in accordance with the adopted Kings Square Project Business Plan.

2. A competition jury be appointed that is composed of:

a) A representative of the Australian Institute of Architects b) Two members of the Fremantle Design Advisory Committee c) Two representatives of the client – elected member and/or officer - to be

nominated by the Mayor and CEO. d) A representative of the eventual community users of the building with library, arts,

cultural and/or sustainability interests – to be nominated by the Mayor and CEO.

3. Funding be allocated in the 2012/13 budget of $60,000 for costs to conduct the competition with the remaining $65,000 being placed for consideration in the 2013/14 draft budget process.

4. The CEO be authorised to prepare the competition conditions and brief, to appoint

the jury members and to engage a competition advisor and other advisors as necessary, and to proceed with the competition in accordance with Australian Institute of Architects’ Competition Guidelines.

Cr A Sullivan MOVED the revised Officer's Recommendation as follows:

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That: 1. A two-stage architectural design competition be conducted for the selection

of a design concept approach and consultant team for development of the City’s Core Facilities in Kings Square, comprising library, civic chamber, administrative and surplus offices, council services, urban room, café and specialty retail in accordance with the adopted Kings Square Project Business Plan, together with all of the public realm area of High Street within Kings Square (Reserve 41176).

2. A competition jury be appointed that is composed of:

a) A representative of the Australian Institute of Architects b) Two members of the Fremantle Design Advisory Committee c) Two representatives of the client – elected member and/or officer - to

be nominated by the Mayor and CEO. d) A representative of the eventual community users of the building with

library, arts, cultural and/or sustainability interests – to be nominated by the Mayor and CEO.

3. Funding be allocated in the 2012/13 budget of $60,000 for costs to conduct

the competition with the remaining $65,000 being placed for consideration in the 2013/14 draft budget process.

4. The CEO be authorised to prepare the competition conditions and brief, to

appoint the jury members and to engage a competition advisor and other

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 32

advisors as necessary, and to proceed with the competition in accordance with Australian Institute of Architects’ Competition Guidelines.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016

Page 33