Ordinary Council Meeting Standard · Members the digital recording will be available in the following formats, for purchase at a fee adopted by Council annually: Digital recordings

i

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING10 NOVEMBER 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS - MINUTES

Item Report Title Page No.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS/DISCLAIMER...................................................................................1

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE............................................................................23. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST...........................................................................24. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER......................................25. REPORTS OF DELEGATES.............................................................................26. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE RECEIVING OF

PUBLIC STATEMENTS.....................................................................................36.1 QUESTION TIME...................................................................................36.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS.......................................................................10

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES......................................................................118. RECEIVING OF PETITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS...................................12

8.1 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HICKS STREET RESERVE, GOSNELLS.......................................................................12

9. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE .................................................1210. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN..........................1311. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE

IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY .............................................................................1313.2.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - PROPOSED

SHOWROOM AND MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR - 2201 (LOT 150) ALBANY HIGHWAY, GOSNELLS ........................14

13.2.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - CLUB PREMISES AND CARETAKER'S DWELLING - 100 (LOT 10) RESERVOIR ROAD, ORANGE GROVE ...............................19

13.2.7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT (DRIVER TRAINING CENTRE) AND CARETAKER'S DWELLING - 254 (LOT 11) KELVIN ROAD, ORANGE GROVE .......................................31

12. REPORTS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS.......................................................3912.1 AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 2 NOVEMBER

2015 .......................................................................................3912.1.1 AUDIT COMMITTEE - AUDITED ANNUAL FINANCIAL

REPORT 2015 .......................................................................4012.1.2 AUDIT COMMITTEE - 2016/17 BUDGET - MEETING

DATES ...................................................................................42

City of GosnellsOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes 10 November 2015


ii

13. REPORTS .......................................................................................................4413.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE...............................................................4413.2 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY ....................................................44

13.2.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - PROPOSED SHOWROOM AND MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR - 2201 (LOT 150) ALBANY HIGHWAY, GOSNELLS (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11) ....................44

13.2.2 DISCONTINUATION OF TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 17 AND INTRODUCTION OF A MODERN PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR UNDEVELOPED TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 17 LAND .........................45

13.2.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - CLUB PREMISES AND CARETAKER'S DWELLING - 100 (LOT 10) RESERVOIR ROAD, ORANGE GROVE (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11) ....................52

13.2.4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - EXISTING COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING - 8 (LOT 5) WILLARING DRIVE, BECKENHAM.......................................53

13.2.5 AMENDMENT NO. 160 - REZONING OF LOT 9001 STREATHAM STREET, BECKENHAM FROM CIVIC AND CULTURAL TO RESIDENTIAL R30 - FINALISATION.......................................................................59

13.2.6 AMENDMENT NO. 162 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 - RECODING OF 99 (LOT 228) THORNLIE AVENUE, THORNLIE FROM RESIDENTIAL R20/R30 TO OFFICE ....................................63

13.2.7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT (DRIVER TRAINING CENTRE) AND CARETAKER'S DWELLING - 254 (LOT 11) KELVIN ROAD, ORANGE GROVE (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11) .......................................69

13.2.8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - SIGNAGE (PYLON SIGN) - 1481 (LOT 300) ALBANY HIGHWAY, BECKENHAM ........................................................................70

13.3 INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................7413.4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ............................................................75

13.4.1 HISTORY AND HERITAGE ADVISORY GROUP MEETING - 1 OCTOBER 2015..............................................75

13.5 CORPORATE SERVICES ...................................................................7713.5.1 BUDGET VARIATIONS .........................................................77

13.6 GOVERNANCE....................................................................................79



iii

13.6.1 HISTORY AND HERITAGE ADVISORY GROUP - ENDORSEMENT OF MEMBERSHIP AND APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING MEMBER AND DEPUTY PRESIDING MEMBER ...........................................79

13.6.2 CITY OF GOSNELLS PERFORMING ARTS ADVISORY GROUP - ENDORSEMENT OF MEMBERSHIP AND APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING MEMBER AND DEPUTY PRESIDING MEMBER..................83

13.6.3 CITY OF GOSNELLS ROADWISE ADVISORY GROUP - ENDORSEMENT OF MEMBERSHIP AND APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING MEMBER AND DEPUTY PRESIDING MEMBER ...........................................86

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ...................9015. URGENT BUSINESS ......................................................................................9016. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS ............................................................................9017. CLOSURE .......................................................................................................90

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY


1

Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held in the City of Gosnells Civic Centre Council Chambers, 2120 Albany Highway, Gosnells on Tuesday 10 November 2015.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS/DISCLAIMER

The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7.30pm and welcomed members of the public present in the public gallery, Councillors and staff.

1.1 DISCLAIMER

The Mayor read aloud the following statement:

Members of the public are cautioned against taking any action on Council decisions, on items on this evening’s Agenda in which they may have an interest, until such time as they have seen a copy of the Minutes of the meeting or have been advised in writing by City staff.

1.2 RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

Please take notice that all Council Meetings are digitally recorded, with the exception of Confidential Agenda Items (in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995) during which time recording will cease.

Following publication and distribution of the meeting minutes to Elected Members the digital recording will be available in the following formats, for purchase at a fee adopted by Council annually:

Digital recordings CD ROM for use on a Personal Computer; or Audio recordings CD ROM for use on a CD player or DVD player.

For further information please contact the Governance Administration Officer on 9397 3012.

I _________________________________________ (THE PRESIDING MEMBER) CERTIFY THAT THESE MINUTES WERE CONFIRMED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOSNELLS ON __________________________.


2

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE

ELECTED MEMBERS

MAYOR CR O SEARLE JPDEPUTY MAYOR CR J BROWN

CR G DEWHURSTCR D GOODE JPCR D GRIFFITHSCR P GRIFFITHSCR T HEALYCR T LYNESCR R MITCHELLCR L STORERCR B WIFFEN JPCR P YANG

STAFF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR I COWIEDIRECTOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MS A COCHRANDIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES MR R BOUWERDIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE MR D HARRISDIRECTOR PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY MR C TERELINCKDIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MR G BRADBROOKMINUTE CLERK MS S MACGROTTY

PUBLIC GALLERY 120 Approximately

2.1 APOLOGIES

Nil.

2.2 LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil.

3. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Nil.

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER(without discussion)

Nil.

5. REPORTS OF DELEGATES(without discussion)

The Mayor advised that along with Cr Healy, Cr Lynes, Cr Brown and Cr Wiffen she recently attended the opening of the baseball association season.

The Mayor advised and thanked the newly elected members and existing Councillors for their attendance at recent functions and for their representation of the Council at many different events since the October election.


3

6. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE RECEIVING OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS

A period of 15 minutes is allocated for questions with a further period of 15 minutes provided for statements from members of the public. To ensure an equal and fair opportunity is provided to address Council, a period of 3 minutes per speaker is allowed.

The person's speaking right is to be exercised prior to any matter which requires a decision to be made at the meeting.

Questions and statements are to be –

a) Presented in writing on the relevant form to the Chief Executive Officer prior to commencement of the meeting; and

b) Clear and concise.

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS AWAITING RESPONSE

Nil.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Nil.

6.1 QUESTION TIME

Question Time for the Public commenced at 7.33pm.

Mr Rodney Smith asked the following question:

Q1 Why does the City of Gosnells keep referring to this as a Club?

Response: The Mayor advised that the Council can only assess applications on the basis of what is detailed in the application.

Mr John Clarke of 18 Reservoir Road, Orange Grove asked the following question:

Q1 The residents of Orange Grove are aware that a couple of Councillors are members of the Labor Party and according to their national platform no.89, they must vote for minority groups in front of Australians. Will the Labor members be supportive of the Orange Grove residents or will they support their Labor Party lines?

Response: The Mayor advised that no one could reasonably answer that question, however, all matters before the Council are considered on their merits and the Councillors take everything into consideration before making their determination.


4

Mr Peter McNally of 78 Staniland Street, Orange Grove asked the following question:

Q1 Normally a development proposal is advertised for comment allowing time to respond. This proposal is significantly different to the original, why were comments not invited?

Response: The Chief Executive Officer advised that the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) gave the City a timeline in which to reconsider the application. The application is currently before the SAT and the City was not required to advertise for comment.

Notation

The Mayor invited Mr Lloyd Orrell to the microphone to ask his question, however Mr Orrell was not present at the meeting.

Mr Fred Ferrante on behalf of Gucce Holdings Pty Ltd asked the following questions:

Q1 At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 12 November 2013, Council resolved (Resolution 462) that the Draft Southern River Precinct 3 Development Contribution Plan be revised with eleven (11) modifications. Given that it has been 2 years since the Council passed resolution 462 and the revised Development Contribution Plan has still not been referred to affected land owners for information and further comment, could the Council please advise when these changes will be made and when will the Southern River Precinct 3 Development Contribution Plan be finalised?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that since the Council adopted the resolution in relation to the Contribution Arrangement, there has been various changes and some further investigation about the capability of some of the land in Southern River Precinct 3 to support development which affects the spatial plan proposed for the area. These changes and investigations affect some of the critical elements of future high schools, and future district playing fields. These issues have held back the progression of the arrangement and the City has attempted to move that forward with State Planning and Environmental agencies. More recently the City has been developing proposals to work around some of the land, which has now been found to be environmentally constrained and the City has been meeting with some of the developers who wish to be kept updated in this area. The City is expecting to have a report back to Council early in the new year but this will depend on continued timely cooperation from the Department of Education and the WAPC.


5

Q2 At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 25 November 2014, Council considered a draft modified Development Contribution Plan report for the Southern River Precinct 2 Outline Development Plan area. The revised plan was advertised from December 2014 to 6 February 2015. The original Draft Contribution Plan Report was first prepared in 2008. Does the Council have any firm plan or strategy to finalise the Southern River Precinct 2 Developer Contribution Plan given that it still remains a “draft” after 7 years?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that the intention is to finalise the plan, but there are a number of significant infrastructure items which affect the contribution arrangement as part of this plan. As such the ground has been moving with potential costing of some of these items.

In regards to a timeframe, the question would be taken on notice and a response provided in writing.

Notation

The Mayor advised that Mr Ferrante’s third question would be taken on notice and a response provided in writing.

Mr Clay Chapman of 419 Maddington Road, Orange Grove asked the following questions:

Q1 If approved, how will the City of Gosnells ensure that this building blends into the amenity of the rural zone?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that the building is about 570 square metres in area and in terms of context it is similar to some of the large sheds or homes within the area. It is proposed to be cut into the site and would also have a softened external view by installation of new landscaping. As such there are various measures proposed within the application.

Q2 How will the City of Gosnells ensure that the applicant does not exceed the maximum capacity included in the application, and will a condition be placed on the application that the scale and purpose of the facility will not change?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that should the Council be of the mind to support the proposal, there is a condition of approval that has been drafted which mentions maximum occupancy and a guarantee that the occupancy not be exceeded.


6

Notation

The Mayor announced that the period for receiving of questions and public statements had expired. Cr J Brown moved the following motion to enable an extension of time.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

425 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr G Dewhurst

That an extension of time be granted for the receiving of questions from the public.

CARRIED 12/0FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr D Goode, Cr D Griffiths, Cr P Griffiths, Cr T Healy,

Cr T Lynes, Cr R Mitchell, Cr L Storer, Cr B Wiffen, Cr P Yang and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Nil.

Ms Helen Saville of 53 Harding Road, Orange Grove asked the following question:

Q1 Could you please advise me if a maximum capacity been assessed for the proposed club building and if features of the building and outside area may increase the overall max capacity such as entry and exit doors and 1.97 hectares of land?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that the quote appears to have come from the Public Building Regulations, and at this stage that assessment has not been made. The public building approval is sought separately and dependant on whether the development is approved in the first place.

In regards to the capacity being able to be increased, the provision of sanitary facilities, exit doors and the distances inside the building all have a bearing on the theoretical capacity of the building. This would be assessed at a later stage of a subsequent application.

Ms Leonie Grigson of 9 Stephen Street, Orange Grove asked the following questions:

Q1 Please explain how the City of Gosnells comes to the conclusion that a religious premise fits into the General Rural Land use zone?

Response: The Mayor advised that the Council has not received an application for a religious premises.


7

Q2 I currently have a property for sale in Orange Grove. If this application is approved, can I assume that a precedent has been set? Is it feasible that I can re-do my advertisement to include a rural lifestyle, community hall, club premises? E.g. perhaps a biker organisation or a car enthusiasts group, provided they apply to the City of Gosnells and appeal through SAT for approval?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that the Town Planning Scheme which has been established for a long period of time gives people the right to apply for certain uses which are discretionary and this includes some of the mentioned land uses, but each of these uses need to be considered on its merits.

The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that real estate is often advertised with opportunities which are subject to Council approval, and this could be done in Ms Grigson’s case, however, there is no guarantee an application would be approved.

Mr Leon Walker of 27/99 Stafford Road, Kenwick asked the following question:

Q1 I refer to the article in the ‘Examiner Newspaper’ of October 29 last headlined, Wards would open door to numpties, and the words attributed to Councillor Dewhurst, specifically “you could end up with two numpties in your area”.

Isn’t the reality that under the present City structure without wards, the chances of numpties being elected to Council are more or less the same as if the City had a ward structure?

Response: The Mayor advised that the Council consists of who the residents of the City of Gosnells elect.


8

Ms Fiona Gallon of 34 Staniland Street, Orange Grove asked the following questions:

Q1 Please explain the difference between a community hall and a club premise, and explain why there was a need to change the name of the facility?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that the two land uses are defined in the Town Planning Scheme, and the definitions are very similar as they are speaking of a common interest more so than a broader community benefit.

As to the differences within the recommendations, the view was that given the proposal was substantially reduced in size it had more potential to fit in with the area than the original proposal. Although, applications are assessed individually on their merits there are a number of other club type activities operating within the general rural area which have operated successfully for many years, and those sorts of observations have given rise to the recommendation before Council tonight.

Mr Anthony Riley of 407 Maddington Road, Orange Grove asked the following questions:

Q1 What justification did the State Administrative Tribunal have to issue this request and why did the Council believe that they had to accept the request?

Response: The Chief Executive Officer stated that when the original application was put before Council, Council rejected the proposal. This gave the applicants the ability to appeal to the SAT, which in turn has made the SAT the decision maker in relation to this matter. The SAT’s normal approach is to seek mediation with the applicant and the local government involved and this is what has occurred. The outcome of the mediation was that a new proposal came in which the SAT asked the City to reconsider. The SAT did not advise that consultation was required and the City was given a date by which it must reconsider the proposal.

Q2 The City of Gosnells has known that the application was to be re-heard at a Council meeting. Why were the people of Orange Grove and those who registered an objection on the original application notified only 3 working days before the Council meeting?


9

Response: The Chief Executive Officer advised that the State Administrative Tribunal asked the City to reconsider the matter. The SAT did not ask the City to reconsider a new application. The matter effectively is before the SAT and they have received the views of the Orange Grove residents. The City let everyone who originally made submissions know when the agenda was released, giving these people the opportunity to attend the Council meeting tonight.

Mrs Lara French of 67 Reservoir Road, Orange Grove asked the following questions:

Q1 Will the City of Gosnells commit that they will attend the tribunal with the intent to fully support the decision by the Councillors to its full ability?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability stated that if that is the decision the Council makes then this is the position that would be conveyed to the SAT. In this matter the City would be assisted by an independent planning expert who specialises in appeals, to provide the greatest chance of success.

Q2 Based on the showing of support here tonight and the 91 objections to the original application, will the City of Gosnells commit to taking Orange Grove residents’ representative party as expert witnesses to be heard at the tribunal hearing?

Response: The Mayor advised that this would occur.

Ms Anne Webster of 50 White Road, Orange Grove asked the following questions:

Q1 If the City of Gosnells has used the existence of these clubs in their recommendation to approve the application, did they consult the zoning requirements from 30-40+ years ago, and how much weight did this consideration have on their recommendation?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that the zoning at the time the other older clubs were approved is really a matter of history and it may provide some degree of interest, but the relevant fact is that these clubs have continued to operate without offending the local community.


10

Q2 According to the zoning table, if the Austrian club was to apply would they get approval?

Response: The Mayor advised that should the Austrian Club submit an application, the Council would then make a decision.

The Mayor invited a gentleman who did not identify himself to the microphone. This gentleman asked the following question:

Q1 I would like the club to suit the community and I would like the support of the Council to put the best foot forward for the residents of Orange Grove?

Response: The Mayor advised that Councillors will vote according to the best of their ability.

Question Time for the Public concluded at 8.12pm.

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS

Public Statement Time commenced at 8.12pm.

6.2.1 Mr Trevor Saleeba of 16 Churchill Avenue, Subiaco made a statement in relation to Item 13.2.1 "Development Application - Proposed Showroom and Motor Vehicle Repair - 2201 (Lot 150) Albany Highway, Gosnells":

Mr Saleeba spoke in support of the development application, however expressing his concerns regarding the inaccuracies in the officer’s report regarding the proposal.

6.2.2 The Mayor read aloud a statement on behalf of Lloyd Orrell in relation to Item 13.2.3 “Development Application - Club Premises and Caretaker's Dwelling - 100 (Lot 10) Reservoir Road, Orange Grove” which stated “keep Orange Grove special rural”.

6.2.3 Mrs Kirrily Trouchet of 246 Kelvin Road, Orange Grove made a statement in relation to Item 13.2.7 "Development Application - Educational Establishment (Driver Training Centre) and Caretaker's Dwelling - 254 (Lot 11) Kelvin Road, Orange Grove":

Mrs Trouchet expressed her concerns regarding the proposal for a ‘Driver Training Centre’ and requested that the Council consider her reasons for opposition to the proposed development.


11

6.2.4 Mr Musa Ziraki of 25 Aroona Way, Maddington made a statement in relation to Item 13.2.3 "Development Application - Club Premises and Caretaker's Dwelling - 100 (Lot 10) Reservoir Road, Orange Grove”:

Mr Ziraki requested that the Council approve the application for a community centre in Orange Grove due to the fact the application submitted to the Council meets all the necessary requirements.

6.2.5 Mr Andrew French of 67 Reservoir Road, Orange Grove made a statement in relation to Item 13.2.3 "Development Application - Club Premises and Caretaker's Dwelling - 100 (Lot 10) Reservoir Road, Orange Grove”:

Mr French advised that he had been nominated by the residents of Orange Grove to inform the Council of the reasons as to why they believe the development application should not be approved and requested that the Council take into consideration the uniqueness of Orange Grove as a general rural area and that the current application cannot possibly benefit the community of Orange Grove.

6.2.6 Mr David Marshall of 254 Kelvin Road, Orange Grove made a statement in relation to Item 13.2.7 "Development Application - Educational Establishment (Driver Training Centre) and Caretaker's Dwelling - 254 (Lot 11) Kelvin Road, Orange Grove":

Mr Marshall requested that Council delete condition 3 from the staff recommendation as the trees to the rear of the property are regrowth trees and not significant. It is intended that natural bushland on the property be retained and an appealing local bush setting established.

Public Statement Time concluded at 8.28pm.

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

426 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr D Goode

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 October 2015, as published and distributed be confirmed as an accurate record.



AGAINST: Nil.


12

8. RECEIVING OF PETITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

Petitions and Presentations are made in accordance with the requirements outlined in the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2012.

Copies of petitions and any items tabled must be provided to the Chief Executive Officer immediately following completion of the submission.

8.1 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF REZONING OF HICKS STREET RESERVE, GOSNELLS

Cr B Wiffen presented a petition initiated by Nelly Maarssen of 3 Debenham Street, Thornlie containing 31 signatures. The petition stated:

“We the undersigned electors of the City of Gosnells request the City reconsider the rezoning of Hicks Street Reserve in Gosnells for the following reasons:

The reserve is currently frequented by the highly endangered Kaarakin Black Cockatoo;

Any residential development and activity will have a severe negative impact on this already highly marginalised bird species.

As the initiator of this petition my name is Mrs Nelly Maarssen and I can be contacted at 3 Debenham Street, Thornlie for further information on this matter.”

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

427 Moved Cr B Wiffen Seconded Cr T Healy

That the petition initiated by Nelly Maarssen of 3 Debenham Street, Gosnells containing 31 signatures, be received.



AGAINST: Nil.

9. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Clause 4.10 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2012 states:

“(1) A Member seeking the Council’s approval to take leave of absence shall give written notice to the CEO prior to the commencement of the meeting.

(2) The notice referred to in subclause (1) shall include the period of leave of absence required and the reasons for seeking the leave”.

Cr B Wiffen requested leave of absence from 9 March to 9 April 2016, which includes the 22 March 2016 Ordinary Council Meeting, to attend a pre-booked vacation.


13

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

428 Moved Cr P Griffiths Seconded Cr G Dewhurst

That Council grants leave of absence to Cr B Wiffen from 9 March to 9 April 2016, inclusive.



AGAINST: Nil.

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN(without discussion)

Nil.

11. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY

For the convenience of the public gallery, Council may resolve to bring forward any matter that has been raised during Item 6 ‘Question Time for the Public and the Receiving of Public Statements’, Item 8 ‘The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations’ or any other minutes item known to be of interest to the public in attendance [Clause 4.12 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2012].

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

429 Moved Cr P Griffiths Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That for the convenience of the Public Gallery, the following items be brought forward to this point of the meeting for discussion:

Item 13.2.1 Development Application - Proposed Showroom and Motor Vehicle Repair - 2201 (Lot 150) Albany Highway, Gosnells;

Item 13.2.3 Development Application - Club Premises and Caretaker's Dwelling - 100 (Lot 10) Reservoir Road, Orange Grove;

Item 13.2.7 Development Application - Educational Establishment (Driver Training Centre) and Caretaker's Dwelling - 254 (Lot 11) Kelvin Road, Orange Grove.



AGAINST: Nil.


14

13.2.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - PROPOSED SHOWROOM AND MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR - 2201 (LOT 150) ALBANY HIGHWAY, GOSNELLS

Director: C TerelinckAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: 202380Application No: DA15/00245Applicant: Saleeba Adams ArchitectsOwner: CI Saleeba, TW Saleeba, GR Saleeba, CL SaleebaLocation: 2201 (Lot 150)Zoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: District Centre and Special Control AreaReview Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council.Area: 1,705m2

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.2.1A Site plan and elevation

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval to extend the existing Showroom and Motor Vehicle Repair premises at 2201 (Lot 150) Albany Highway, Gosnells, as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff due to non-compliance with Local Planning Policy 5.2 - Gosnells Town Centre Development (LPP 5.2) and the Lissiman Street Improvement Plan (LSIP).

BACKGROUND

Site Description and Planning Framework

The property has frontage to both Albany Highway and Lissiman Street, and accommodates an existing Showroom/Motor Vehicle Repair business (Gosnells Tyre Service). The subject site is located within the Gosnells Town Centre and is subject to both the Gosnells Town Centre Development Policy and the adopted Lissiman Street Improvement Plan.

A map identifying the location of the subject site follows.


Item 13.2.1 Continued

15

LOT 150SUBJECT

SITE

ALBANYHW

Y

2201

MAINST

LISSIMANST

WHEATLEY

ST

Proposal

The application involves the following:

The addition of a 138m2 building extension to the existing single storey Showroom/Motor Vehicle Repair premises.

The division of the building into two tenancies.

The proposed building will be setback 9m from the Lissiman Street frontage.

The provision of one new car parking bay, resulting in the provision of 22 bays for whole site.

The site, floor and elevation plans are contained as Appendix 13.2.1A.

Consultation

The proposal was not advertised for public consultation, as discussed below.



16

DISCUSSION

Town Planning Scheme No. 6

Land Use Permissibility

The subject site is zoned District Centre under TPS 6. In accordance with TPS 6, a Showroom is a "D" use in the District Centre zone, meaning it is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. In addition, Motor Vehicle Repair is an "A" use in the District Centre zone, meaning it is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval, following advertising.

Given that the Motor Vehicle Repair component of the application represents an extension of a previously approved land use, it was not considered necessary to advertise the application.

In order to create a modern, transit orientated development precinct, Council must consider the appropriateness of any new or extended land uses within the town centre. In this regard, contemporary planning suggests that the most desirable uses are those that generate employment, are pedestrian based (as opposed to vehicle based) and that are conducive to an appropriate built form. In this regard, whilst both the Showroom and Motor Vehicle Repair land uses are discretionary within the District Centre zone, they are not considered to meet the above parameters and are therefore inappropriate within the town centre.

Local Planning Policy LPP 5.2 - Gosnells Town Centre Development

LPP 5.2 provides guidance regarding development within the Gosnells Town Centre area. The Policy relates to new built form and encourages high quality activated streetscapes and a vibrant and active mixed use Town Centre.

The Policy seeks to capitalise on the high quality of the civic improvements that have been undertaken in the public domain of the town centre and reinforce those with complementary new development. This Policy pursues development outcomes which are of a high design quality and contribute to the regeneration of the town centre.

The subject proposal complies with all provisions of LPP 5.2, with the exception of those detailed in the table below:

Policy Requirement Assessment/Comment1. 1.2(i) The built form of new development in

the town centre is to provide a nil setback to principal streets at ground level.

The application proposes a 9m setback to Lissiman Street.

2. 1.2(iv) The built form of new development in the town centre is to provide parking at the rear of the buildings and accessed via laneways or other secondary streets wherever possible.

The application involves the provision of one car parking bay between the new building and the Lissiman Street road reserve. Car parking bays need to be located behind the building.

3. 2.2(iv) The built form of new development in the town centre is to present a minimum 2 storey façade to public streets.

The proposed building is single storey.



17

Policy Requirement Assessment/Comment4. 3.2(iii) The built form of new development is to

incorporate activated street frontages which provide continuous awnings above all ground floor façades.

The proposed awning does not span the complete width of the proposed building. As the building is not built to the front boundary, the proposed awning would not extend over the footpath on Lissiman Street.

5. 3.2(iv) The built form of new development is to incorporate activated street frontages which provide minimum awning widths of 2.5 metres.

The proposed awning is 2m wide, however it does not extend over the footpath.

6. 3.2(vii) The built form of new development is to incorporate activated street frontages which provide glazing which is non-reflective and unobscured.

The application does not provide sufficient detail to assess this aspect, however, if the application is approved, a condition could be imposed to require compliance with this requirement.

As demonstrated above, the proposal does not meet a number of requirements of LPP 5.2, with the resulting built form being inconsistent with Council's long-term vision for the Gosnells Town Centre area.

Lissiman Street Improvement Plan

The subject lot forms part of 'Improvement Plan No. 39 - Lissiman Street Precinct', which was gazetted on 21 October 2014. The Improvement Plan was prepared to create a vibrant, compact and liveable community based on Transit Orientated Development principles around Lissiman Street. The Improvement Plan will also facilitate the provision of an effective, efficient, integrated and safe transport network accessible to pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and motorists around Lissiman Street in conjunction with the establishment of a range of commercial uses.

It is considered that the proposed development, comprising of an extension to an existing Showroom/Motor Vehicle Repair business in a form that does not comply with the Gosnells Town Centre Development Policy, does not meet the objectives of the adopted Improvement Plan. Ultimately, approval of the subject application would compromise the implementation of the Improvement Plan and in turn, the achievement of Council's vision for the precinct.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is not supported as it involves numerous variations to the Gosnells Town Centre Development Policy and would ultimately compromise the implementation of the Improvement Plan.

It is therefore recommended that the proposal be refused.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.



18

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS


Local Planning Policy LPP 5.2 - Gosnells Town Centre Development

Lissiman Street Improvement Plan.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority required.


430 Moved Cr D Goode Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council refuses the application for a proposed Showroom and Motor Vehicle Repair premises at 2201 (Lot 150) Albany Highway, Gosnells, dated 7 July 2015 for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not comply with Table 1 (Controls) - Parts 1.2(i), 1.2(iv), 2.2(iv), 3.2(iii), 3.2(iv) and 3.2(vii) of Local Planning Policy 5.2 - Gosnells Town Centre Development and the resulting built form is not consistent with Council's long-term vision for the Gosnells Town Centre area.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with, and would compromise the implementation of, the adopted Lissiman Street Improvement Plan.

CARRIED 11/1FOR: Cr G Dewhurst, Cr D Goode, Cr D Griffiths, Cr P Griffiths, Cr T Healy, Cr T Lynes, Cr R Mitchell,

Cr L Storer, Cr B Wiffen, Cr P Yang and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Cr J Brown.


19

13.2.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - CLUB PREMISES AND CARETAKER'S DWELLING - 100 (LOT 10) RESERVOIR ROAD, ORANGE GROVE


Nil.

Reference: 202126Application No: DA14/00548Applicant: Kelvin Oliver Planning ConsultantOwner: Hua Zhang & Xenex XenexLocation: 100 (Lot 10) Reservoir Road, Orange GroveZoning: MRS: Rural

TPS No. 6: General RuralReview Rights: The application is currently subject to review by the State

Administrative Tribunal.Area: 1.978haPrevious Ref: OCM 26 May 2015 (Resolution 191)Appendices: 13.2.3A Revised Site, Floor and Elevations Plan

13.2.3B Site Management Plan13.2.3C Schedule of Submissions, Schedule of Submitters

and Consultation Plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to reconsider an application for planning approval for a Club Premises and Caretaker’s Dwelling at 100 (Lot 10) Reservoir Road, Orange Grove, at the request of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

BACKGROUND

Application History

On 26 May 2015, Council resolved (Resolution 191) to refuse an application for planning approval for a Club Premises and Caretaker’s Dwelling at 100 (Lot 10) Reservoir Road, Orange Grove. The application sought approval for the following:

The construction of a single storey building, containing a kitchen, hall, amenities, store rooms and a stage, approximately 1,200m2 in area.

The use of the new building for weekly social functions, dining, dancing, musical concerts, indoor board games, birthday parties, wedding gatherings, mourning occasions after funerals, birth celebrations, Muslim festivals, information and integration sessions for new immigrants and refugees, lectures and seminars on social education and cultural/environmental topics for the general public.

The use of the building by up to 300 people at any one time. This extent of use occurs rarely and the building is likely to accommodate between 50 and 100 people on most Saturdays and occasionally Sundays. On weekdays, the building will be used by up to four administration staff at any one time.

The hours of operation proposed are from 4pm to 10pm, Monday to Friday, and from 8am to 10pm on Saturdays and Sundays. The applicant has advised however, that it is likely that some activities (such as after a funeral or wedding celebration) will be conducted at times that do not fit within those hours.



20

The provision of 82 car parking bays and vehicle access from Reservoir Road.

The existing house fronting Grant Street is to be used as a Caretaker's Dwelling.

The construction of retaining walls of up to 2.8m below natural ground level, setback 5m from the side and 14m from the rear boundaries.

Following Council's refusal, an application to review Council’s decision was lodged with the SAT. As part of the mediation process, the applicant provided a revised application. SAT has since invited the Council to reconsider its decision, pursuant to Section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004.


The subject site is located at the corner of Reservoir Road and Grant Street, Orange Grove and currently contains two dwellings (one of which is proposed to be demolished) and associated outbuildings. Vehicle access to the site is currently provided through crossovers onto both Reservoir Road and Grant Street. Surrounding land uses comprise a range of rural uses, such as rural-residential, hobby farms, orchards and a horse and pony club. The Boral Quarry is located towards the east of the site.


STEPHENST

10SUBJECT

SITE

STANILANDST

GRANTST

RE

SER

VO

IRR

D



21

Proposal

The revised application involves the following:

The construction of a single storey building, containing a kitchen, hall, amenities, store rooms and a stage, approximately 540m2 in area (a reduction of 660m2 from the original proposal).

The use of the new building for birthday parties, wedding anniversaries, family gatherings, cultural evenings, indoor board games, seminars, lectures and information sessions on social, educational, cultural and environmental topics for newly arrived immigrants and refugees, administrative meetings including annual general meetings, extraordinary general meetings and general administrative functions including the management of the organisation. On some occasions the building will be used for special functions, including wedding receptions, mourning occasions after funerals, and the celebration of four religious festivals.

The number of attendees to the site will be as follows:- Up to 150 people for special occasions including weddings, annual

general meetings and festive celebrations, with such events occurring up to 19 times per year.

- Up to 60 people for more regular occasions such as social gatherings, seminars and lectures, with such events occurring up to 32 times per year.

- Up to three people for more regular weekly administrative/office work and up to 10 people for committee meetings.

The hours of operation for weekly and fortnightly activities are proposed to be from 9am to 2pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays and from 6pm to 10pm on Saturdays and Sundays. The hours of operation would start earlier (1pm to 10pm) on Saturdays and Sundays on a fortnightly basis.

The operation would start earlier at 8am for festivals, approximately four times a year.

The provision of 75 car parking bays and vehicle access from Reservoir Road.

The existing house fronting Grant Street is to be used as a Caretaker’s Dwelling.

The construction of retaining walls of up to 2.8m below natural ground level, setback 11.68m from the side and 24.2m from the rear boundaries.

The revised site, floor and elevation plans are contained as Appendix 13.2.3A.

Consultation

As part of the original assessment, the application was advertised for 14 days, being from 24 February 2015 to 11 March 2015. Letters were sent to the owners of 19 properties within the consultation area and in addition, six occupiers of properties were also invited to comment.



22

At the close of the original advertising period, 92 submissions were received, all of which objected to the proposal. A summary of the original submissions received and comments thereon is contained in Appendix 13.2.3C.

The main issues of concern raised by submitters related to:

Traffic

Parking

Rural amenity

Noise

Hours of operation

The quarry buffer

Servicing.

DISCUSSION

Invitation to Council to Reconsider its Decision

As mentioned previously, Council has been invited to reconsider its decision of 26 May 2015. The options for Council are as follows:

Affirm the previous decision;

Vary the previous decision; or

Set aside the previous decision and substitute a new decision.

The relevant issues associated with this reconsideration request are discussed below.



The subject site is zoned General Rural under TPS 6. In accordance with TPS 6, a Caretaker’s Dwelling is a “D” use in the General Rural zone, meaning it is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. A Club Premises is an "A" use in the General Rural zone, meaning it is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval following advertising.

A Club Premises is defined in TPS 6 as:

"premises used by a legally constituted club or association or other body for persons united by a common interest."



23

Land Use Appropriateness

One of the reasons for refusal of the original application related to the appropriateness of the use within the zone and that the use was not consistent with the stated objectives of the General Rural zone. The objective of the General Rural zone, as defined by TPS 6 is:

“To provide for a range of rural pursuits which are compatible with the capability of the land and retain the rural character and amenity of the locality.”

While the subject application does not propose a Rural Pursuit, as defined by the Scheme, a Club Premises is one of a range of land uses that can be approved in a Rural zone. Council will need to consider whether the Club Premises as proposed is consistent with the objectives of the General Rural Zone. It is worth noting that the Austrian Club is located in the General Rural Zone. The Serbian Community Centre of WA is located in the Business Development Zone, however, prior to rezoning in early 2014, this land was zoned General Rural.

It is also considered necessary to determine the appropriateness of the use by assessing the likely amenity impacts of the use, as discussed later in this report.

Car Parking

The following table details the TPS 6 parking requirements for the site and proposal.

Use Class TPS 6 Car Parking Standards

TPS 6 Car Parking Requirements

Car Parking Bays Provided

1 space for every 4 seats; or

There are no seating plans provided with the application.

1 space for every 4 persons the facility is designed to accommodate, or

The application proposes for the site to accommodate a maximum of 150 people at any one time, therefore 38 car parking bays are required.

Club Premises

1 space for every 4m2 used for tables and chairs, whichever is the greater.

The application proposes a ‘hall’ area of approximately 300m2, therefore 75 car parking bays are required.

The application proposes 75 car parking bays to service the proposed development.

Caretakers Dwelling

2 spaces (as for Single House under the Residential Design Codes)

2 car parking spaces required.

The application proposes to utilise an existing dwelling which currently provides 2 car parking bays.

As demonstrated above, the modified proposal complies with the parking requirements under TPS 6.

Amenity Considerations

Traffic

In terms of the impact on the amenity as a result of the increase in traffic expected, it has been proposed that only administration staff will use the site on Tuesdays and Thursdays. As such, use of the site during the week will not generate significant impacts on the amenity of the area.



24

On Saturdays and Sundays it is proposed that the site cater for up to 150 people, representing a likely increase of approximately 80 - 100 vehicle trips on those occasions, depending on the number of people travelling together.

Traffic surveys undertaken in September 2015, indicate that the road accommodates an average weekday volume of 1,450 vehicles per day, which is significantly less than the design capacity of the road.

It is also noted that the original development application assessment was accompanied by a traffic assessment that confirmed the proposal could be readily accommodated within the capacity of the current road network.

Scale of Proposal

The original application proposed the use of the building by up to a maximum of 300 people at any one time, with no details or information on the frequency this could occur. The revised application proposes to reduce the maximum number of people attending the site to 150 people at any one time and only during special occasions, which will occur up to 19 times per annum. More regular activities involve the use of the site by up to three people for administration and office work and up to 60 people for social gatherings, occurring up to 32 times per year.

The revised application contains a schedule of regular activities and special functions that details the times and frequency that activities will occur at the site and the number of people expected to attend each activity. This schedule is included within a Site Management Plan, prepared in support of the revised proposal. The Site Management Plan is contained as Appendix 13.2.3B. The Site Management Plan details the uses of the building and expected attendance numbers as well as dealing with parking, traffic management and noise during events.

It is proposed that a resident caretaker will manage the site and any events or functions to be held, with the following responsibilities:

Maintenance of a book or register of all booked activities and special functions

Monitoring and/or supervising the locking and unlocking of the gate

Managing vehicular and people traffic into and out of the property

Monitoring and/or supervising the movement of attendees outside the building and within the car parks

Ensuring that the safety and security of the buildings and its surrounds are not compromised at any time

Maintaining the landscaping on site.

In consideration of the proposed Site Management Plan and reduced attendance numbers, the scale of the proposal is considered to be what could be reasonably expected in an established rural area. In the event the application is approved, it will be recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the implementation of the Site Management Plan. If such a plan is agreed, then it is suggested that it also includes commitments to monitor and record the patronage numbers for special events to ensure compliance with the defined capacity of the building, as described in the application, and to give the City adequate notice of those events that are planned.



25

Built Form

In terms of the building design and scale, the revised application proposes a single storey building, less than half the size of the original proposed building. The subject site slopes down towards the street requiring the portion of the site that is being built on to be levelled and therefore the building to be lower than the natural ground level at some points. The application proposes the building to be setback approximately 60m from the Reservoir Road boundary, with a retaining wall located around the building, stepping down to natural ground level in front of the building. While the development will result in the removal of a number of trees from the site, particularly between the street and the building, the application proposes a number of opportunities for landscaping around the building. As the surrounding rural area is characterised by natural vegetation and tree lined roads, removing vegetation from the site that could provide screening, would not be in keeping with the rural amenity of the area. Should Council consider approving the application, it will be recommended that a condition be imposed requiring a landscape plan to be submitted that provides screening of the retaining walls and shade tree planting in the car parking areas.

Noise

The application does not involve the use of any amplification equipment, with the exception of equipment for music and speeches during the events held on the weekend. It has been advised that this equipment will be used within the building and will not be used outside.

In considering the above, the revised proposal is considered to have minimal impacts on the existing rural amenity, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions of approval, and therefore is considered to be an appropriate use for the subject site.

CONCLUSION

It will be recommended that Council resolve to set aside its previous decision of 26 May 2015 and substitute a new decision as outlined in the staff recommendation.


Nil.


State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004


Foothills Rural Strategy.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




26

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr P Griffiths

That Council, pursuant to Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, sets aside its previous decision made on 26 May 2015 for a Club Premises and Caretaker’s Dwelling at 100 (Lot 10) Reservoir Road, Orange Grove, and substitutes a new decision by approving the revised plans and documents contained as Appendices 13.2.3A and 13.2.3B, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions to be satisfied prior to the lodgement of a Building Permit application:

1. A geotechnical report is to be submitted in accordance with Australian Standards, certifying that the land is physically capable of development and detailing site conditions with respect to soil, groundwater and stormwater disposal. The report is to stipulate whether the site is suitable for on-site infiltration or what works are required to be implemented to provide for this capability or a suggested alternate means of disposal.

2. The applicant shall submit, and thereafter implement, a drainage plan, to the satisfaction of the City, showing how stormwater drainage from the proposed building and/or paved areas is to be connected to the existing drainage system. These plans shall show gully and manhole locations; pipe sizes, locations and falls; all invert levels; falls to paved areas; on-site stormwater compensating devices; proposed connections to the City's system; soakwells (if any); buildings (including floor levels); carparks (including pavement levels) and fill (proposed levels).

3. A landscape plan for the development site and the adjoining road verge(s) is to be submitted in accordance with the City’s Landscape Plan Information Sheet, and approved by the City.

4. A Fire Management Plan is to be prepared and approved and relevant provisions implemented to the satisfaction of the City.

5. External finishes and colour schemes are to be submitted, to the satisfaction of the City.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to the commencement of use/occupancy of building(s):

6. All cut and fill is to be retained within the property boundaries by retaining walls designed by a structural engineer and constructed of masonry or a similar approved material.

7. Fire hydrants are to be provided to the City’s satisfaction with the required pressure and flow being verified by a recognised testing authority.



27

8. An approved on-site effluent disposal system adequate to the proposed use of the premises is to be installed to the satisfaction of the City.

9. Landscaping and irrigation of the development site and adjoining road verges is to be installed and thereafter maintained, in accordance with the approved landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the City.

10. The proposed car parking bays are to be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the City. The driveways, accessways and carbays are to be paved, drained and marked to City’s standards in accordance with the approved plan and Table 3B of Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

11. All crossovers are to be upgraded/constructed to the City’s specifications.

Conditions to be satisfied for the life of the development:

12. The Site Management Plan, dated 21 September 2015 and as amended 7 October 2015 is to be implemented to the satisfaction of the City, to include an additional commitment for the Association to record and monitor the patronage numbers for special events to ensure compliance with the stated capacity of the facility, with the City being given a minimum of 24 hours' notice when special events are planned.

13. The Club Premises may be used by up to a maximum of 150 persons at an event in accordance with, and within the hours prescribed by the approved Site Management Plan.

14. The use of noise amplification equipment shall be contained to within the proposed building.

Foreshadowed Motion (1)

During debate Cr J Brown foreshadowed that she would move the following motion if the motion under debate was defeated:

“That Council, pursuant to Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, affirms its original decision to refuse an application for planning approval for a Club Premises and Caretaker’s Dwelling at 100 (Lot 10) Reservoir Road, Orange Grove, as adopted on 26 May 2015 because the club as proposed is not consistent with the stated objectives of the general rural zone.”

Councillor Cr J Brown provided the following written reason for the proposed amendment:

“Although the scale of the proposed development has been reduced, the proposal represents a land use which is not compatible with the General Rural zoning of the area. The objectives of the zone are described within the Council’s town Planning Scheme No.6 as follows:

“To provide a range of rural pursuits which are compatible with the capability of the land and retain the rural character and amenity of the locality”.”



28

Foreshadowed Motion (2)

During debate Cr P Yang foreshadowed that he would move the following motion if the motion under debate was defeated:

“That Council requests that the State Administrative Tribunal seeks the opinions of the local community in relation to this application and its compatibility with the objectives of the General Rural Zone.”

Councillor Cr P Yang provided the following written reason for the proposed amendment:

“Whilst a “Club” is a discretionary use in the General Rural Zone, the club proposed is considered incompatible with the objectives of the zone. In this instance there is no nexus between the Club as proposed and the objectives of the General Rural Zone.

If the SAT was to provide an opportunity for the community to directly provide its viewpoint on the proposal, this would clarify the question of whether or not the club as proposed is compatible with the objectives of the General Rural Zone.”

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put the staff recommendation, which read:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr P Griffiths

That Council, pursuant to Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, sets aside its previous decision made on 26 May 2015 for a Club Premises and Caretaker’s Dwelling at 100 (Lot 10) Reservoir Road, Orange Grove, and substitutes a new decision by approving the revised plans and documents contained as Appendices 13.2.3A and 13.2.3B, subject to the following conditions:


1. A geotechnical report is to be submitted in accordance with Australian Standards, certifying that the land is physically capable of development and detailing site conditions with respect to soil, groundwater and stormwater disposal. The report is to stipulate whether the site is suitable for on-site infiltration or what works are required to be implemented to provide for this capability or a suggested alternate means of disposal.

2. The applicant shall submit, and thereafter implement, a drainage plan, to the satisfaction of the City, showing how stormwater drainage from the proposed building and/or paved areas is to be connected to the existing drainage system. These plans shall show gully and manhole locations; pipe sizes, locations and falls; all invert levels; falls to paved areas; on-site stormwater compensating devices; proposed connections to the City's system; soakwells (if any); buildings (including floor levels); carparks (including pavement levels) and fill (proposed levels).



29

3. A landscape plan for the development site and the adjoining road verge(s) is to be submitted in accordance with the City’s Landscape Plan Information Sheet, and approved by the City.

4. A Fire Management Plan is to be prepared and approved and relevant provisions implemented to the satisfaction of the City.

5. External finishes and colour schemes are to be submitted, to the satisfaction of the City.


6. All cut and fill is to be retained within the property boundaries by retaining walls designed by a structural engineer and constructed of masonry or a similar approved material.

7. Fire hydrants are to be provided to the City’s satisfaction with the required pressure and flow being verified by a recognised testing authority.

8. An approved on-site effluent disposal system adequate to the proposed use of the premises is to be installed to the satisfaction of the City.

9. Landscaping and irrigation of the development site and adjoining road verges is to be installed and thereafter maintained, in accordance with the approved landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the City.

10. The proposed car parking bays are to be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the City. The driveways, accessways and carbays are to be paved, drained and marked to City’s standards in accordance with the approved plan and Table 3B of Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

11. All crossovers are to be upgraded/constructed to the City’s specifications.

Conditions to be satisfied for the life of the development:

12. The Site Management Plan, dated 21 September 2015 and as amended 7 October 2015 is to be implemented to the satisfaction of the City, to include an additional commitment for the Association to record and monitor the patronage numbers for special events to ensure compliance with the stated capacity of the facility, with the City being given a minimum of 24 hours' notice when special events are planned.

13. The Club Premises may be used by up to a maximum of 150 persons at an event in accordance with, and within the hours prescribed by the approved Site Management Plan.

14. The use of noise amplification equipment shall be contained to within the proposed building.

LOST 3/9FOR: Cr D Griffiths, Cr R Mitchell and Cr L Storer.

AGAINST: Cr J Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr D Goode, Cr P Griffiths, Cr T Healy, Cr T Lynes, Cr B Wiffen, Cr P Yang and Cr O Searle.



30

Notation

As the staff recommendation was lost the Mayor invited Cr J Brown to put her foreshadowed motion, which Cr D Goode seconded.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION


That Council, pursuant to Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, affirms its original decision to refuse an application for planning approval for a Club Premises and Caretaker’s Dwelling at 100 (Lot 10) Reservoir Road, Orange Grove, as adopted on 26 May 2015 because the club as proposed is not consistent with the stated objectives of the general rural zone.

CARRIED 7/6FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr D Goode, Cr T Lynes, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Cr D Griffiths, Cr P Griffiths, Cr T Healy, Cr R Mitchell, Cr L Storer and Cr P Yang.

CASTING VOTE: Cr O Searle made her casting vote, voting in favour of the proposed motion.

As the Cr J Brown’s foreshadowed motion was carried, Cr P Yang’s foreshadowed motion was not dealt with.


31

13.2.7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT (DRIVER TRAINING CENTRE) AND CARETAKER'S DWELLING - 254 (LOT 11) KELVIN ROAD, ORANGE GROVE


Nil.

Reference: 212754Application No: DA15/00197Applicant: Urban & Rural PerspectivesOwner: David Marshall and Dolores MarshallLocation: 254 (Lot 11) Kelvin Road, Orange GroveZoning: MRS: Rural

TPS No. 6: General RuralReview Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council.Area: 2.229haPrevious Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.2.7A Site, Floor and Elevation Plans

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval for an Educational Establishment (Driver Training Centre) and Caretaker's Dwelling at 254 (Lot 11) Kelvin Road, Orange Grove as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff due to an objection received during the consultation period.

BACKGROUND


The subject site is located within Precinct 3 of the City’s draft Foothills Rural Strategy area. On 25 October 2011, Council resolved (Resolution 462) to exclude the Kelvin Road (Orange Grove) Precinct from Precinct 3 of the draft Foothills Rural Strategy and to also incorporate guidelines for a more flexible approach to land use and development in that area. This was in recognition that the Kelvin Road (Orange Grove) Precinct does not have the same high level of landscape character, environmental value or rural amenity as the rest of Precinct 3. More recently, the City has commenced its evaluation of the unique area with a view to initiating a suitable amendment to the Town Planning Scheme in the near future.

The subject site currently accommodates a single house and an outbuilding. The surrounding properties are similarly zoned for rural purposes, some of which accommodate longstanding commercial uses (such as fabrication of transportable dwellings, landscape supplies, cutting and storing of firewood, an equine club) or rural residential uses.

At the rear of the site, there is an area of threatened priority flora, which is proposed to be left undeveloped as a component of this application. The area can be protected by the inclusion of fencing to prevent vehicle access to the rear of the land.



32


254KELV

INRD

BROCKST

246

Vehiclecrossover

Nearestadjoiningresidence

LOT 11SUBJECT SITE

Proposal


The demolition of the existing single house and all but one of the outbuildings on site.

The construction of 245m2 office/administration building and a 121m2 transportable caretaker's dwelling.

Installation of a 9,200m2 hardstand area.

The provision of 36 car parking bays.

The provision of 21 truck parking bays.

Construction of a gated, 8m wide crossover to Kelvin Road.

Stormwater runoff from all vehicle accessways, parking and hardstand areas will be disposed of in an on-site compensating basin in the southern corner of the site.

The provision of a 3m wide landscape buffer along a portion of the side (south-western) boundary for visual screening (as shown in Appendix 13.2.7A).



33

The driver education training will involve the use of one car, three medium rigid trucks, ten heavy rigid trucks, four prime movers, nine trailers and one utility.

The business will accommodate 11 staff members and a maximum of eight students at any one time. It will operate from 6am to 5pm, Monday to Saturday and from 8am to 5pm on Sundays.

The Training Centre will provide the following services:- Driver training for various vehicle license classes (eg Heavy Rigid,

Heavy Combination, Multi-Combination etc.) and testing in association with the Department of Transport.

- Driver safety courses.

- Transport Logistics Training Course (ie securing cargo loads).

All vehicle maintenance and repairs will be carried out off-site.

The site, floor and elevation plans are contained as Appendix 13.2.7A.

Consultation

The proposal was required to be advertised for public comment in accordance with Council Policy. The consultation was for a period of 14 days, being from 8 to 22 September 2015. Letters were sent to the owners of nine properties within the consultation area, and in addition, two occupiers of properties were also invited to comment.

In response, two submissions were received; one objecting to the proposal and one submission representing three owners, raising no-objection. A summary of these submissions and comments thereon are provided in the following table.

1.Affected Property:246 (Lot 10) Kelvin Road, Orange Grove

Postal Address:246 Kelvin RoadORANGE GROVE WA 6109

Summary of Submission CommentObjection to proposal.

1.1 Concerned that operating hours will wake us up in the morning and will also increase road activity and noise.

See Traffic and Noise sections of Report.

1.2 There appears to be no fencing provisions to ensure privacy and aesthetics are maintained, as has been seen in previously approved applications within the area.

Landscaping is proposed along the majority of the shared boundary to provide privacy screening between properties. The submission of a detailed landscaping plan for the site can be required as a condition of approval.

1.3 We question whether the provisions for drainage are adequate to prevent stormwater runoff onto our property.

A drainage plan has been approved by the City which ensures that stormwater runoff is adequately managed for the proposal. In the event of Council approval, the implementation of the plan will be required.

1.4 Will the caretaker reside at the property full-time to deal with potential “after hours” security issues?

The applicant has advised that a caretaker will be residing on-site after hours to provide additional security for the facility.

1.5 Are provisions for mosquito control included in the stormwater compensation basin plans?

The applicant has advised that in the event that the stormwater compensation basin holds water for a substantial period of time, chemical treatment for mosquitos could be arranged. In fact, such practices can be required under the City's Local Laws.



34

2.

Affected Properties:257 (Lot 4) Kelvin Road271 (Lot 503) Kelvin Road263-269 (Lot 504) Kelvin Road, Orange Grove

Postal Address:31 Clifton StreetKELMSCOTT WA 6111

Summary of Submission CommentNo objection to proposal. Noted.

The application was referred to DBNGP (WA) Nominees Pty Limited (DBNGP), the owner-operator of the Dampier-Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline, for comment as the subject site is within the Pipeline buffer area. DBNGP has no objection to the proposal.

A map identifying the consultation area and the origin of each submission follows.

Referral area

No objection

Comment

Objections

Public ConsultationLegend

INDICATIVE200m RADIUSREFERRAL AREA

NO OBJECTION

COMMENT

OBJECTIONS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONLEGEND

INDICATIVE200m RADIUS

257

254 263

271

LOT 11SUBJECT

SITE



35

DISCUSSION



The subject site is zoned General Rural under TPS 6. In accordance with TPS 6, both an Educational Establishment and a Caretaker's Dwelling are "A" uses in the General Rural zone, meaning they are not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval.

Car Parking

The parking standards prescribed by Town Planning Scheme No. 6 do not contemplate a land use such as that proposed. In such circumstances it is open to the Council to adopt a satisfactory standard.

Given that the scale of the proposal would accommodate a maximum of 21 trucks plus parking for the caretaker's dwelling, 21 car bays for customers plus two for the caretaker's swelling would be sufficient. There would also be up to 11 staff on site at any one time, generating a requirement for a further 11 parking bays. On this basis a total of 34 car parking bays would be required. The application includes a total of 36 bays and therefore could easily cater for peak demand.

State Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning

State Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning (SPP 5.4) outlines various requirements for development abutting certain roads and rail lines in order to minimise potential noise impacts from transport corridors to such development.

In accordance with SPP 5.4, the proposal would ordinarily be required to be supported by a detailed noise assessment report to investigate whether, in relation to the proposed caretaker's dwelling, any noise management and mitigation measures are required to ensure any exposure to transport noise achieves the prescribed target.

As such, if the application is approved, it will be recommended that a condition is imposed requiring the implementation of noise attenuation measures in accordance with ‘Package A’ of the SPP 5.4 Implementation Guidelines to ensure compliance with the Policy.

Traffic

The objection received raised concern that the operating hours of the subject proposal will increase road activity within the locality. In this regard, the following is noted:

The subject site fronts Kelvin Road which has a 10m wide carriageway and is classified as a District Distributor ‘A’ Road, designated as being able to accommodate over 8,000 vehicles per day.

The estimated traffic volume in and out of the site is expected to have a negligible impact on the surrounding road network.



36

The subject site contains adequate land to accommodate general and long vehicle parking and general manoeuvrability (turning movements and also loading/unloading) of heavy rigid vehicles with the ability to exit the site in forward gear.

There are adequate sightline distances for vehicles exiting the site.

It is considered that the proposal is acceptable from a traffic perspective.

Noise

The objection received raised concern regarding an increase in noise being generated from the site as a result of the proposal. In considering this matter, the following is relevant:

The subject site is bound on two sides (north-east and north-west) by the former Kelvin Road tip site, which is owned by the City.

Although the nearest dwelling is located 30m from the subject site, it is located 110m from the portion of the subject site that will accommodate the driver training (as shown on the site development plan attached as Appendix 13.2.7A).

The proposed operating hours are from 6am to 5pm, Monday to Saturday and from 8am to 5pm on Sundays.

The proposed crossover is located as far as possible from the abutting 246 Kelvin Road (as shown on the location plan).

The vehicles will be parked on the site overnight. When they are used for morning driver training sessions, they will exit the site in forward gear via the accessway along the north-eastern boundary of the property (ie farthest from the abutting residence). On this basis, it is considered that noise from vehicle movements, particularly during early morning hours is unlikely to significantly impact on the amenity of surrounding dwellings.

In any event, the use of the site is required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Based on the above, the proposal is considered acceptable from a noise generation perspective.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is supported for the following reasons:

The proposal represents an acceptable land use in the context of Council's previous resolution to exclude the Kelvin Road (Orange Grove) Precinct from Precinct 3 of the draft Foothills Rural Strategy and to also incorporate guidelines for a more flexible approach to land use and development in that area.

It is expected that the proposal will not create traffic issues above the capacity of Kelvin Road.

It is considered that any noise generating activities will not be significantly detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding locality.



37

It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved subject to appropriate conditions as listed in the staff recommendation.


Nil.



Draft Foothills Rural Strategy 2004

State Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS


Notation

9.16pm Cr G Dewhurst left the meeting.9.17pm Cr B Wiffen left the meeting.9.18pm Cr G Dewhurst and Cr B Wiffen returned to the meeting.


432 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr L Storer

That Council approves the application for an Educational Establishment (Driver Training Centre) and Caretaker's Dwelling at 254 (Lot 11) Kelvin Road, Orange Grove, dated 2 June 2015 and the amended site plan received 25 August 2015, subject to the following conditions:


1. The submission of amended plans for the proposed Caretaker's Dwelling, generally in accordance with the submitted plans but conforming with ‘Package A’ requirements of the Western Australian Planning Commission's State Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning Implementation Guidelines with these plans being certified by a suitably qualified Acoustic Consultant. Such details shall be submitted prior to the lodgement of a Building Permit application, subsequently approved by the City and thereafter implemented to its satisfaction.

2. A landscape plan for the development site and the adjoining road verge is to be submitted in accordance with the City's Landscape Plan Information Sheet, and approved by the City's Parks and Environmental Operations branch, prior to the lodgement of a Building Permit application.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to the commencement of development:



38

3. Prior to the commencement of works an environmental management plan for the threatened ecological community/priority flora is to be prepared and approved to ensure the protection and management of the environmental assets on the lot, with satisfactory arrangements being made for the implementation of the approved plan.

4. The Environmental Management Plan is to be implemented to ensure the identification and protection of the threatened ecological community/priority flora located on the subject site.

5. A fence restricting vehicle access to the community of priority flora is to be constructed around the perimeter of the Threatened Ecological Community, to the City's satisfaction.


6. The drainage plan, endorsed by the City's Technical Services branch on 21 October 2015, is to be implemented, and all required drainage infrastructure thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the City.

7. An approved on-site effluent disposal system adequate to the proposed use of the premises is to be installed to the satisfaction of the City. In this regard, the prescribed Treatment of Sewage application and the required fee is to accompany the Building Permit application.

8. Satisfactory arrangements being made with the City for the disposal of industrial wastewater.

9. The proposed carparking bays are to be provided, prior to the occupation of the building, and maintained to the satisfaction of the City. The driveways, accessways and carbays are to be paved, drained and marked to City's standards in accordance with the approved plan and Table 3B of Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

10. All crossovers are to be constructed/upgraded to the City's specifications.

11. The proposed hardstand area is to be paved, sealed and drained to the City's satisfaction.

12. Landscaping and irrigation of the development site and adjoining road verges is to be installed prior to occupying the proposed development, and thereafter maintained, in accordance with the approved landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Manager Parks and Environmental Operations.

13. Fire hydrants are to be provided to the City's satisfaction with the required pressure and flow being verified by a recognised testing authority. The applicant is advised that this locality may have limited water pressure available and additional facilities may be required.

LOST 6/7FOR: Cr D Griffiths, Cr T Healy, Cr T Lynes, Cr R Mitchell, Cr L Storer,

and Cr B Wiffen

AGAINST: Cr J Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr D Goode, Cr P Griffiths, Cr P Yang and Cr O Searle.

CASTING VOTE: Cr O Searle made her casting vote, voting against the recommendation.


39

12. REPORTS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS12.1 AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 2 NOVEMBER 2015Author: R BouwerAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 12.1A Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on

2 November 2015

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to receive the Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 2 November 2015.

BACKGROUND

The Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on Monday 2 November 2015 are provided as Appendix 12.1A.

The recommendations of the Audit Committee which require Council's consideration are provided in the following reports.

DISCUSSION

Nil.


Nil.


The Audit Committee has no decision-making authority and therefore its recommendations are provided to Council in separate reports for resolution.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS


Notation

9.25pm Cr D Griffiths left the meeting.


433 Moved Cr D Goode Seconded Cr J Brown

That Council receives the Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on Monday 2 November 2015, attached as Appendix 12.1A.

CARRIED 11/0FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr D Goode, Cr P Griffiths, Cr T Healy, Cr T Lynes, Cr R Mitchell,


AGAINST: Nil.


40

12.1.1 AUDIT COMMITTEE - AUDITED ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT 2015Author: K GillAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.


2 November 2015

PURPOSE OF REPORT

The Audit Committee has reviewed the audited Annual Financial Report for the year ended 30 June 2015 provided by the City's Auditors Grant Thornton Audit Pty Ltd and now recommends its receipt to Council.

BACKGROUND

The Audit Committee provides Recommendation 8 arising from the Minutes dated 2 November 2015 for Council's consideration:

"That Council receives the audited Annual Financial Report for the year ended 30 June 2015, attached as Appendix 6.1A."

In discussions held with the Auditors it is the City's opinion that the financial report gives a true and fair view of the financial position of the City of Gosnells.

DISCUSSION

The Statement of Comprehensive Income shows an Actual Net Result of $26,183,341. This reflects the increase in net assets deployed or ready to deploy in order to meet the City's objectives.

The Total Comprehensive Income Net Position of $422,243,450 is greater than budgeted. The variance is due to changes in the valuation of the City's non-current assets, which were not previously budgeted for. This financial year the City revalued roads, kerbs, footpaths, bridges and drainage assets.

The Audit Manager from Grant Thornton attended the meeting and advised that the audit report was unqualified however, due to the Audit Partner being interstate, he was unable to provide the actual document but indicated that it would be signed and forwarded to the City by Wednesday 4 November 2015. He then provided a comprehensive review of the audit process and audit finding and answered questions from Councillors.


The unallocated surplus for 2014/15 will be provided to Council in the near future when carry forward calculations are complete.


Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.



41

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Simple majority required.



That Council receives the audited Annual Financial Report for the year ended 30 June 2015, attached as Appendix 6.1A.

* Refer to Audit Committee Minutes Item 6.1 of 2 November 2015 contained in Appendix 12.1A.



AGAINST: Nil.


42

12.1.2 AUDIT COMMITTEE - 2016/17 BUDGET - MEETING DATESAuthor: R BouwerAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.


2 November 2015

PURPOSE OF REPORT

The Audit Committee has considered the proposed date for adoption of the 2016/17 Budget and Ten-Year Financial Plan and the Workshop dates associated with the Budget adoption.

BACKGROUND

The Audit Committee provides Recommendation 9 arising from the Minutes dated 2 November 2015 for Council's consideration:

"That the Special Council Meeting to adopt the 2016/17 Budget be held on 5 July 2016."

Section 6.2 (1) of the Local Government Act 1995 requires the adoption of the annual budget between 1 June and 31 August of the next financial year. Section 6.2 (2) requires the annual budget to have regard to the contents of the plan for the future of the district.

DISCUSSION

The Budget timetable has set a target date for adoption of the annual budget being 5 July 2016, with three Councillor Workshops scheduled for 16 February, 29 March and 7 June 2016.

The first Workshop will focus on the Ten-Year Financial Plan and Councillors will be given an overview of the asset management needs of the City.

The second Workshop will present Councillors with the Capital Works proposed for 2016/17 and the third Workshop will discuss the Operational Budget requirements of the City.


Nil.


Local Government Act 1995, Sections 6.2 (1) and (2).

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




43


435 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr L Storer

That the Special Council Meeting to adopt the 2016/17 Budget be held on 5 July 2016.



AGAINST: Nil.


44

13. REPORTS

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE

Nil.

13.2 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY

13.2.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - PROPOSED SHOWROOM AND MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR - 2201 (LOT 150) ALBANY HIGHWAY, GOSNELLS (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with Clause 4.12 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2012 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the first report in these Minutes.


45

13.2.2 DISCONTINUATION OF TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 17 AND INTRODUCTION OF A MODERN PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR UNDEVELOPED TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 17 LAND


Nil.

Reference: VariousApplication No: PF11/00016Applicant: City of Gosnells on behalf of landownersOwner: VariousLocation: Town Planning Scheme No. 17 - HuntingdaleZoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Residential 17.5 and various zonesReview Rights: Initiation - none, however consent to advertise is subject to

approval by the Western Australian Planning CommissionArea: 300 hectaresPrevious Ref: OCM 14 April 2009 (Resolutions 134-138)

OCM 23 September 2003 (Resolutions 645-646) OCM 12 June 2001 (Resolutions 402-403)

Appendices: 13.2.2A Concept ODP13.2.2B Concept ODP - Catchment Plan13.2.2C Modified Concept ODP

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to endorse the approach for the discontinuation of Town Planning Scheme No. 17 (TPS 17).

BACKGROUND

Area Description

TPS 17 is a Guided Development Scheme that has guided subdivision and development within the area generally bound by Holmes Street, Garden Street, Warton Road, Huntingdale Road, Southern River Road and the Southern River Parks and Recreation reservation, in Huntingdale since 1990. The TPS 17 area is shown in the location plan overleaf.



46

TOWN PLANNING SCHEME 17 AREAM :\PROJECTS\Planning \workspaces\TPS17_loc.wor

TPS 17 covers an area of approximately 300 hectares. Approximately 66 hectares of the Scheme area forms part of the Sutherlands Park sports grounds. Most of the Scheme area has been fully developed at a residential density of R17.5, with the average lot size being 600m2.



47

The remaining undeveloped landholdings in the Scheme area make up approximately 46 hectares, with the majority of these lots being approximately 1.3 hectares in area with a few as large as three to four hectares. Development of the remaining large lots has been delayed due to the absence of a trunk sewer main required to service the area.

History

TPS 17 originated from the need to provide a comprehensive planning framework to guide subdivision and development for a section of undeveloped residential land held by different landowners. Its primary purpose was to establish a cost sharing arrangement to equitably share the costs of providing common infrastructure between landowners to facilitate development of the Scheme area.

During the time TPS 17 has been in operation, significant changes in planning policy and practice have occurred and as such TPS 17 is now inconsistent with current subdivision design policies, and is in need of a review.

A number of planning tasks are required to provide a contemporary planning framework for the undeveloped land in the TPS 17 area. This report provides clarification of the planning tasks to be undertaken and seeks Council’s endorsement of the overall approach.

DISCUSSION

Landowners Meeting

In August 2014, a meeting was held for landowners who had not yet subdivided their land, detailing the City’s intention to review TPS 17. The purpose of the meeting was to seek preliminary feedback from landowners on the planning tasks required to support development. These tasks include:

Discontinuance of TPS 17.

Preparation an Outline Development Plan (ODP) for the remaining undeveloped landholdings.

Preparation of a Development Contribution Plan (DCP) to provide for the sharing of the cost of broad infrastructure needed for the remaining undeveloped landholdings.

One of the key components of the meeting was the presentation of a concept ODP. The concept ODP had not been endorsed by Council and was prepared for the purpose of discussion only. Landowners were advised that a formal ODP would require consultation and need to be considered by Council, and therefore the various design elements on the concept ODP were indicative only. The concept ODP is attached with Appendix 13.2.2A.

The concept ODP proposes a new road layout, an increase in densities ranging from R25 (350m2) to R40 (220m2), a small local shopping area and an integrated public open space (POS) and wetland reserve.



48

The ODP generated discussion on the following topics:

The environmental significance of the wetland.

The necessity of new POS given the availability of nearby Sutherlands Park and other nearby parkland.

The planning rationale regarding the various residential densities proposed.

The lack of a sewer trunk main to the area which is why there are significant landholdings that are unable to be developed.

The City is familiar with the above topics and will have due regard to them in its review of TPS 17 and formal landowner consultation.

Review of TPS 17

As the Scheme has been in operation since 1990, a large part of the area has already been developed. A number of large landholdings remain unsubdivided, unable to be developed due to the absence of mains sewer. To facilitate its provision the City established a cost sharing arrangement for its construction, however, this has had limited success for a number of reasons, including coordination between landowners and the high cost of providing the infrastructure.

As the Scheme area has gradually developed over time and planning ideology has evolved, there is sufficient rationale to consider an increase in density over the remaining undeveloped landholdings. The current density of R17.5 is inconsistent with contemporary approaches to using land effectively and meeting the requirements of relevant State Government policy. As such an opportunity exists to both review TPS 17 and prepare an ODP for the remaining land to allow development to occur in a more contemporary manner.

The tasks associated with the proposed review are as follows.

1. Discontinuance of TPS 17

The purpose of TPS 17 was to facilitate the provision of common infrastructure works (CIW’s) and POS required for the Scheme area via a cost sharing arrangement between landowners.

A substantial amount of CIW’s have been provided, and financial contributions collected, with respect to the Scheme area. It is proposed to discontinue TPS 17 altogether and establish an entirely new contemporary planning framework for the remaining undeveloped lots. This will require an inventory to be undertaken to determine what CIW’s have already been provided to the Scheme area and what CIW’s are needed to finalise works.

The discontinuation of TPS 17 would be achieved via an amendment process which essentially requires the revocation of the Scheme. If the Minister for Planning supports the discontinuation of TPS 17, this will not be gazetted until a new contemporary planning framework has been established for the remaining undeveloped lots. This new framework requires the preparation of an ODP and a development contribution plan (DCP) which will give the Minister confidence that the remainder of the Scheme area will be developed in a contemporary manner with the complete suite of infrastructure.



49

2. Preparation of an ODP

The 2014 Concept ODP incorporates a number of significant design features which were discussed with landowners, including:

● An integrated POS conservation reserve.

● A local commercial shopping area proposed at the southern corner of the Scheme area (corner of Southern River Road and Gay Street).

● An increase in density to the Scheme area.

The planning rationale behind these elements is summarised below.

POS Conservation Reserve

The POS Conservation Reserve is a combination of a conservation category wetland (CCW) and a new area of recreational parkland. Combining the two was seen as an opportunity to create an integrated green area that would protect the environmental value of the wetland, and enhance the amenity of a proposed new area of local parkland that will serve the recreational needs of future residents.

The CCW has been assessed by a qualified consultant, confirming its environmental significance and defining its boundaries. As indicated on the concept ODP, a 50 metre protection buffer has been included around the CCW as this is a requirement of the Department of Environment Regulation.

Local Commercial Shopping Area

The owner of Lot 1507 Gay Street is seeking to apply an appropriate designation over the lot that will allow it to be developed in part, for retail and the remaining area developed for residential purposes to a density of R40. This proposal was supported by an assessment undertaken by the landowner's retail trade consultant.

Increase in Densities

The undeveloped land in TPS 17 is currently coded R17.5 which allows for an average lot size of 571m2. The concept ODP, attached at Appendix 13.2.2A, which was presented at the landowner meeting proposes two density codes, R25 which allows for an average lot size of 350m2 and R40 which allows for an average lot size of 220m2.

These densities are distributed on the basis of locating higher densities with walking distance (400 to 800 metres) from existing and proposed local commercial areas. This planning ideology is illustrated on the concept ODP - Catchment Plan attached at Appendix 13.2.2B which shows the 400m and 800m catchments. The R25 density code has been strategically located at the interface with the existing R17.5 coded areas as it is considered to represent a moderate transition from the lower density lots to the higher density of R40.



50

There is no strict rule which determines the specific density regime required for the transition from one density code to another which provides flexibility. A modified concept ODP (attached at Appendix 13.2.2C) has been prepared as a comparison and represents a more conservative approach to the original concept. The significant difference between the two is the introduction of R30 density codes areas, between the R25 and R40 densities. The R30 density code allows for an average lot size of 300m2 which provides some diversity of lot sizes between R25 and R40 and provides a smoother transition of densities from existing R17.5 coded areas to higher densities.

The ODP options presented in this report are conceptual and have been prepared for discussion purposes only. The exact design, including the final distribution of densities will require further consideration by Council and landowners through the formal ODP preparation and consultation process.

3. Preparation of a DCP

Prior to the discontinuance of TPS 17, it will be necessary to prepare a DCP for the remaining undeveloped lots in the Scheme area. This will ensure that the area will be adequately serviced with the necessary infrastructure and that the cost of these works will be shared among remaining landowners. In consideration of a new DCP, a historical review of the infrastructure that has already been provided in the Scheme area is to be undertaken. In addition, further consideration is to be given to the requirement for any additional infrastructure such as sewer that may be necessary to ensure development aligns with contemporary standards.

The process of preparing a DCP requires an amendment TPS 6 to provide the legislative framework to establish and administer cost sharing parameters.

CONCLUSION

A number of planning tasks need to be undertaken as part of the implementation of a contemporary planning framework for undeveloped land in the TPS 17 area. It is proposed to discontinue TPS 17 and prepare an ODP and associated DCP for the remaining undeveloped lots in the Scheme area. This will ensure that these remaining lots will be provided with adequate service infrastructure and developed to a more contemporary standard. Further reports will be presented to Council to implement these changes.

It is recommended that Council endorses this approach to the remaining undeveloped land within TPS 17 and the planning tasks as outlined in this report.


Nil.



Town Planning Scheme No. 6.



51

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



436 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr P Griffiths

That Council endorses the implementation of a contemporary planning framework for the undeveloped land in Town Planning Scheme 17 and notes that further reports will be presented to Council to:

1. Discontinue Town Planning Scheme No. 17.

2. Prepare an Outline Development Plan for the remaining undeveloped landholdings.

3. Prepare a Development Contribution Plan to provide for the sharing of common infrastructure works needed for the remaining undeveloped landholdings.



AGAINST: Nil.


52

13.2.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - CLUB PREMISES AND CARETAKER'S DWELLING - 100 (LOT 10) RESERVOIR ROAD, ORANGE GROVE (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with Clause 4.12 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2012 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the second report in these Minutes.


53

13.2.4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - EXISTING COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING - 8 (LOT 5) WILLARING DRIVE, BECKENHAM


Nil.

Reference: 211978Application No: DA15/00108Applicant: R M McIntyreOwner: M A McIntyreLocation: 8 (Lot 5) Willaring Drive, BeckenhamZoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: ResidentialReview Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary


Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.2.4A Site plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval for existing Commercial Vehicle Parking at 8 (Lot 5) Willaring Drive, Beckenham, as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff due to objections received during the consultation period and non-compliance with Local Planning Policy 2.1 - Commercial Vehicle Parking (LPP 2.1).

BACKGROUND


The subject site contains a single house and two outbuildings at the rear. The property is surrounded by other low-density residential properties.




54

KENWICK

LINK

BECKENHAMST

CORDYPL

WILLARING

DR

HONEYPL

8

MACHINPL

Proposal


The parking of a commercial vehicle on the site, at the rear of the subject lot, approximately 45m from the front boundary, behind the gate.

The vehicle is comprised of a Volvo Tip Truck (7.5m long and 3m high) and a trailer (5.4m long and 2.85m high).

The vehicle will leave the site at 7am and return at 6pm, Monday to Friday.

The commercial vehicle will only be driven by the occupant of the property.

The site plan is contained as Appendix 13.2.4A.

Consultation

The proposal was required to be advertised for public comment in accordance with Council Policy. The consultation was for a period of 14 days, being from 6 August 2015 to 20 August 2015. Letters were sent to the owners of three properties within the consultation area.

In response, two submissions were received; both objecting to the proposal. A summary of these submissions and comments follows.



55

1.Affected Property:9 (Lot 888) Cordy PlaceBeckenham

Postal Address:9 Cordy PlaceBECKENHAM WA 6155

Summary of Submission CommentObjection to the proposal.

General concern relating to noise, traffic and security.

Noted. See Discussion section of the report.

2.Affected Property:7 (Lot 889) Cordy PlaceBeckenham

Postal Address:7 Cordy PlaceBECKENHAM WA 6155

Summary of Submission CommentObjection to the proposal.

Concerns about the fumes, however, if this matter could be addressed, there would be no objection to the proposal.

See Odour section of the report.

A map identifying the consultation area and the origin of each submission follows.

Referral area

No objection

Comment

Objections

Public ConsultationLegend

REFERRAL AREA

NO OBJECTION

COMMENT

OBJECTIONS


CORDYPL

7

9

REFERRAL AREA

NO OBJECTION

COMMENT

OBJECTIONS


WILLARINGDR

8

DISCUSSION


The subject site is zoned Residential R17.5 under TPS 6. In accordance with TPS 6, Commercial Vehicle Parking is a "D" use in the Residential zone, meaning it is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval.



56

Local Planning Policy 2.1 - Commercial Vehicle Parking

Council's Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy provides assessment criteria to determine applications for commercial vehicle parking.

The Policy sets out acceptable criteria (Column A), where variations to the acceptable criteria may be considered subject to advertising for public comment (Column B) and unacceptable criteria (Column C). The Policy also sets out other assessment parameters.

The proposal meets the majority of the requirements of Column A and Column B of Table 1 of the Policy, with the exception of the points detailed in the table below.

Policy Clause/Requirement (Column C) Assessment/Comments1.2C Commercial vehicle parking that does not

comply with criterion 1.2.B (see below):

1.2.B In a Residential zone, the commercial vehicle is suitably screened from view of adjoining properties and the street, setback a minimum of 3 metres from the nearest point of any dwelling on an adjoining lot or, in the case of a vacant adjoining lot, setback a minimum of 2 metres from the nearest vacant lot boundary.

The application involves the parking of a commercial vehicle approximately 6.5m from the dwelling on 7 (Lot 889) Cordy Place and 5.5m from the dwelling on 9 (Lot 888) Cordy Place. The vehicle is not proposed to be screened from either property. As such, the proposal is deemed unacceptable by virtue of the column C criteria.

In this regard, it is considered that the visual impact of the commercial vehicle may be minimised by the imposition of a condition requiring appropriate screening. Therefore, if the application is approved, it will be recommended that such a condition be imposed to ensure that adequate screening is put in place.

3.1C Commercial vehicle parking that does not comply with criterion 3.1B (see below):

3.1B In a Residential zone:

i) One C-class truck; or

ii) One C-class trucks, plus two trailers,

providing that no truck or truck/trailer combination exceeds 10 metres in length and 3 metres in height.

The application involves the parking of a truck and trailer with a combined length of 12.9m. As such, the proposal is deemed unacceptable by virtue of the column C criteria.

In this regard, the subject site is 2,037m2 in area, which is more than three times the size of the average required for a property coded R17.5 and significantly larger than most surrounding lots. The various provisions in the Policy acknowledge that larger properties are better equipped to accommodate more and/or larger commercial vehicle As such, it is considered reasonable for Council to permit a variation to the vehicle size requirements of the Policy on the basis of the area of the subject lot. To protect this principle, it will be recommended that a condition be imposed to only allow the parking so long as the property maintains the current area and is not subdivided.

Noise

One submission raised concerns that the proposal would create additional noise within the locality as a result of the movement of the truck. There are expected to be a maximum of two vehicle movements per day, which will occur at around 7am and 6pm, Monday to Friday.



57

LPP 2.1 does not stipulate acceptable times for vehicles to be driven on and off a property. It is expected that vehicle movements around the abovementioned hours and any associated noise would be similar to that of private non-commercial vehicles, and therefore would not have any significant impact on nearby properties. In addition, if the vehicle was reversed into its parking space at the end of the working day, it would then leave the premises in the morning without triggering any reversing beeper.

Traffic

One submitter raised concern in regards to traffic, noise and security but provided no further details. Under the City's adopted Road Network Hierarchy, Willaring Drive is designated as Local Access Road, which is able to accommodate up to 3,000 vehicles per day. It is considered that the Local Access Roads of the immediate locality (including Cordy Place) would be able to accommodate the additional vehicle movements associated with the subject proposal.

Odour

LPP 2.1 does not stipulate acceptable odour criteria nor does it stipulate odour mitigation measures. However, the policy indicates that the commercial vehicle is not to impinge on the amenity of the area. In this regard, the City's Animals, Environment and Nuisance Local Law 2009, states that:

"An owner or occupier of land or premise shall not cause or permit the escape of fumes or odours from the land or premise in such a quantity or of such a nature as to cause or to be a nuisance to any person."

In considering the Local Law, the applicant has stated that the maximum vehicle movements to and from the site will be two per day. As such, it is considered that this low frequency of movement will not detrimentally impact the amenity of the adjoining landowners.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is supported on the basis that the variation to the policy (relating to the visual impact of the vehicle) can be managed with an appropriate condition and the proposal is not expected to have any significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality or on nearby landowners.

It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved subject to appropriate conditions as listed in the staff recommendation.


Nil.



Local Planning Policy 2.1 - Commercial Vehicle Parking.



58

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



437 Moved Cr G Dewhurst Seconded Cr J Brown

That Council approves the application for existing Commercial Vehicle Parking at 8 (Lot 5) Willaring Drive, dated 27 March 2015, subject to the following conditions:

1. A landscaping/screening plan is to be submitted within 14 days of the date of this approval, demonstrating how the vehicle is to be screened from view of Lots 888 and 889 Cordy Place, to the City's satisfaction.

2. The approved landscaping/screening plan is to be implemented to the City's satisfaction, within 28 days of the date of its approval by the City.

3. The vehicle must at all times, when parked on the property, be parked in the designated parking area in a manner that allows the vehicle to depart the site using a forward gear only.

4. The area approved to park the vehicle must be constructed of sealed/dust free hard standing material (for example, asphalt, bitumen, concrete or block paving) and drained to the City's satisfaction.

5. Only routine maintenance of a minor nature, such as servicing or wheel changing, is to be carried out on the subject property. No panel beating, spray painting or the removal of major body or engine parts is permitted.

6. Washing of the commercial vehicle on the subject lot is to be limited to the use of water and mild detergent, but not involve the use of any solvents, degreasing substances, steam cleaning and any other processes which may cause pollution or degradation of the environment.

7. Approval of the parking activity does not include allowance for the loading or unloading of the commercial vehicle or the storage of goods in transit that would constitute the parking activity becoming a transport depot or storage depot.

8. The approval shall be personal to the applicant and shall not be transferred or assigned to any other person.

9. The approval is only valid so long as the property is not subdivided or reduced in area.


Cr L Storer, Cr B Wiffen and Cr P Yang.

AGAINST: Cr O Searle.


59

13.2.5 AMENDMENT NO. 160 - REZONING OF LOT 9001 STREATHAM STREET, BECKENHAM FROM CIVIC AND CULTURAL TO RESIDENTIAL R30 - FINALISATION


Nil.

Reference: 314192Application No: PF15/00005Applicant: City of GosnellsOwner: City of GosnellsLocation: Lot 9001 Streatham Street, BeckenhamZoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Civic and CulturalReview Rights: Nil.Area: 6,786m2

Previous Ref: OCM 9 June 2015 (Resolution 223)Appendices: 13.2.5A Schedule of Submissions

13.2.5B Modified Amendment No. 160 Document13.2.5C Streatham Street Stage Two Subdivision Plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to grant final adoption of Amendment No. 160 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6), which proposes to rezone Lot 9001 Streatham Street (formerly part of Lot 9000 Railway Parade), Beckenham from Civic and Cultural to the Residential zone.

BACKGROUND

On 13 August 2013 (Resolutions 330-332), Council adopted the Mills Park Master Plan and approved a new community centre that would replace the nearby existing Beckenham Community Centre (BCC) at Lot 9001 Streatham Street, Beckenham.

The resolution further included the provision to subdivide the remaining BCC land for residential purposes in order to generate a funding source for the new community centre at Mills Park.

Existing users of the BCC were advised of the plan to replace the centre through the advertising of the Mills Park Master Plan, and were involved in the design of the new facility through surveys, subsequent meetings and concept design presentations.

The rezoning of Lot 9001 Streatham Street, will result in a 6,786m2 developable site and will enable the second and final development stage of the Streatham Street Subdivision to commence.

Consultation

In accordance with Council's resolution of 9 June 2015, Amendment No. 160 was referred to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for comment. The EPA determined that no assessment was required. The Amendment was then advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days, being from 31 July 2015 through to 10 September 2015, by way of:



60

Letters being sent to land owners within a 100m radius of the amendment area

Letters to relevant government agencies

Advertisement placed in the Gosnells Examiner newspaper

Advertising on the City's website

Public displays at the City's Civic Centre and libraries.

The City received a total of ten submissions during the advertising period, with three received from landowners, six from Government agencies and one submission from Perth Airport. Of the three submissions received from landowners, all made comment on the proposal. Six government agencies also commented on the proposal. Perth Airport objected to the proposal as it believes the area is adversely affected by aircraft noise. A summary of these submissions and comments received is contained in Appendix 13.2.5A.

A map representing the consultation area and the origin of submissions follows.

SYDENHAMST

HARROGATEST

SATURNST

SULLIVANST

RAGLANST

STREATHAMST

ST

CARMICHAEL

RAILWAY

PDE



61

DISCUSSION

Mills Park Community Centre

Council's decision to approve of the disposal of the BCC and integrate its uses into the proposed Mills Park Community Centre was supported by previous extensive consultation with the Beckenham community regarding the Mills Park Master Plan.

Administrative Modifications

During the period of public consultation for Amendment No. 160, land titles were issued for the approved residential subdivision for Streatham Street Stage One. The new land titles resulted in changes to the lot numbering and consequently Amendment No. 160 includes the following administrative modifications:

References to "'Lot 9000 Railway Parade" are amended to read "Lot 9001 Streatham Street".

References to "Residential R20/25" are removed.

The Scheme Map is amended to show new lots that have emerged through the recently approved subdivision, including Lot 9001 Streatham Street, Beckenham.

These administrative modifications are considered minor in nature and do not change the intended effect of the amendment proposal, which is to rezone the area of the current BCC site which is Civic and Cultural, to the Residential zone for the purpose of subdivision and development.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council supports Amendment No. 160 to TPS 6 with the proposed modifications.


Costs associated with progressing the Scheme Amendment through statutory processes will be met from Council's adopted budget.


Planning and Development Act 2005

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




62

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 OF 2) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

438 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr D Goode

That Council, pursuant to Regulation 50(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, notes the submissions received in response to Amendment No. 160 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and endorses the response to those submissions, as contained in Appendix 13.2.5A.






That Council, pursuant to Regulation 50(3) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, supports Amendment No. 160 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 with modifications as contained in Appendix 13.2.5B and forwards the proposal to the Western Australian Planning Commission.





63

13.2.6 AMENDMENT NO. 162 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 - RECODING OF 99 (LOT 228) THORNLIE AVENUE, THORNLIE FROM RESIDENTIAL R20/R30 TO OFFICE


Nil.

Reference: 201729Application No: PF15/00019Applicant: Morskate Planning and Project ManagementOwner: Lisa Renae Oliver and Norina Dorathea OliverLocation: 99 (Lot 228) Thornlie Avenue, ThornlieZoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Residential R20/R30Review Rights: Initiation - none, however consent to advertise is subject to

approval by the Western Australian Planning CommissionArea: 852m2

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendices: 13.2.6A Amendment No. 162 Document

13.2.6B Draft Modified TPS 6 Amendment Map

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider initiation of an amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6), to rezone 99 (Lot 228) Thornlie Avenue, Thornlie, from Residential R20/R30 to Office.

BACKGROUND


The subject site is approximately 852m2 in area and is located on the corner of Thornlie Avenue and Tonbridge Way and is currently occupied by a building being used as an Office. The site is located opposite the Thornlie Square Shopping Centre and is included within the Thornlie District Centre under the City’s Activity Centres Planning Strategy.

A plan identifying the location of the site follows.



64

Thornlie SquareShopping Centre

LOT 228SUBJECT SITE

THORNLIEAV

TONBRIDGEW

Y

Lot 22799

Lot 1

312

314

101

Lot 224

SPENCERRD

Proposal

The proposed scheme amendment involves rezoning 99 (Lot 228) Thornlie Avenue from Residential R20/R30 to Office. A copy of the draft TPS 6 amendment, including the amendment map is contained as Appendix 13.2.6A.

DISCUSSION

Appropriateness of Office Zoning

The proposal is seeking to have the site rezoned to Office. The Scheme objective of the Office zone is as follows:

“To provide for the development of offices and associated commercial and residential uses.”

Given the subject site is currently used as an office and has been identified in the City’s Activity Centres Planning Strategy (ACPS) as forming part of the Thornlie Square District Centre, it is considered the Office zone is more appropriate than the current Residential zone.

It should be noted that neither the Office nor the Residential zones allow for retail uses to be developed and any future development of the site will require a development approval, with any future application to be assessed against Clause 11.2 of TPS 6. Clause 11.2 of TPS 6 references matters to be considered during the assessment of a development application, including the compatibility of a use within its setting, issues that affect the amenity of the locality and the relationship of the proposed development with adjoining land including the likely effect of height, bulk, scale and appearance of the proposed development. As such, any issues of land use compatibility within its setting will be considered in detail when a land use development proposal is submitted for the site. For these reasons, the Office zoning is considered an appropriate zoning for the site.



65

Impacts on Adjoining Residential Development

TPS 6 includes provisions that deal with commercial development adjoining residential zones. These provisions require screening of the commercial development with fences or walls and landscaping. Notwithstanding this, as mentioned above, any future development of the site will require a development application which will be assessed against relevant provisions of the Scheme, including Clause 11.2. As such, during the development application assessment process, consideration will be given to the compatibility of a use or development within its setting, issues that affect the amenity of the locality and the relationship of a proposed development with the adjoining land.

Inclusion of Additional Sites within the Amendment Area

The proposed amendment (as submitted by the applicant) includes only Lot 228 Thornlie Avenue, however, in terms of providing a consolidated development cell, it is considered 101 (Lot 227) Thornlie Avenue and 312 (Lot 224) Spencer Road should also be included in the amendment area.

Lots 227 and 224 are currently zoned Residential, however have previously been approved as sites for medical related land uses. These two additional lots have also been identified in the ACPS as falling within the Thornlie Square District Centre boundary. As such, it is considered the Office zone is more appropriate than the current Residential zoning and the inclusion of these additional lots within the proposed amendment would ensure a consolidated development outcome is achieved at this location, particularly given 314 (Lot 1) Spencer Road is also zoned Office.

It will therefore be recommended that Council progress a modified amendment proposal, as contained as Appendix 13.2.6B.

Amendment Type

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 were gazetted on 25 August 2015 and took effect on 19 October 2015, replacing the Town Planning Regulations 1967. The new regulations specify three different types of Scheme amendments, being basic, standard and complex. A standard amendment is identified by the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as meaning:

“(a) an amendment relating to a zone or reserve that is consistent with the objectives identified in the scheme for that zone or reserve;

(b) an amendment that is consistent with a local planning strategy for the scheme that has been endorsed by the Commission;

(c) an amendment to the scheme so that it is consistent with a region planning scheme that applies to the scheme area, other than an amendment that is a basic amendment;

(d) an amendment to the scheme map that is consistent with a structure plan, activity centre plan or local development plan that has been approved under the scheme for the land to which the amendment relates if the scheme does not currently include zones of all the types that are outlined in the plan;



66

(e) an amendment that would have minimal impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment;

(f) an amendment that does not result in any significant environmental, social, economic, or governance impacts on land in the scheme area;

(g) any other amendment that is not a complex or basic amendment.”

In considering the above parameters, the following is relevant:

The amendment is consistent with the Scheme objectives of the Office zone and the City’s ACPS.

The proposed amendment would have a minimal impact on the neighbouring properties that are not subject to the amendment, particularly given the sites subject to the amendment are currently used for office purposes.

The amendment will not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on the land in the scheme area.

Based on the above, it will be recommended that Council determines that the proposed amendment is a standard amendment.

CONCLUSION

It will be recommended that the proposed Scheme Amendment 162 be initiated, subject to modifications being made, so as to include 101 (Lot 227) Thornlie Avenue and 312 (Lot 224) Spencer Road, for the following reasons:

The rezoning of the subject land is consistent with the City’s ACPS, insofar as it is located within the Thornlie Square District Centre boundary and has been noted as already containing office uses.

The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Scheme objectives for the Office zone, particularly given the site is currently used for office purposes.

A development application will be required for any future development of the sites. This assessment process will deal with matters relating to the compatibility of a use within its setting, issues that affect the amenity of the locality and the relationship of the proposed development with adjoining land including the likely effect of height, bulk, scale and appearance of the proposed development.


All costs associated with the Scheme Amendment will be borne by the applicant.



Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




67

Notation

9.29pm Cr D Griffiths returned to the meeting.



That Council requires the applicant to modify Amendment No. 162 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 to include 101 (Lot 227) Thornlie Avenue and 312 (Lot 224) Spencer Avenue, Thornlie, as per the modified amendment map contained as Appendix 13.2.6B.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act, 2005, amends Town Planning Scheme No. 6 by rezoning 99 (Lot 228) and 101 (Lot 227) Thornlie Avenue and 312 (Lot 224) Spencer Road, Thornlie from Residential R20/R30 to Office.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council, pursuant to Section 35 (2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 determines that the proposed amendment is a standard amendment, and therefore be progressed as a standard amendment, for the following reasons:

1. The amendment is consistent with the Scheme objectives of the Office zone and the City’s Activity Centres Planning Strategy;

2. The proposed amendment would have a minimal impact on the neighbouring properties that are not subject to the amendment, particularly given the sites subject to the amendment are currently used for office purposes; and

3. The amendment will not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on the land in the scheme area.



AGAINST: Nil.



68



That Council forwards Amendment No. 162 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (as modified) to the Environmental Protection Authority for comment, pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and subject to no objection being received, advertises the amendment for public comment for a period of 42 days to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability.



AGAINST: Nil.


69

13.2.7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT (DRIVER TRAINING CENTRE) AND CARETAKER'S DWELLING - 254 (LOT 11) KELVIN ROAD, ORANGE GROVE (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with Clause 4.12 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2012 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the third report in these Minutes.


70

13.2.8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - SIGNAGE (PYLON SIGN) - 1481 (LOT 300) ALBANY HIGHWAY, BECKENHAM


Nil.

Reference: 309865Application No: DA15/00234Applicant: City SignsOwner: T E Wang Pty LtdLocation: 1481 (Lot 300) Albany Highway, BeckenhamZoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Special UseReview Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary


Previous Ref: Nil.Appendices: 13.2.8A Site and Elevation Plans

13.2.8B Previously Approved Detailed Area Plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval for a Pylon Sign at 1481 (Lot 300) Albany Highway, Beckenham as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff due to non-compliance with Local Planning Policy 4.9 - Signage and Flags.

BACKGROUND

Site Description

The subject site features an existing commercial development, comprising predominantly showroom/warehouse tenancies and is located on the corner of Albany Highway and Nicholson Road.

The property is within close proximity to the municipal boundary with the City of Canning and is surrounded by commercial and residential land uses.




71

KENWICK LINK

ALBANY HWYWILLIA

MST

HIGHBURY CRNICHOLSON

RD

C.O.G

. boundary

Cityof

Canning

1481

Proposal


A 6.2m high (overall) LED illuminated Pylon Sign located within an existing garden bed at the northern end of the subject site.

The Pylon Sign is to be setback approximately 9m from Albany Highway and approximately 16.6m from Nicholson Road.

The Pylon Sign is 2.7m wide (including its two support posts) and 0.2m deep. The individual signage panels are 2.4m wide.

A minimum ground clearance of 2.7m.

The actual signage area is approximately 7.15m2 (per side), with a further 1.15m2 (per side) to display the address of the subject site.

The site and elevation plans are contained as Appendix 13.2.8A.



72

Consultation

The proposal was not required to be advertised for public consultation.

Referrals

The application was referred to Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) for comment as the subject site abuts two Primary Regional Road Reservations (Albany Highway and a portion of Nicholson Road).

A response from MRWA was received stating that it has no objection to the proposal. Separately, MRWA will impose a number of detailed requirements on the proposed signage but this is not within the ambit of the Council's considerations.

DISCUSSION


The erection of signage is defined as development under TPS 6 and as the proposal is not exempt by Clause 9.2(f) of TPS 6, it requires planning approval.

Detailed Area Plan

A Detailed Area Plan (DAP) was approved for the subject site in 2010, which sets out the manner in which subdivision and development is to occur. The approved DAP is contained as Appendix 13.2.8B.

The DAP outlines the following criteria in regards to signage:

“(i) Advertising signs should be designed to be integrated with the building design;

(ii) Any signage content should be relevant to the businesses or premises on site;

(iii) Signs should be aesthetically pleasing as well as functional. Signage design should be in proportion and scale so as not to dominate the building façade or detract from the appearance of the development;

(iv) Advertising signs should not cause safety issues for vehicular or pedestrian traffic;

(v) Clear identification of the street number as part of any signage is encouraged;

(v) Excessive signage that causes clutter or erodes the visual quality and character of the locality will not be supported”.



73

The proposed pylon sign generally complies with the signage provisions of the DAP, with the exception that the pylon sign is a free standing structure, separate from the main building façade. Specifically, it is to be located approximately 1.8m from the corner of the building, where it presents to the Albany Highway/Nicholson Road intersection.

The purpose of the pylon sign is to provide additional signage for the subject site for identification by passing traffic. It is proposed that signage for each tenancy will be consolidated onto the single pylon sign structure. Currently, three of the units are not tenanted and therefore details to be included on the three blank signage panels are unknown.

It is considered that the design of the structure itself is of a subdued nature, with its dimensions being proportionate to the existing building. The signage will not become a dominating landmark on the property and it will assist in the identification of the subject site, due to the inclusion of the street address at the top of the signage structure.

In consideration of the above, it is considered that the proposed variation to the DAP is acceptable.

Local Planning Policy 4.9 - Signage and Flags

The proposal complies with all relevant provisions of LPP 4.9, with the exception of the maximum signage area, as detailed in the following table.

Signage LPP 4.9 Pylon Sign Standards AssessmentMaximum signage area of 4m2 (subject to variation - see below)

Pylon Sign

No maximum, however, where more than one pylon sign is proposed to be erected on a lot, Council may require the pylon signs to be incorporated into one sign, in which case, the maximum signage area may be increased to 6m2.

The Pylon Sign structure has a proposed signage area of 7.15m2 (per side), with a further 1.15m2 (per side) to display the address of the subject site.

As detailed above, the proposed Pylon Sign does not comply with the Policy, with respect to the total signage area.

In considering the variation to the Policy, the following is relevant:

The proposed Pylon Sign structure is setback 9.1m from the nearest boundary (to Albany Highway).

The purpose of the Pylon Sign is to increase exposure of the businesses to passing vehicle traffic as well as assist the identification of the site. The sign structure is located at the intersection of Albany Highway and Nicholson Road to achieve maximum exposure. It is noted that these transport corridors are both multiple lane carriageways in either direction and therefore the size of signage is typically greater than that which would otherwise occur on a less significant road.

Despite the size of the signage area proposed, the structure otherwise complies with the Policy in all other regards.



74

It is considered that consolidating individual tenancy signage onto a single structure minimises potential over-proliferation of signage on the subject site.

The proposed height of the sign does not project above the roof line of the building, nor does it visually dominate the appearance of the building. Therefore, the proposed signage is not expected to impact the character and amenity of the site, nor surrounding properties, in terms of visual impacts.

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the character and amenity of similar developed commercial areas.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the commercial amenity of the local area and is therefore deemed to be generally acceptable. It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved.


Nil.



Local Planning Policy 4.9 - Signage and Flags

Detailed Area Plan.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




That Council approves the application for a Pylon Sign at 1481 (Lot 300) Albany Highway, Beckenham, dated 25 June 2015 and the amended site plan received 27 July 2015.



AGAINST: Nil.

13.3 INFRASTRUCTURE

Nil.


75

13.4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

13.4.1 HISTORY AND HERITAGE ADVISORY GROUP MEETING - 1 OCTOBER 2015

Author: A CochranAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.4.1A Minutes of the History and Heritage Advisory Group

Meeting held on Thursday 1 October 2015

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to receive the Minutes of the City of Gosnells History and Heritage Advisory Group (the Group) Meeting held on 1 October 2015 and to consider staff recommendations in relation to the Group's proposed action.

BACKGROUND

In accordance with Policy 3.3.5 - City of Gosnells History and Heritage Advisory Group - Terms of Reference, the Group meets every two months to provide a community perspective on aspects of history and heritage within the care and control of the City of Gosnells. The Minutes of the meeting of the Group held on 1 October 2015 are attached as Appendix 13.4.1A.

DISCUSSION

There was one Proposed Action from the Group meeting held on 1 October 2015 which requires Council's consideration. This is Proposed Action 6 which reads:

PROPOSED ACTION 6: That the City of Gosnells History and Heritage Advisory Group recommends to Council that Mrs Patricia Morris AM JP Freeman of the City be elected as the incoming Presiding Member of the Advisory Group for the next two years.

The process of appointment of the Presiding Member and the Deputy Presiding Member to an Advisory Group is undertaken in accordance with Council Policy 5.4.43 Advisory Groups – Establishment and Operation - Clause 2.2 (e). This clause states:

The Presiding Person and Deputy Presiding Person are to be appointed by Council resolution.

The appointment of these two positions occurs on a biennial basis after the Local Government Elections and is the subject of Item 13.6.1 on this agenda.


Nil.



76


City of Gosnells Policy No. 5.4.43 - Advisory Groups - Establishment and Operation

City of Gosnells Policy No. 3.3.5 - City of Gosnells History and Heritage Advisory Group Terms of Reference

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




That Council receives the Minutes of the City of Gosnells History and Heritage Advisory Group Meeting held on Thursday 1 October 2015 attached as Appendix 13.4.1A.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council notes the Proposed Action 6 of the City of Gosnells History and Heritage Advisory Group Meeting held on Thursday 1 October 2015 attached as Appendix 13.4.1A which reads:

That the City of Gosnells History and Heritage Advisory Group recommends to Council that Mrs Patricia Morris AM JP Freeman of the City be elected as the incoming Presiding Member of the Advisory Group for the next two years.

and also notes that the appointment of the Presiding Member and Deputy Presiding Member be addressed as part of Item 13.6.1 of this Agenda.



AGAINST: Nil.


77

13.5 CORPORATE SERVICES

13.5.1 BUDGET VARIATIONSAuthor: R BouwerAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek approval from Council to adjust the 2015/16 Municipal Budget.

BACKGROUND

Nil.

DISCUSSION

In accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 a local government is not to incur expenditure from its municipal fund for an additional purpose except where the expenditure:

Is incurred in a financial year before the adoption of the annual budget by the local government

Is authorised in advance by Council resolution

Is authorised in advance by the Mayor or President in an emergency.Approval is therefore sought for the following budget adjustments for the reasons specified.


Account Number Type Account Description Debit$

Credit$

JL32-95303-3762-000 Increase Expenditure

Cost Sharing Arrangements - POS, ODP, TPS - Other Expenditure

638,240

JL10-85097-3800-000 Increase Expenditure

Prosperity Drive (Lot 200 Phillip Street, Maddington) Footpath - Capital Purchases

31,730

JL32-95303-2323-000 Increase Income

Cost Sharing Arrangements - POS, ODP, TPS - Central Maddington ODP Precinct 2 - Transfer from Reserve Operating

638,240

JL10-85097-2521-000 Increase Income

Prosperity Drive (Lot 200 Phillip Street, Maddington) Footpath - Central Maddington ODP Precinct 2 - Transfer from Reserve Capital

31,730



78

Account Number Type Account Description Debit$

Credit$

REASON:A reimbursement to the developer for the surrender of road land and costs associated with construction of a dual use path as provided for under the Central Maddington Outline Development Plan, Developers Contribution Plan Report. Reimbursements will offset some of the developer's contribution liability.


Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority required.


447 Moved Cr D Goode Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council approves the following adjustments to the 2015/16 Municipal Budget:

Account Number Account Description Debit$

Credit$

JL32-95303-3762-000 Cost Sharing Arrangements - POS, ODP, TPS - Other Expenditure

638,240

JL10-85097-3800-000 Prosperity Drive (Lot 200 Phillip Street, Maddington) Footpath - Capital Purchases

31,730

JL32-95303-2323-000 Cost Sharing Arrangements - POS, ODP, TPS - Central Maddington ODP Precinct 2 - Transfer from Reserve Operating

638,240

JL10-85097-2521-000 Prosperity Drive (Lot 200 Phillip Street, Maddington) Footpath - Central Maddington ODP Precinct 2 - Transfer from Reserve Capital

31,730

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 12/0FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr D Goode, Cr D Griffiths, Cr P Griffiths, Cr T Healy,


AGAINST: Nil.


79

13.6 GOVERNANCE

13.6.1 HISTORY AND HERITAGE ADVISORY GROUP - ENDORSEMENT OF MEMBERSHIP AND APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING MEMBER AND DEPUTY PRESIDING MEMBER

Author: A CochranAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: OCM 24 September 2013 (Resolution 415)SCM 19 October 2015 (Resolution 398)

Appendix: 13.6.1A Summary of History and Heritage Advisory Group Nominations 2015

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to appoint members to the History and Heritage Advisory Group and appoint a Presiding Member and Deputy Presiding Member.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 24 September 2013, Council adopted amendments to the History and Heritage Advisory Group - Terms of Reference which implements a membership structure as follows:

Up to six community members

Up to three organisational representatives

Up to two Councillors and one Councillor as a deputy.

At the Special Council Meeting held on 19 October 2015 Council appointed Councillors O Searle and J Brown as members of the History and Heritage Advisory Group. Councillor D Goode was appointed as the deputy member.

DISCUSSION

Council Policy 5.4.43 Advisory Groups - Establishment and Operations establishes the City's approach for attracting nominations for membership. Accordingly, in seeking nominations for the History and Heritage Advisory Group, the City has:

1. Advertised in the Comment News newspaper on 1 September 2015 seeking nominations from interested persons.

2. Advertised on the City’s website from 1 September 2015, seeking nominations from interested persons.

3. Written to each organisation listed below seeking their nomination of a representative:

Heritage Council of WA

National Trust (WA Branch)



80

Museums Australia (WA Branch)

Royal Western Australian Historical Society4. Written to each existing member of the History and Heritage Advisory Group

inviting them to renominate for a position on the Group.

The nomination period closed on 25 September 2015. Only the Royal Western Australian Historical Society nominated a representative for an organisational representative position. This nominee is recommended for appointment to hold one of the organisation representative positions on the History and Heritage Advisory Group:

Dr Fiona Bush, Royal Western Australian Historical Society (Inc.)

More detailed information on Dr Bush is contained in Appendix 13.6.1A.

By the close of the nomination period the following nominations for community representative positions had been received:

Mr Douglas Corker

Ms Patricia Dagg

Dr Gilbert McDonald

Mrs Patricia Morris AM JP

Mrs Elizabeth SansomA summary of the nominations is contained in Appendix 13.6.1A.

All nominees for community representative positions are considered to have the knowledge and experience required to make a worthwhile contribution to the work of the History and Heritage Advisory Group. It is therefore recommended that all nominees be appointed as members of the Group.

In accordance with Council Policy 5.4.43, Council is required to appoint a member to be the Presiding Member and Deputy Presiding Member of the History and Heritage Advisory Group.

As reported in Council Agenda Item 13.4.1 titled "History and Heritage Advisory Group Meeting - 1 October 2015", at the History and Heritage Advisory Group Meeting held on 1 October 2015 the Group proposed the following action:

PROPOSED ACTION 6: That the City of Gosnells History and Heritage Advisory Group recommends to Council that Mrs Patricia Morris AM JP Freeman of the City be elected as the incoming Presiding Member of the Advisory Group for the next two years.


Nil.



81


There are no relevant statutory obligations for appointments to Advisory Groups, however Council Policy 5.4.43 Advisory Groups - Establishment and Operations and Council Policy 3.3.5 History and Heritage Advisory Group - Terms of Reference are relevant.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



448 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr L Storer

That Council appoints Dr Fiona Bush of the Royal Western Australian Historical Society (Inc.) as an organisational representative member of the City of Gosnells History and Heritage Advisory Group.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council appoints the following persons as community representative members of the City of Gosnells History and Heritage Advisory Group:

1. Mr Douglas Corker2. Ms Patricia Dagg3. Dr Gilbert McDonald4. Mrs Patricia Morris AM JP5. Mrs Elizabeth Sansom



AGAINST: Nil.



82



That Council, in accordance with Policy 3.3.5 History and Heritage Advisory Group - Terms of Reference, appoints Mrs Pat Morris AM JP as Presiding Member and Cr O Searle as Deputy Presiding Member of the History and Heritage Advisory Group.



AGAINST: Nil.


83

13.6.2 CITY OF GOSNELLS PERFORMING ARTS ADVISORY GROUP - ENDORSEMENT OF MEMBERSHIP AND APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING MEMBER AND DEPUTY PRESIDING MEMBER

Author: P QuigleyAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: OCM 22 September 2015 (Resolution 372)SCM 19 October 2015 (Resolution 398)

Appendix: 13.6.2A City of Gosnells Performing Arts Advisory Group – Summary of Nominations

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider nominations received for appointment to the Performing Arts Advisory Group.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 22 September 2015 Council adopted amendments to the Performing Arts Advisory Group - Terms of Reference which implements a membership structure of up to nine representatives from organisations relevant to, and which have an interest in, performing arts within the City. Membership of the Group may be drawn from the following:

General community members

The Forest Lakes Shopping Centre Precinct

The Don Club (Friends of DRPAC)

The Performing Arts Industry

The Education Sector

The City’s Youth Advisory Council or youth representative

The New City Theatre GroupCouncil Policy 3.1.14 – Performing Arts Advisory Group – Terms of Reference provides that up to three Councillors may be appointed to this Group. At the Special Council Meeting held on 19 October 2015 Council appointed Councillors J Brown, L Storer and T Lynes to the Performing Arts Advisory Group. Councillor G Dewhurst was appointed as the deputy member.

DISCUSSION

Council Policy 5.4.43 Advisory Groups - Establishment and Operations establishes the City's approach for attracting nominations for membership or Advisory Groups. Accordingly, in seeking nominations for the Performing Arts Advisory Group the City has:

1. Advertised in the Comment News newspaper on 1 September 2015 seeking nominations from interested persons.

2. Advertised on the City’s website from 1 September 2015, seeking nominations from interested persons.



84

3. Written to each existing member of the Performing Arts Advisory Group inviting them to renominate for a position on the Advisory Group.

4. Targeted the various industry sectors to invite nominations.

At the close of the nomination period on 25 September 2015, the following nominations for community representatives were received:

Mr Patrick Cheow

Mrs Cynthia Keith

Mrs Patricia Morris AM JP.

A summary of these nominations is contained in Appendix 13.6.2A.

No nominations for industry representatives were received, despite the City actively engaging with the various sectors.

The Performing Arts Advisory Group is designed to comprise a mix of performing arts industry, business and community representatives. This broad representation from various groups on the membership has shown to be of value in an advisory capacity since the group’s establishment by Council in 2012. Unfortunately nominations have not been received from the performing arts industry and business to enable the Advisory Group to have the desired diversity and background. As such it will be recommended that Council does not appoint members to the Advisory Group at this time and that staff seek alternative forums should strategic advice be required to assist with performing arts initiatives in the future.


Nil.


There are no relevant statutory obligations for appointments to Advisory Groups, however, Council Policy 5.4.43 Advisory Groups - Establishment and Operations and Council Policy 3.1.14 City of Gosnells Performing Arts Advisory Group - Terms of Reference are relevant.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




85


451 Moved Cr L Storer Seconded Cr P Yang

That Council in accordance with Council Policy 3.1.14 City of Gosnells Performing Arts Advisory Group - Terms of Reference not appoint members to the City of Gosnells Performing Arts Advisory Group and that the nominees be acknowledged for their previous involvement with the Group.



AGAINST: Nil.


452 Moved Cr L Storer Seconded Cr P Griffiths

That Council notes that staff will investigate alternative forums should strategic advice be required to assist with performing arts initiatives in the future.



AGAINST: Nil.


86

13.6.3 CITY OF GOSNELLS ROADWISE ADVISORY GROUP - ENDORSEMENT OF MEMBERSHIP AND APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING MEMBER AND DEPUTY PRESIDING MEMBER

Author: P BalleyAuthor’s Declaration of Interest: Nil.

Previous Ref: SCM 19 October 2015 (Resolution 393)

Appendix: 13.6.3A City of Gosnells RoadWise Advisory Group - Summary of Nominations

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek Council endorsement of membership to, and appointment of a Presiding Member and Deputy Presiding Member, for the Gosnells RoadWise Advisory Group.

BACKGROUND

Council Policy 2.4.19 City of Gosnells RoadWise Advisory Group – Terms of Reference provides the following guidance for the appointment of members.

The membership of the RoadWise Advisory Group shall generally comprise the following:

Up to four Councillors as delegates (plus a deputy delegate)

One RoadWise Representative from the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA)

Up to six representatives of organisations such as:o WA Police

o Main Roads WA

o Service Clubs

o Youth Advisory Committee

o Emergency Services

o Education Department

o Associations (Road User or Road Safety Group Representative)

Up to four representatives of the City of Gosnells Community.At the Special Council Meeting held on 19 October 2015 Council appointed Councillors Terry Healey, Liz Storer and Bill Wiffen to the RoadWise Advisory Group. Councillor Olwen Searle was appointed as deputy member.

Council Policy 5.4.43 Advisory Groups – Establishment and Operations establishes the City’s approach for attracting nominations for membership. Accordingly, the City undertook the following advertising strategies during September 2015 to invite nominations for membership of the RoadWise Advisory Group:

Local newspaper advertising

Website advertising



87

Phone and email communication with existing members.By the closing of the nomination period, the following nominations were received:

Community Representative Positions1. Mrs Sandra Baraiolo2. Mr Alan Gill3. Mr Daniel Newman4. Mr John Rostom

Organisational Representatives1. WALGA - Engel Prendergast2. WA Police (To be advised)3. Royal Automobile Club (RAC) (Declined invitation to join)4. Associations (Road User or Road Safety Group representative) -

Motorcycle Riders Association of Western Australia Inc. (Declined invitation to join)

5. Main Roads WA (Declined invitation to nominate)6. Emergency Services (No nomination received)7. Education Department (No nomination received)8. Service Clubs (No nominations received)9. Injury Control Council (Declined invitation to nominate).

A summary of nominations received is attached as Appendix 13.6.3A.

DISCUSSION

Officers have assessed that all applicants have a suitable level of experience, knowledge, skills and engagement with road safety improvement and raising and implementing community awareness of road safety issues and initiatives.

Each nominee for the community representative positions are considered to possess the knowledge and experience required to make a worthwhile contribution to the RoadWise Advisory Group. As such, it is recommended that all four nominees be appointed to the Group.

Of the organisations invited to nominate a representative for the RoadWise Advisory Group, only WALGA and WA Police accepted the invitation. WALGA has nominated Engel Prendergast and WA Police has advised that it wishes to be represented on RoadWise and will confirm who will attend meetings in due course. It is recommended that representatives from WALGA and WA Police be appointed to the RoadWise Advisory Group.

In accordance with Council Policy 5.4.43 - Advisory Groups - Establishment and Operations, Council is also required to appoint a Presiding Member and Deputy Presiding Member for the RoadWise Advisory Group.



88


Nil.


Policy 2.4.19 - Terms of Reference - Gosnells RoadWise Advisory Group

Policy 5.4.43 - Advisory Groups – Establishment and Operations’

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




That Council appoints the following community representatives to the City of Gosnells RoadWise Advisory Group:

1. Mrs Sandra Baraiolo 2. Mr Alan Gill3. Mr Daniel Newman4. Mr John Rostom



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council appoints representatives of the following organisations as members of the City of Gosnells RoadWise Advisory Group:

1. WALGA (Engel Prendergast)2. WA Police (To be advised).



AGAINST: Nil.



89



That Council appoints Cr B Wiffen as the Presiding Member of the City of Gosnells RoadWise Advisory Group.



AGAINST: Nil.


90

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

15. URGENT BUSINESS(by permission of Council)

Nil.

16. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

17. CLOSURE

The Mayor declared the meeting closed at 9.36pm.

Documents

Ordinary Council Meeting Standard · Members the digital recording will be available in the following formats, for purchase at a fee adopted by Council annually: Digital recordings