Ordinary Council Meeting Standard · trees from Barents Road, Canning Vale and 9 healthy trees were removed. In February 2016, this will be Towncentre Drives third petition requesting

i

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING27 SEPTEMBER 2016

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......................................35. REPORTS OF DELEGATES.............................................................................36. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE RECEIVING OF

PUBLIC STATEMENTS.....................................................................................36.1 QUESTION TIME...................................................................................46.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS.........................................................................5

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES........................................................................68. RECEIVING OF PETITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS.....................................69. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ...................................................610. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN............................611. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE

IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY ...............................................................................713.2.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - USE NOT LISTED

(COMMUNITY HALL) - 16 (LOT 4) LOWER PARK ROAD, MADDINGTON ............................................................8

13.2.3 AMENDMENT NO. 165 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 AND DRAFT STRUCTURE PLAN - MADDINGTON KENWICK STRATEGIC EMPLOYMENT AREA PRECINCT 3A ..................................16

13.3.3 PETITION REQUESTING THE REVOCATION OF RESOLUTIONS 119 AND 120 - LONDON PLANE TREES, TOWNCENTRE DRIVE, THORNLIE .......................45

12. REPORTS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS.......................................................4813. REPORTS .......................................................................................................49

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE...............................................................4913.1.1 ILLEGAL DUMPING AT BUILDING SITES............................49

13.2 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY ....................................................5013.2.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - USE NOT LISTED

(COMMUNITY HALL) - 16 (LOT 4) LOWER PARK ROAD, MADDINGTON (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11) ...........................................................50

City of GosnellsOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes 27 September 2016

Item Report Title Page No.

ii

13.2.2 DRAFT STRUCTURE PLAN - 303 (LOT 1) CORFIELD STREET, GOSNELLS............................................................51

13.2.3 AMENDMENT NO. 165 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 AND DRAFT STRUCTURE PLAN - MADDINGTON KENWICK STRATEGIC EMPLOYMENT AREA PRECINCT 3A (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11) ....................65

13.3 INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................6613.3.1 COMMUNITY SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITY

FUND ANNUAL GRANTS ROUND SEPTEMBER 2016 .......6613.3.2 PROPOSED LEASE TO THE HUNTINGDALE

JUNIOR FOOTBALL CLUB INC. OF THE MEETING ROOM AND TWO STORE ROOMS LOCATED WITHIN SUTHERLANDS PARK F PAVILION ON SUTHERLANDS PARK, LOT 1596 GAY ST, HUNTINGDALE .....................................................................72

13.3.3 PETITION REQUESTING THE REVOCATION OF RESOLUTIONS 119 AND 120 - LONDON PLANE TREES, TOWNCENTRE DRIVE, THORNLIE (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11) ....................74

13.3.4 GOSNELLS ROADWISE ADVISORY GROUP MEETING - 7 SEPTEMBER 2016 .........................................75

13.4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ............................................................7613.5 CORPORATE SERVICES ...................................................................77

13.5.1 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - AUGUST 2016 .......................................................................................77

13.5.2 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - AUGUST 2016 .......................7913.5.3 BUDGET VARIATIONS .........................................................8013.5.4 TENDER 01/2016 - ASSET MANAGEMENT

SOFTWARE...........................................................................8313.6 GOVERNANCE....................................................................................84

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ...................8415. URGENT BUSINESS ......................................................................................8416. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS ............................................................................85

16.1 COMMUNITY SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF SPONSORSHIP REQUESTS FOR AUGUST 2016 SPONSORSHIP ROUND.......................................................85

17. CLOSURE .......................................................................................................90


1

Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held in the City of Gosnells Civic Centre Council Chambers, 2120 Albany Highway, Gosnells on Tuesday 27 September 2016.

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 D GOODE JPCR D GRIFFITHSCR T HEALYCR T LYNESCR L STORERCR B WIFFEN JPCR P YANG

STAFF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR I COWIEACTING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MR P QUIGLEYDIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES MR R BOUWERDIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE MR D HARRISDIRECTOR PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY MR C TERELINCKDIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MR G BRADBROOKMINUTE CLERK MS S MACGROTTY

PUBLIC GALLERY 29

2.1 APOLOGIES

Cr G DewhurstCr P GriffithsCr R Mitchell

2.2 LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil.

3. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Cr D Griffiths declared an Impartiality Interest in Item 16.1, "Community Sponsorship Program - Consideration and Approval of Sponsorship Requests for August 2016 Sponsorship Round".Reason: Member of the Gosnells Men’s Shed.

Cr D Goode declared an Impartiality Interest in Item 16.1, "Community Sponsorship Program - Consideration and Approval of Sponsorship Requests for August 2016 Sponsorship Round".Reason: Member of the Gosnells Men’s Shed.

Cr P Yang declared Impartiality Interests in Item 16.1, "Community Sponsorship Program - Consideration and Approval of Sponsorship Requests for August 2016 Sponsorship Round".Reason: Member of the Gosnells Men’s Shed and the Gosnells Hawks Baseball Club.


3

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER(without discussion)

Nil.

5. REPORTS OF DELEGATES(without discussion)

Cr P Yang expressed his thanks to the staff for resolving the traffic issues at Spencer Road and Langford Avenue by installing traffic lights at this intersection.

Cr B Wiffen expressed his thanks and congratulated all the staff involved in the coordination of the recent ‘Queen’s Birthday Dinner Event’ at Addie Mills.

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.


4

6.1 QUESTION TIME

Question Time for the Public commenced at 7.34pm.

Ms Kathy Evans of 28A Woodloes Street, Cannington asked the following question:

Q1 The EPA assessment of the site included in the structure plan requires that “Future development will need to adequately retain, manage and protect key environmental values”. This is not possible with the current structure plan, which contains significant omissions, for example the statement on page 45: “No natural surface water features occur within this site” and “Yule Brook is located approximately 150m south east of the site, however will not directly impact upon development within the site.”.

A winter creek runs right through the site into Yule Brook and the proposed removal of this creek will impact on the Yule Brook with knock on impacts for the Greater Brixton Street Wetlands, one of the most floristically diverse sites in Western Australia. There are similar omissions with relation to black cockatoo roosting and feeding sites.

Is it possible for the Council to place conditions such that the EPA’s requirements can be met?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that the structure plan covers a broad level of detail and the specifics as mentioned in the question by Ms Evan, are matters that are known by the City and are covered in the detailed environmental assessment works that have been commenced.

In the case of additional detailed applications, there will be management measures in place to protect those specific aspects on the relevant sites.

Ms Beverley Rea of 70B Towncentre Drive, Thornlie asked the following question:

Q1 In October 2015, Council voted to remove 11 plane trees from Barents Road, Canning Vale and 9 healthy trees were removed. In February 2016, this will be Towncentre Drives third petition requesting the removal of the ‘London Plane Trees’ and the replacement of native trees.

Why are the residents of Towncentre Drive being treated differently?


5

Response: The Director Infrastructure advised that the Councillors were aware of the situation on Barents Road and every request for the removal of trees is presented to the Council. The City receives hundreds of requests for the removal of trees every year, however in accordance with Council policy ‘Removal of Trees’, the removal of any trees by the Council is considered a last resort.

Barents Road has a 15m wide road reserve, whereas Towncentre Drive has a 20m wide road reserve, therefore Towncentre Drive has far more space to accommodate the trees. The decision to remove the trees from Barents Road is something the Council rarely does.

Question Time for the Public concluded at 7.40pm.

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS

Public Statement Time commenced at 7.40pm.

6.2.1 Mr David Jawadi of 25 Aroona Way, Maddington made a statement in relation to Item 13.2.1 "Development Application - Use Not Listed (Community Hall) - 16 (Lot 4) Lower Park Road, Maddington":

Mr Jawadi expressed his thanks to the Council and requested that the Council support the staff recommendation as contained within the agenda.

6.2.2 Mrs Beverley Rea of 70B Towncentre Drive, Thornlie made a statement in relation to Item 13.3.3 "Petition Requesting the Revocation of Resolutions 119 and 120 - London Plane Trees, Towncentre Drive, Thornlie":

Mrs Rea advised that studies conducted by world health organisations have confirmed that London Plane Trees cause health issues and allergic reactions.

Public Statement Time concluded at 7.45pm.


6

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

325 Moved Cr B Wiffen Seconded Cr P Yang

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 13 September 2016, as published and distributed be confirmed as an accurate record.

CARRIED 9/0FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr D Goode, Cr D Griffiths, Cr T Healy, Cr T Lynes, Cr L Storer, Cr B Wiffen,

Cr P Yang and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Nil.

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.

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”.

Nil.

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

Nil.


7

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

326 Moved Cr T Lynes Seconded Cr L Storer

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 - Use Not Listed (Community Hall) - 16 (Lot 4) Lower Park Road, Maddington;

Item 13.2.3 Amendment No. 165 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and Draft Structure Plan - Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area Precinct 3A;

Item 13.3.3 Petition Requesting the Revocation of Resolutions 119 and 120 - London Plane Trees, Towncentre Drive, Thornlie.



AGAINST: Nil.


8

13.2.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - USE NOT LISTED (COMMUNITY HALL) - 16 (LOT 4) LOWER PARK ROAD, MADDINGTON

Director: C TerelinckAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Property Number: 217067Application No: DA16/00202Applicant: Kelvin Oliver Planning ConsultantOwner: A Ghaseml, Z Mirzale, K M ShahidzadaLocation: 16 (Lot 4) Lower Park Road, MaddingtonZoning: MRS: Industrial

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

decision of Council.Area: 5,819m²Previous Ref: Nil.Appendices: 13.2.1A Site, Floor and Elevation Plans

13.2.1B Timetable Matrix13.2.1C Schedule of Submissions

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for retrospective planning approval for a Use Not Listed (Community Hall) at 16 (Lot 4) Lower Park Road, Maddington as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff due to objections received during the consultation period.

BACKGROUND

Site Description and Planning Framework

The subject site is located on the corner of Alloa Street and Lower Park Road with access from both streets. The site accommodates an existing industrial building. Surrounding land uses comprise of industrial development, local open space and medium density residential.

A map identifying the location of the subject site follows.


Item 13.2.1 Continued

9

LOT 4SUBJECT

SITE

LOWERPARK

RD

ALLOA

ST

DAVISON

ST

14

Proposal

The application involves the following:

Modification to an existing building, including changes to internal walls and the construction of a new façade.

The provision of 100 car parking bays and vehicle access from both Alloa Street and Lower Park Road.

The use of the site for community and social activities, including:

- Educational purposes, such as language classes, workshops and orientation sessions for new migrants/refugees

- Cultural and sporting activities and fundraising.



10

Hours of operation as follows:

Monday 3pm to 8pmTuesday to Friday 4pm to 8pmSaturday and Sunday 10am to 9pm

The proposed use will accommodate up to 200 people. It is expected that Sundays will be the peak operation time.

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

Consultation

The proposal was required to be advertised for public comment in accordance with Clause 4.4.2(b) of TPS 6. The consultation was for a period of 14 days, being from 5 August 2016 to 22 August 2016. Letters were sent to the owners of 82 properties within the consultation area and, in addition, 85 occupiers of properties were also invited to comment.

In response, 10 submissions were received, two objecting to the proposal and eight raising no-objection. It should be noted that two submitters each represent three properties. A summary of these submissions and comments thereon are provided in Appendix 13.2.1C.

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



11

R eferral area

N o objec tion

C omment

Objec tions

Public C onsultationLegend

IN D ICATIVE200m RADIUS

R EF ER RAL AREA

N O OB JECTION

C OMMENT

OB JECTIONS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONLEGEND

INDICATIVE200m RADIUS

KELVIN

RD

DAVISONST

LOWERPARK

RD

16

6

15

32

17

14

ALLOAST

REFERRAL AREA

NO OBJECTION COMMENT

OBJECTIONS



2/12

8/11

34/12

3/155/15

2/15

The main issues raised in the submissions are as follows:

The compatibility of the proposed development within an industrial zoned area.

The potential of the use to increase traffic in the area.

Each is discussed in the following sections, along with any other applicable technical matters.



12

DISCUSSION

Town Planning Scheme No. 6

Land Use Permissibility and Compatibility

As advised by the applicants, the subject proposal is for activities of an educational, community and social nature. Whilst the proposal could be considered to contain elements of 'Educational Establishment', 'Community Purpose' or 'Reception Centre', overall the proposal is considered to be a land use that is not identified under TPS 6.

Clause 4.4.2 of TPS 6, states:

"If a person proposes to carry out on land any use that is not specifically mentioned in the Zoning Table and cannot reasonably be determined as falling within the type, class or genus of activity of any other use category the local government may:

(a) determine that the use is consistent with the objectives of the particular zone and is therefore permitted;

(b) determine that the use may be consistent with the objectives of the particular zone and thereafter follow the advertising procedures of clause 10.4 in considering an application for planning approval; or

(c) determine that the use is not consistent with the objectives".

The objective of the General Industry zone, as defined by TPS 6 is:

“To provide for manufacturing industry, the storage and distribution of goods and associated uses, which by the nature of their operations should be separate from residential areas.”

TPS 6 allows for a range of permissible uses to be considered on merit within the General Industry zone. These include land uses which are not industrial in nature, such as 'Rural Pursuit', 'Showroom', 'Civic Use', 'Consulting Rooms' and 'Community Purpose'.

Therefore, 'Consistent' in the context of the defined objectives for the zone does not necessarily mean that a land use be of industrial nature. Rather it relates to whether a given land use is compatible with and not prejudicial to industrial objectives. In this context it is to be noted that the proposed hours of operation on weekdays are from mid-afternoon to early evening and that peak attendance and use will be on weekends. The proposal therefore will operate generally outside of standard industrial operating hours.

It should be noted that the site is opposite Public Open Space and in close proximity to a site formerly used for community purpose type activity (that of Police Citizens Youth Clubs (PCYC)).



13

Based on the above, the proposed use is not considered to be prejudicial to existing industrial uses, with most of its activities occurring outside of standard operating times for industrial uses. The proposed use is therefore seen as being consistent with the objectives of the zone.

Car Parking

An assessment of the proposal against TPS 6 car parking standards follows.

Appendix 13.2.1B provides a summary of the variety of uses proposed and the likely level of occupancy.

It should be noted that as the use is not listed a common assessment has been applied, which is akin to the standards often applied to uses with a significant community character.

Use Class TPS 6 Car Parking Standards

TPS 6 Car Parking Requirements

Car Parking Bays Provided

Various 1 space for every 4 seats The building provides for a maximum of 400 seats, therefore 100 bays are required.

The application proposes 100 car parking bays to service the proposed development.

It is to be noted that the applicants have advised peak attendance numbers of 200 persons. This would reduce the theoretical parking demand to 50 bays. Should Council consider approving the application, it will be recommended that a condition be imposed limiting the attendance to 200 persons, which is a conservative limit, and is one that can easily be accommodated by the upgraded parking area. As demonstrated above, the proposed development aligns with usual parking requirements of TPS 6.

Traffic

Both Alloa Street and Lower Park Road are classified as Local Access Roads under Council's adopted Road Hierarchy. Such roads provide for a maximum desirable volume of 3,000 vehicles per day (vpd). The current average weekday traffic volume for Alloa Street is 1,873 (North and South bound vehicle movements combined). The proposed development is anticipated to generate, a maximum of 50 vehicle movements per weekday and a maximum of 100 on weekends.

The anticipated increase in traffic is within the design capacity of the road. Therefore, use of the site is not expected to generate significant impacts on the amenity of the area.

As such, the proposal is not considered to significantly increase vehicular traffic within the area.



14

CONCLUSION

The proposed Community Hall is considered an appropriate land use in the General Industry zone for the following reasons:

The site contains sufficient parking to accommodate the proposal and it is not expected to generate traffic outside the capacity of the existing road network.

The development is not expected to adversely affect the amenity or current operations of the area.

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS

Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority required.


327 Moved Cr T Healy Seconded Cr J Brown

That Council approves the application for a Use Not Listed (Community Hall) at 16 (Lot 4) Lower Park Road, Maddington, dated 8 July 2016 subject to the following conditions:

Condition to be satisfied prior to the commencement of development:

1. 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 commencement of development.

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

2. 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.



15

3. Landscaping and irrigation of the development site and adjoining road verge 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.

Condition to be satisfied for the life of the development:

4. A maximum of 200 people shall be permitted on site at one time.CARRIED 9/0

FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr D Goode, Cr D Griffiths, Cr T Healy, Cr T Lynes, Cr L Storer, Cr B Wiffen, Cr P Yang and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Nil.


16

13.2.3 AMENDMENT NO. 165 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 AND DRAFT STRUCTURE PLAN - MADDINGTON KENWICK STRATEGIC EMPLOYMENT AREA PRECINCT 3A


Nil.

Property Number: Various.Application No: PF16/00001, PF16/00016Applicant: Taylor Burrell Barnett Town Planning & DesignOwner: VariousLocation: Land bound by Coldwell Road, Grove Road, Lot 2008 Grove

Road, Roe Highway and the Shire of Kalamunda district boundary.

Zoning: MRS: RuralTPS No. 6: General Rural

Review Rights: Scheme Amendment - Nil, however, final determination is with the Minister for Planning.Structure Plan - Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against a decision by the Western Australian Planning Commission to not approve structure plan.

Area: 89.3ha (Amendment 165 area)72.61ha (Structure Plan area)

Previous Ref: OCM 26 April 2016 (Resolutions 122-123)OCM 8 March 2016 (Resolutions 62-68)

Appendices: 13.2.3A Indicative District Structure Plan13.2.3B MRS Amendments 1300/57, 1301/57, 1302/5713.2.3C Plan of Amendment No. 16513.2.3D Draft MKSEA Precinct 3A Structure Plan13.2.3E Schedule of Submissions13.2.3F Welshpool Road Intersection Scenarios13.2.3G Environmental Assets Mapping13.2.3H LWMS Concept13.2.3I Environmental Protection Authority Advice13.2.3J Bushfire Hazard Mapping13.2.3K Indicative Layout for Lot 2008 Grove Road

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider:

The finalisation of Amendment No. 165 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) to rezone land contained generally within Precinct 3A of the Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area (MKSEA) from General Rural to General Industry, and designating the area as a Special Control Area (SCA).

A draft Structure Plan (SP) for a portion of Precinct 3A of the MKSEA.



17

BACKGROUND

Planning Context

The MKSEA is bound by Bickley Road, Tonkin Highway, the boundary with the Shire of Kalamunda and Roe Highway. The area was first identified in 1990 for future industrial development by the (then) State Planning Commission (now the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC)). It should be noted that adjacent land south of Welshpool Road East, in the Shire of Kalamunda, was also included in these plans. Council previously considered the future strategic industrial expansion of the Maddington-Kenwick rural area and divided it into four planning precinct areas. The subject proposals are contained generally within Precinct 3A of the MKSEA.

A plan identifying the Precinct 3A area and its location within the MKSEA follows.

SHIREOF

KALAMUNDA



18

To provide a planning framework for the development of MKSEA, Council adopted Local Planning Policy 5.8 - MKSEA Planning Framework (LPP 5.8) in 2014, which identified the planning tasks and information requirements for progressing the planning of the area in order to ultimately undertake subdivision and development.

The first phase identified in LPP 5.8 is obtaining State Government approval to rezone land in MKSEA from Rural to Industrial under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). In order to progress the MRS amendment, the City was required to prepare a District Water Management Strategy (DWMS) for Precincts 2 and 3, which was formulated on the indicative District Structure Plan (DSP) (formerly referred to as a Local Structure Plan), contained as Appendix 13.2.3A.

The WAPC has since initiated an amendment to the MRS to rezone Precincts 2 and 3 of MKSEA, as well as the portion of land south of Welshpool Road East in the Shire of Kalamunda, from Rural to Industrial. Advertising of these amendments was undertaken from 20 November 2015 to 29 January 2016. A copy of the advertised MRS amendment plans are contained as Appendix 13.2.3B.

The second phases, as outlined in LPP 5.8, are the requirement for amendments to TPS 6, followed by the preparation of a SP. In this regard, Council at its meetings of 8 March 2016 and 26 April 2016 resolved (Resolutions 64 - 66 and 122 - 123), to initiate the following amendments to TPS 6:

Amendment 165 - Rezoning land contained generally within Precinct 3A of the MKSEA from General Rural to General Industry and designating the area as a SCA.

Amendment 166 - Rezoning land contained generally within Precinct 3B of MKSEA from General Rural to Business Development.

Amendment 167 - Introducing Development Contribution Plan (DCP) provisions for MKSEA Precinct 3.

In accordance with Council's Resolution 67, Amendments 165 and 166 were forwarded to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment however, due to its desire for further information, the EPA only gave consent for Amendment 165 to be advertised. Amendment 166 has therefore effectively been deferred by the EPA until such time that further planning work is undertaken to address the constraints of the area. The task of developing a structure plan for Precinct 3B is currently underway.

A draft SP was prepared for the Amendment 165 area, with the exception of Lot 2008 Grove Road. Amendment 165 and the SP were subsequently advertised in accordance with requirements of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The progression of these two proposals is the subject of this report.

A copy of the Amendment 165 map and the proposed SP are contained as Appendices 13.2.3C and 13.2.3D, respectively.



19

Site Description

The subject proposals relate to Precinct 3A, which encompasses approximately 89.3ha of land generally bound by Coldwell Road, Grove Road, Brook Road, Bickley Road, Roe Highway and the Shire of Kalamunda district boundary. Precinct 3A incorporates 30 land parcels and is primarily in the control of a single landowner, who has options to purchase approximately 75% of the landholdings.

The subject area is located north and west of the Greater Brixton Street Wetlands (GBSW) (Bush Forever Site 387), which extends from Albany Highway in the south to Welshpool Road in the north, through the western side of the Kenwick residential area and Precinct 2 of MKSEA. The site is also located south of Woodlupine Brook Reserve.

A plan identifying the subject area follows.

- MKSEA PR EC INCT BOUNDARY

- AMEN D MEN T 165 AREA

- PR OPOSED STR U C TURE PLAN AREA

- PTA R AIL IN F R ASTRUCTURE F AC ILITY (APPR OXIMATE)

LEGEND

Y ULE

BROOK

LOT2008



20

Proposal

Amendment 165

Amendment 165 proposes the following:

Rezoning land contained generally within Precinct 3A of MKSEA from General Rural to General Industry;

Establishing a SCA over Precinct 3A and inserting the associated provisions into the Scheme text as follows:

- Inserting a new provision (i) in Clause 6.1 as follows:

(i) Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area - Precinct 3A.

- Inserting a new Clause 6.10 as follows:

6.10 STRUCTURE PLANNING AREAS

6.10.1 Prior to subdivision or development being undertaken within the Special Control Area (Structure Planning Areas) a structure plan, or plans, will be required to be prepared and approved over all or part of the Special Control Area for the purpose of Schedule 2 Part 4 clause 15(a)(ii) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

6.10.2 Notwithstanding clause 6.10.1, subdivision or development may be approved prior to a structure plan being approved in accordance with Schedule 2 Part 4 clause 27(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and any applicable Local Planning Policy.

A copy of the draft Amendment 165 map is contained as Appendix 13.2.3C.

Local Structure Plan

The draft SP contains the following elements:

The realignment and extension of Grove Road to Welshpool Road, to create a four-way intersection with Hale Road.

The upgrade of Coldwell Road and Grove Road to a 30m reserve in order to accommodate drainage swales.

Recognition of the land proposed to be acquired by the State Government for the future rail freight facility.

Provision of a 20m wide access from the realigned Grove Road to the future rail freight facility land.

The closure of Edward Street to facilitate an orderly lot layout fronting the proposed realigned Grove Road.



21

Indicative drainage basin locations.

A copy of the proposed SP is contained as Appendix 13.2.3D.

Consultation

In accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the SP and Amendment 165 were advertised for a period of 28 days (from 22 July 2016 to 19 August 2016) and 42 days (from 23 July 2016 to 3 September 2016), respectively, by way of:

Letters being sent to landowners and occupiers within the amendment/SP area and within a 200m radius of the area.

Letters to relevant government agencies.

An advertisement placed in the West Australian newspaper.

A notice on the City's website.

A public display at the City's Civic Centre.

The City received 38 submissions during the advertising period, with 15 being received from government agencies and 23 being received from landowners and/or occupiers (or parties representing landowners and/or occupiers). A map identifying the extent of the consultation area and the origin of each submission follows. It should be noted that in six instances, the origin or relationship of the submitter to the area was withheld.



22

A summary of the submissions received and comments thereon are included in the Schedule of Submissions contained as Appendix 13.2.3E. The main issues raised in the submissions are as follows:

The realignment and extension of Grove Road to connect with Welshpool Road at its existing intersection with Hale Road, and impacts on traffic.

Water management for the wider Precinct 3 area.

The protection of environmentally sensitive areas.

The appropriateness of industrial development within close proximity to residential areas due to associated noise and pollution.

Each is discussed in the following sections, along with any other applicable technical matters.



23

DISCUSSION

Zoning

Precinct 3 has been identified as an area which requires comprehensive planning prior to subdivision and development being undertaken. For this to occur, rezoning to Business Development will trigger the requirement for a future structure plan through the provisions of TPS 6. From thereon, a structure plan would outline specific zonings and reservations of land within the structure plan area, as well as other details such as the location of roads and specific subdivision or development requirements.

It is important to note however, that through the introduction of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions (Deemed Provisions) in August 2015, structure plans are no longer given the force and effect of the Scheme. Rather, an approved structure plan will simply be a document for which planning decision-makers are to give 'due regard' to when making decisions on subdivision and development of land within the structure plan area. Whilst this change will mean that structure plans have less statutory weight, it is expected to provide decision makers with greater flexibility to depart from a structure plan without needing to formally modify the structure plan.

In order to have the force and effect of a scheme, an approved structure plan will need to be incorporated into a scheme via an amendment. This would need to occur when the structure plan has been developed to such a stage that the boundaries of the proposed zonings are established and not likely to be modified. As such, in instances where the proposed zonings are unlikely to be modified, it may be appropriate to simply rezone land to the ultimate zoning, rather than undertaking a later review of the structure plan and Scheme.

The subject amendment proposes the rezoning of generally unconstrained land contained generally within Precinct 3A of MKSEA from General Rural to General Industry. The remaining, more constrained land within Precinct 3, including a portion of Precinct 3A and all of Precinct 3B are proposed to be rezoned from General Rural to Business Development through Amendment 166. In considering this approach and the appropriateness of the proposed General Industry zoning, the following should be noted:

Land parcels within Precinct 3A are primarily within the control of a single landowner.

Precinct 3A is relatively unconstrained from an environmental perspective, whereas land within Precinct 3B is potentially constrained by the Yule Brook drainage area and a number of classified wetlands, which require further analysis before confirming the appropriate uses and development outcomes. It should be noted however that the southern boundary of Precinct 3A incorporates land on Lot 2008 Grove Road that is not constrained by mapped wetlands, or the Yule Brook and its associated flood plain. This boundary does not however take into consideration buffer requirements which would need to be considered through the structure planning process.

Precinct 3A was specifically identified as a higher priority for development than Precinct 3B within the WAPC's Economic and Employment Lands Strategy.



24

In accordance with TPS 6, the objective of the General Industry zone is "To provide for manufacturing industry, the storage and distribution of goods and associated uses, which by the nature of their operations should be separated from residential areas." Given that the area is well connected to intermodal freight facilities, it is expected that it will accommodate uses such as manufacturing, processing, warehousing and bulk goods handling activities, which are suitable for the General Industry zoning.

For the reasons mentioned above, the proposed zoning is considered appropriate. It should be noted that, notwithstanding the proposed General Industry zoning, Precinct 3A will still maintain a requirement for a SP through the proposed SCA provisions.

Special Control Area

The subject amendment proposes the establishment of a SCA over the amendment area and the insertion of provisions into Part 6 of the TPS 6 text to specifically provide for the following:

The requirement for a structure plan to be prepared and approved for the amendment area, prior to any subdivision or development being undertaken within the SCA.

Discretion to support subdivision or approve development in the SCA in the absence of a structure plan for the SCA.

These proposed SCA provisions are discussed below in light of submissions received.

Department of Planning's Submission

The Department of Planning (DoP) has suggested several modifications (Submission No. 28) including:

Clause 6.1 (i) text be modified to include the words "subject to structure planning". This provides clarity and is considered acceptable (Modification 1).

Clauses 6.10 and 6.10.1 text to be modified to relate specifically to Precinct 3A. The suggested modifications to proposed Clauses 6.10 and 6.10.1 are supported (Modification 1A).

Clause 6.10.2 (which proposes to provide for subdivision or development to be approved ahead of an approved structure plan) be deleted as it will duplicate clause 27(2) of the Deemed Provisions. This modification is supported (Modification 2).

Warehouse Land Use Permissibility

The applicant has advised of the intention to develop the area as a transport and logistics precinct, with the predominant use of land being the TPS 6 land use class of ‘Warehouse’. That use is a ‘D’ (Discretionary) use in the General Industry zone, meaning that it is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval.



25

To provide certainty for this land use, the applicant has requested that the ‘Warehouse’ land use be identified as a ‘P’ (Permitted) use within the proposed SCA.

In considering this request, it is acknowledged that the nature of the Warehouse land use is such that it is typically benign in nature and is thereby considered to be appropriate in the General Industry zone. Furthermore, the applicant points out that the Warehouse land use is a ‘P’ (Permitted) use in other General Industrial precincts such as Welshpool, Kewdale, Hazelmere and Forrestfield. It should be noted that notwithstanding a ‘P’ (Permitted) land use permissibility, a Warehouse development will still be required to obtain planning approval and comply with the relevant Scheme provisions including those relating to siting of buildings, car parking and landscaping.

For the reasons outlined above, the request to to make the ‘Warehouse’ land use a ‘P’ use (Permitted) in the proposed General Industry area is supported (Modification 3).

Interface with Sensitive Land Uses

Industrial areas and their associated land uses can generate a range of emissions including noise, dust, gas, odour, light spill and risk levels which may not be compatible with other land uses. As such, the planning of new industrial areas near existing or future sensitive land uses needs to consider these impacts and how they will be managed to ensure that amenity is maintained at acceptable levels so as to avoid future land use conflicts.

The Precinct 3A area is situated within 70m of the Wattle Grove residential area. To the west, the Beckenham and East Cannington residential areas are located 120m away, but are separated from the area by Roe Highway and the freight railway line. It should be noted that there are also existing rural-residential uses within and abutting the subject area, including in MKSEA Precincts 2 and 3B, and in Wattle Grove (the 'Kalamunda wedge').

The WAPC's State Planning Policy 4.1 - State Industrial Buffer (SPP 4.1) provides guidance on planning for industrial areas and associated land use conflicts, and recommends establishing buffer areas and incorporating them into strategic plans, town planning schemes or statutory documents. In the context of the MKSEA, it is considered that the establishment of buffers would be best achieved through strategic documents in the form of a DSP, which from thereon could inform the local structure planning, subdivision and development processes.

The indicative DSP prepared for MKSEA (contained as Appendix 13.2.3A) stipulates that land uses fronting the southern side of Welshpool Road (in the Shire of Kalamunda) and the northern side of Bickley Road should provide a suitable transition to nearby residential areas. Whilst it does not provide for specific buffers, LPP 5.8 requires a SP to be accompanied by odour, noise and dust management strategies to address appropriate separation distances between proposed industrial development and sensitive land uses.

The proposed SP and accompanying Environmental Assessment and Management Strategy prepared by Emerge Associates (June 2016), recognises the need to address the abovementioned requirements and manage potential conflicts between the proposed industrial area and existing sensitive land uses. More specifically, it recognises that the operation of more impactful industrial uses will be regulated under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) through the attainment of



26

Works Approvals and Operating Licences from the Department of Environment Regulation (DER).

The abovementioned report serves to defer the consideration of future land use conflict issues to the development stage when specific land uses are known and the most impactful can be regulated by the DER. Nonetheless, this does not obviate the need to consider general, cumulative amenity impacts that can be experienced by sensitive land uses from industrial uses and estates, and how they will be dealt with through zoning and spatial layout (ie the scheme amendment and structure planning processes).

In considering the interface with sensitive land uses, the following points are considered relevant:

Due to the site's proximity to intermodal freight facilities, it is expected that it will accommodate uses such as manufacturing, processing, warehousing and bulk goods handling activities. The applicant has also advised of the intention to develop the area as a logistics and freight based industrial estate. These land uses are generally considered to be relatively benign in terms of emissions.

The EPA's Guidance Statement No. 3 - Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses, published in June 2005, does not recognise these types of land uses as being impactful and therefore provides minimal guidance on appropriate separation distances.

The Shire of Kalamunda has advised through its submission on the proposals (No. 36) of its intention to rezone the 'Kalamunda wedge' for light industrial purposes in order to provide a graduation of zoning near the Wattle Grove residential area. Given that this area is effectively at the forefront of the industrial area and is directly adjacent to the Wattle Grove residential area, it is considered that interface issues, including the potential requirement for noise attenuation measures, would be dealt with through the planning of this area of land within the Shire of Kalamunda.

The applicant has advised that its client has acquired an interest in land within the 'Kalamunda wedge' area and is looking to expand acquisition to further assist in managing potential land use conflicts and to progress a local scheme amendment and structure plan for this area, with the timing of its transition to an industrial area not being significantly dissimilar to that of Precinct 3A.

The State Government's proposed rail freight facility adjacent to the existing freight railway line (in the vicinity of the Beckenham and East Cannington residential areas) will be subject to the requirements of State Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning (SPP 5.4). This will involve any future proposal being assessed for transport noise impacts on adjoining noise-sensitive land uses and any mitigation measures being undertaken by the Public Transport Authority (PTA).

Similarly, any major redevelopment to an existing major road that involves physical construction works designed to facilitate an increase in traffic capacity may also be subject to the requirements of SPP 5.4. As such, any major upgrades to Welshpool Road that stem from the proposed industrial area may need to incorporate noise mitigation measures (eg noise walls) to protect the existing residential area in Wattle Grove from adverse transport noise.



27

The subject area and the nearby residential areas fall within the Perth Airport 20-25 ANEF contour and will ultimately be subject to up to 200 aircraft movements exceeding 65 decibels on average per day. Notwithstanding the proposed industrial area, Precinct 3A and the surrounding areas will be subject to significant noise nuisance from other sources.

The Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 assign acceptable maximum noise levels that can be experienced at noise-sensitive premises (ie residential housing). As such, future industrial uses will be required to comply with these Regulations.

Based on the above points, it is accepted that potential land use conflicts are unlikely to arise from the proposed industrial area, providing that these issues are appropriately considered through the subsequent planning stages. In this regard, particular attention will need to be given to the development approval process for any uses that are likely to result in significant emissions and the requirements of SPP 5.4.

Movement Network

The proposed SP makes provision for a road network by way of:

Realigning and extending Grove Road to Welshpool Road to create a four-way intersection with Hale Road.

Widening Coldwell Road and Grove Road to a 30m wide reservation.

Closing the redundant portion of the Edward Street and Grove Road reserves.

Providing a 20m wide access from the realigned Grove Road to the future rail freight facility land.

Discussion on the movement network aspects of the proposals follow.

Background

In June 2015 the City engaged Cardno to develop a traffic model for the MKSEA area based on the indicative DSP, and 2021 and 2031 modelling reflecting a partial and full build-out of MKSEA, respectively. It is important to note that unlike the proposed SP, the indicative DSP did not propose any additional intersections to major roads, but rather, proposed to utilise and upgrade existing intersections.

Some of the key points made in the Cardno assessment which are relevant to Precinct 3A are as follows:

The existing Tonkin Highway/Kelvin Road and Tonkin Highway/Welshpool Road intersections will be upgraded to grade-separated interchanges by 2031.

In its existing form, the Welshpool Road/Roe Highway interchange fails to perform satisfactorily for both the 2021 and 2031 models.



28

Welshpool Road is classified as a Primary Distributor Road under the Main Roads WA (MRWA) Metropolitan Functional Road Hierarchy. Existing weekday traffic volumes are 2,539 and 2,839 vehicle trips in the AM and PM peak hour period, respectively. By 2031, with the full build out of the MKSEA, there would be no substantial changes to peak hour traffic volumes on Welshpool Road.

The proximity of the intersection of Brook Road/Welshpool Road to the proposed Tonkin Highway/Welshpool Road grade-separated intersection is likely to require the former to be modified to a left-in/left-out configuration.

Converting the Welshpool Road/Coldwell Road intersection to a roundabout configuration was the preferred treatment for this intersection, however it was noted that the existing road reservation width does not allow for a roundabout to be constructed.

An alternative, a signalised arrangement for the Welshpool Road/Coldwell Road intersection was found to result in satisfactory performance for this intersection.

Following the construction of grade-separated interchanges planned for Tonkin Highway, Coldwell Road and Brook Road are expected to accommodate less 'rat-run' traffic from the south and will be primarily used by traffic associated with the MKSEA.

To provide for future industrial uses in the area, all roads within the area be capable of accommodating Category 4 restricted access vehicles (RAV), which equates to vehicles up to 27.5m in length, with a mass of 87.5 tonnes.

Transport Assessment

The applicant engaged Cardno to prepare a traffic impact assessment (TIA) to support the SP proposal. The purpose of the TIA was to assess the proposed road network and potential traffic impacts, particularly in relation to the proposed Grove Road intersection with Welshpool Road which was not taken into consideration in the previous modelling. The assessment was prepared based on the assumptions and data adopted for the entire MKSEA through the previous modelling undertaken.The key points made in this assessment are as follows:

Development within Precinct 3 will generate 603 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour period and 501 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour period.

As part of the MRWA's network planning, the intersection of Hale Road/Tonkin Highway may be severed. It should be noted that due to the unavailability of data for this intersection, the TIA has conservatively assumed that the affected turning movements currently undertaken at this intersection will instead utilise the intersection of Welshpool Road/Hale Road.

The potential access into Precinct 3A (Coldwell Road and Grove Road) was modelled based on four scenarios, as follows:

- Scenario 1 - A signalised intersection for all movements at the Welshpool Road/Coldwell Road intersection, with the Welshpool Road/ Hale Road intersection retaining its existing form.



29

- Scenario 2 - A signalised intersection for all movements at the Welshpool Road/Coldwell Road intersection, and the provision of Grove Road connecting to the existing Welshpool Road/Hale Road intersection with left-in/left-out/right-in configuration and a third through-lane on Welshpool Road.

- Scenario 3 - Maintaining the Welshpool Road/Coldwell Road intersection as a priority intersection (un-signalised), but without right-out movements, and the provision of Grove Road connecting to the existing Welshpool Road/Hale Road intersection with left-in/left-out/ right-in/right-out configuration and a third westbound through-lane on Welshpool Road.

- Scenario 4 - A signalised intersection for all movements at the Welshpool Road/Coldwell Road intersection, and provision of Grove Road connecting to the existing Welshpool Road/Hale Road intersection with un-signalised left-in/left-out access for Grove Road.

Plans showing the four scenarios are contained as Appendix 13.2.3F.

Scenarios 1 and 4 were found to have an unacceptable level of service (LOS) (average delay greater than 80 seconds) for the right turn movement from Welshpool Road to Hale Road, due to the amount of 'green time' required for Welshpool Road through-traffic. As such, Scenarios 2 and 3 are preferred as they were found to result in an acceptable LOS for all turning movements.

Scenario 3 was preferred over Scenario 2, particularly as it will negate the requirement to upgrade the Welshpool Road/Coldwell Road intersection to a signalised form, and it can be achieved in the short-term as it does not require the ceding of land that is not in the control of the proponent.

The proposed 30m wide road reserves proposed for both Coldwell Road and Grove Road will include a 10m wide road pavement with 5m traffic lanes in each direction, and a 5m verge on one side. The remaining land will accommodate verges and a swale. This arrangement will be sufficient in accommodating on-road cycling and a footpath.

The report recommends that all roads within the precinct be capable of accommodating Category 4 RAVs.

Main Roads WA Comments

The proposals were referred to MRWA for comment given that they require consideration of regional transport matters and involve access to a major road (Welshpool Road) that is under the care and control of MRWA. In response, MRWA advised in its submission (No. 25) that they are currently working with the proponents with a view to possibly allowing left-in/left-out only movements at the Welshpool Road/ Grove Road/Hale Road intersection, as per 'Scenario 4'. As these discussions are still ongoing, MRWA have formed the view that the SP should be deferred until such time that an agreement is reached.



30

It remains unclear as to why MRWA prefers Scenario 4 particularly given that TIA modelling suggests that it would result in an unacceptable LOS. Nonetheless, it appears that MRWA may be open to considering a four-way intersection with the connection of Grove Road to the existing Welshpool Road/Hale Road intersection, providing that an appropriate design is formulated.

In any event, MRWA are the ultimate decision makers on access to Primary Regional Roads such as Welshpool Road. Should they make an unfavourable decision the Precinct 3A SP will require a redesign so that the Coldwell Road and Brook Road intersections with Welshpool Road form the main access points to the Precinct 3 area, as originally anticipated by the MKSEA DSP.

Whilst it is not ideal to have this issue remain outstanding at this stage of the planning process, it is considered that it should not prevent the progression of the SP to the WAPC for consideration and determination. The area has long been identified as a future industrial area, and the potential links to Welshpool Road and other major roads are a key basis requirement of the SP. As such, it will be recommended that the intersection and access arrangements for Welshpool Road are endorsed by MRWA as a matter of urgent priority (Modification 5).

Public Transport Authority Comments

In terms of the proposed 20m access to the proposed rail freight facility, the PTA in its submission (No. 24) advised that the design for the rail freight facility, including vehicle access arrangements, is still being developed in conjunction with MRWA and the proponent. Furthermore, the PTA raised concerns about the location of the proposed access as it encroaches the Parmelia Gas Pipeline easement and will require the pipeline to be traversed at that access point.

In light of the PTA’s submission, it will be recommended that vehicular access arrangements to the proposed rail freight facility be finalised in consultation with the PTA, prior to the SP being approved by the WAPC (Modification 6).

Environmental Considerations

In considering the environmental values and hydrology of the subject site and surrounding area, the following should be noted:

The GBSW (Bush Forever site 387) is situated approximately 500m south and east of Precinct 3A. The GBSW is mapped as a Conservation category wetland (CCW) (highest value wetland category that is, along with its buffers, fully protected) and includes Declared Rare and Priority Flora and Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs), which are subject to protection under both State and Federal environmental legislation.

The Precinct 3A area includes a Multiple Use category wetland (MUW) (the wetland category with minimal protection requirements). A Resource Enhancement wetland (REW) (UFI 7635) (a wetland prioritised for protection and rehabilitation) is situated south of the area in Precinct 3B, and is partially within and adjacent to Lot 2008 Grove Road. This REW is considered to be an ‘Environmentally Sensitive Area’ which accommodates TEC 'Shrubland and Woodland on Muchea Limestone' and Declared Rare Flora.



31

Remnant vegetation over the majority of the site is in a 'Completely Degraded' condition, with some isolated patches of remnant vegetation in the south east of the site being considered to be in a 'Degraded' condition. There are also occurrences of Tuart (Eucalyptus gomphocephala) along Coldwell Road. This species is normally associated with ‘Muchea limestone’ soils.

Precinct 3A contains approximately 3.7ha of Black Cockatoo foraging habitat, and some limited roosting and breeding habitat.

The Yule Brook dissects Precinct 3B of the MKSEA, and runs parallel to the boundary between Precincts 3A and 3B. The Yule Brook floodplain is contained entirely within Precinct 3B.

The surface hydrology of the site is characterised by low permeability sandy clay soils and an overall very flat gradient. Surface runoff is generally guided by existing man-made surface water drains/channels which discharge from Precinct 3A to Precinct 3B, where it is conveyed to Yule Brook. Groundwater beneath the site has been characterised as being shallow and is at or near the surface.

Plans showing the relevant environmental assets are contained as Appendix 13.2.3G.

LPP 5.8 requires a SP to be accompanied by a plan and report to detail and address environmental factors relevant to the area, including water management, wetland, TEC and vegetation studies, buffer definition studies and management plans. In this regard, the SP was accompanied by an Environmental Assessment and Management Strategy and Local Water Management Strategy, both prepared by Emerge Associates (June 2016 and April 2016, respectively). It should be noted that these documents were informed by previous reports initiated by the City, the most recent of which included the following:

A Flora Vegetation and Wetlands Survey for the complete MKSEA (Tauss and Weston 2010).

A DWMS for Precincts 2 and 3 (TME 2014).

The key findings/proposals of these documents in relation to the relevant abovementioned points are discussed in the following sections.

Vegetation, Flora and Fauna

Historically, a majority of the site was historically cleared to support agricultural land uses, with most existing vegetation within the site being primarily comprised of planted, non-endemic species. There are small areas of remnant vegetation and scattered trees, however these areas are considered to be in a ‘Degraded’ condition, as they are highly disturbed, absent of native understorey species and subject to weed invasion. Due to this, fauna habitat values within the site were found to be limited. This includes the 3.7ha of Black Cockatoo foraging, roosting and/or breeding habitat. Due to their disturbed and scattered nature, it was concluded that these did not represent quality habitat.



32

In terms of other potentially significant vegetation, the survey undertaken by Tauss and Weston (2010) identified occurrences of Tuart (Eucalyptus gomphocephala) along Coldwell Road, a species that is usually associated with ‘Muchea limestone’ soils. Tauss and Weston advised that these occurrences may be significant and recommended detailed assessment to determine if they occur naturally. Notwithstanding, a later assessment of these trees undertaken by Emerge Associates (September 2016) put forward the hypothesis that the trees had been planted and therefore were not particularly significant. The report has not yet been reviewed by the EPA and DPaW. As such, it will be recommended that the findings of this assessment be incorporated into the SP document, following review by the EPA and DPaW (Modification 7).

Implementation of the SP through subsequent subdivision and development will involve the clearing of vegetation on the site. It should be noted that in accordance with the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the proponents will be required to refer any actions involving the removal of vegetation that may have a significant impact on Black Cockatoos to the Federal Department of Environment and Energy. The clearing of other remnant vegetation associated with subdivision approval will not require further assessment or approval.

Hydrology and Water Management

The WAPC's Better Urban Water Management (2008) guideline document stipulates that a LWMS is to accompany a SP. Typically, a LWMS is a broad drainage strategy for a specific development area that addresses the management of additional quantities of stormwater created from urban development.

The LWMS has been prepared to support the SP in accordance with the WAPC's guideline document and the approved DWMS for MKSEA. The main principles of the LWMS include:

Maintaining the existing hydrology by matching pre-development discharge rates and maintaining arterial flows through the site.

Lot detention areas, a flood detention basin and extended detention within roadside conveyance swales will be used to detain flows. Future flood detention basins have been identified on Lots 40 and 41 Edward Street and within the southern portion of the future rail freight facility site.

Stormwater treatment will occur within the lot using bio-retention areas. Runoff from the road network will be conveyed within roadside conveyance swales which, due to the flat nature of the area, will allow water quality treatment to occur via extended detention.

The use of fill to protect properties from flooding and inundation by groundwater.

Managing groundwater quality by maintaining or improving runoff through the treatment of surface water runoff prior to infiltration to groundwater and through implementing nutrient minimising landscape management practices.

Accommodating peak flows from the Yule Brook floodplain.

Plans showing the existing drainage scenario and the proposed, post-development drainage arrangement are contained as Appendix 13.2.3H.



33

The LWMS is generally acceptable subject to minor changes, however it is required to be referred to the Department of Water (DoW), Water Corporation, and DPaW for assessment and final endorsement. It is considered that any changes required by the City, DoW, Water Corporation and DPaW are unlikely to significantly impact on the SP design.

As such, it will be recommended that prior to the SP being approved by the WAPC, the LWMS should be formally endorsed by the City, the DoW, Water Corporation and DPaW (Modification 8).

Wetlands and Threatened Ecological Communities

The subject area contains a substantial MUW. This is in close proximity to an REW (UFI 7635) situated south of the area (partially within and adjacent to Lot 2008 Grove Road) and a CCW (the GBSW) situated south and east of the subject area.

In terms of both the MUW and nearby REW, which contains a water-dependent TEC, it should be noted that the drainage strategy proposes to generally retain the existing hydrology of the area. This includes maintaining pre-development flow rates at the existing discharge points, including the existing agricultural drain/remnant watercourse that runs through Lot 2008 Grove Road and discharges into the REW and Yule Brook.

In terms of buffers, the EPA's Guidance Statement No. 33 'Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development' states that wetlands that are to be protected (such as CCWs and REWs) require a minimum 50m wide buffer. In this regard, a 50m wide buffer around the CCW and REW would not encroach into the Amendment 165 or SP areas. It is expected that investigations on the buffer requirements for the REW will be addressed through a future SP covering Lot 2008 Grove Road.

Environment Protection Authority Determination

Amendment 165 was referred to the EPA for assessment and the EPA determined that it was not required to be formally assessed, however, the EPA provided advice and recommended a number of provisions be incorporated into Amendment 165. A copy of the EPA’s advice is provided in Appendix 13.2.3I.

In summary, the intent of the recommended provisions is (i) to identify significant environmental values within and adjacent to the amendment area, and (ii) to stipulate information requirements to accompany structure plan proposals and/or subdivision/ development applications.

Upon reviewing this point, the provisions are somewhat unnecessary given that they are standard requirements that would be captured through the assessment of any SP, subdivision or development proposals for this area. Nonetheless, the City acknowledges that the EPA seeks assurance that the highlighted matters will be dealt with appropriately through statutory provisions of TPS 6, and therefore supports their inclusion into Part 6 of TPS 6, subject to the clauses forming part of Clause 6.10 of the Scheme (Modification 4).

It should be noted that the applicant in submission No. 12) has raised some concerns with regard to the proposed wording of the provisions and/or their necessity. Responses to these comments have been provided in the attached Schedule of Submissions (Appendix 13.2.3E).



34

Indigenous Heritage

Preliminary investigation of Aboriginal heritage in the MKSEA area was undertaken in 2009 and identified eight previously recorded Aboriginal heritage sites in the MKSEA and that there is a medium risk that previously unrecorded Aboriginal sites also exist. Of the eight recorded sites, only one was found to be within Precinct 3A. Notwithstanding, a review of the original survey report found it to be incorrect and that the actual location of the heritage site and associated heritage values actually occurs approximately 100m south-east of its current mapped location, being outside of the Precinct 3A area.

Site Constraints

Bushfire Hazard

The subject area has been identified as bushfire prone and the provisions of State Planning Policy 3.7 - Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP 3.7) apply to all planning proposals in designated bushfire prone areas.

In accordance with the requirements of SPP 3.7, a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) has been prepared with the purpose of identifying bushfire hazard levels (ie Low, Moderate or Extreme) within, and in the vicinity of, the site, and to ensure that the threat posed by any hazard is appropriately mitigated in accordance with the requirements of the WAPC's Bushfire Protection Guidelines. In this regard, the main aspects and recommendations of the BMP include:

Areas of existing vegetation represent 'Moderate' and 'Extreme' bushfire hazards.

Following the development of the area and subsequent removal of all vegetation, a post-development bushfire hazard of 'Low', with the exception of an area located adjacent to the Roe Highway road reserve and Woodlupine Brook Reserve which represents a permanent 'Extreme' bushfire hazard.

The proposed rail freight facility land will provide a minimum separation distance of 35m between the adjacent bushfire hazards and the remainder of the industrial area, which is in excess of the generic 20m Asset Protection Zone requirement.

The rail freight facility will be serviced by dual access points to Grove Road and Bickley Road.

Staged subdivision, where bushfire hazards will be temporary, must ensure development is sited in such a way that it is not exposed to an unacceptable level of radiant heat (ie BAL-29 rating).

The site will be supplied with scheme water and fire hydrants will be installed in accordance with standard subdivision requirements.

There is a need for an interconnected public road network which facilitates vehicular movements to at least two egress points.

An extract from the BMP showing the pre-development and post-development bushfire hazard ratings is contained as Appendix 13.2.3J.



35

The proposal was referred to the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) for comment. The following points were raised in its submission (No. 33):

The proposed four-way intersection with Welshpool Road/Hale Road/Grove Road is critical to the BMP demonstrating compliance with the vehicular access provisions of the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas.

The SP provides only one 20m wide access road to the proposed rail freight facility. In accordance with the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas, provision should be made for adequate emergency access to the full length of the rail freight facility boundary.

The BMP incorrectly refers to a 'Hazard Separation' as being an Asset Protection Zone, and therefore minor modifications are required to the terminology used.

To address the above points, DFES have requested that a revised BMP be prepared in accordance with SPP 3.7 and the associated Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas. As such, it will be recommended that prior to the SP being approved by the WAPC, that the BMP and SP be revised to the satisfaction of DFES (Modification 9).

Parmelia Gas Pipeline

The Parmelia Gas Pipeline runs parallel to the western boundary of the Precinct 3A area, following the alignment of the freight railway line, and is protected by a 15m wide easement which includes some of the Precinct 3A area. The WAPC's Planning Bulletin 87 - ‘High Pressure Gas Transmission Pipelines in the Perth Metropolitan Region’ provides guidance on matters to be taken into account when considering planning proposals in the vicinity of the Parmelia Gas Pipeline.

For any industrial/commercial development, Planning Bulletin 87 stipulates that a 45m wide setback from the pipeline easement boundary should be provided. Any proposed subdivision and/or development within this setback area can be considered and approved where it is demonstrated that the risk from the pipeline is within acceptable levels in accordance with AS 2885. Furthermore, any subdivision and/or development that falls outside the 45m setback, but are within 356m of the easement, fall within a 'notification area' which require referrals of any proposals to the pipeline owners (APA Group).

In order to clarify the requirements of Planning Bulletin 87, the proposed SP includes notations depicting the location of the 45m setback area and the 356m notification area. In addition the SP text includes explanatory text stipulating the requirements of Planning Bulletin 87. These notations and text are considered to be acceptable.



36

Infrastructure and Servicing

The future development of the area will be dependent on the availability of utilities such as sewer, power and water, all of which are necessary to provide for the ultimate development of the area. In this regard, investigations into the servicing requirements for the area concluded as follows:

Sewer connection to the land is available through the construction of a wastewater pump station which would discharge into an existing sewer main located on Station Street, Cannington; approximately 1.5km north-west of the site.

Water supply will be available through the extension of an existing main that runs along Grove Road.

There are existing overhead powerlines in Edward Street, Grove Road (south of Coldwell Road) and Coldwell Road (east of the SP area) that may be utilised to supply power to the area.

A gas supply is not intended for this area, however should one be required further investigations can be undertaken with a view of connecting to an existing gas main along Coldwell Road.

Design Considerations

The proposed SP does not provide detail on the nature of a future subdivision, including lot and road layouts. In this regard, it should be noted that the WAPC's 'Structure Planning Framework' document stipulates that a SP should only provide details on the proposed major roads in an area, and that individual lot layout should not be pre-determined by the SP. Notwithstanding, a SP should still address such matters where there is a need to meet technical requirements either on a holistic level, or prior to the formulation of a subdivision design.

To support the development of this area the SP stipulates certain requirements to be met through the subdivision process. These requirements include:

The preparation of a Landscape Masterplan to identify the design standards applicable to the local road network, stormwater basin/swales and open spaces, including entry statements, public art and other built form and landscape features.

The preparation of Design Guidelines, possible in the form of a Local Planning Policy or Local Development Plan, to address the location of buildings and other site considerations that will maintain an orderly and attractive streetscape and estate.

It is considered that the abovementioned requirements should be prepared collaboratively with the City to ensure that the objectives of the MKSEA are achieved.

Extent of Structure Plan

As previously mentioned, Amendment 165 is proposing to rezone the proposed SP area and a portion of Lot 2008 Grove Road from General Rural to General Industry, as well as introduce Special Control Area provisions requiring the preparation of "...a



37

structure plan, or plans…". Whilst the amendment does not strictly establish precinct boundaries or a minimum area for which a SP should be prepared, it is expected that a SP should be able to be integrated with adjoining areas. Issues such as road network, drainage, lot layout and bushfire management should be addressed in the context of the proposed SP and the broader area.

The applicant has prepared an indicative subdivision and road layout plan for Lot 2008 Grove Road to address this matter (contained as Appendix 13.2.3K) which shows how the site could be developed independently of the balance of Precinct 3A. Whilst this plan is not binding in any way, it demonstrates how the area can be appropriately developed to account for possible 50m wide environmental buffers and a road network.

The owners of Lot 2008 Grove Road have raised no objections to the exclusion of their site from the proposed SP, however they did raise concerns that issues relating to water management should be viewed more holistically. In this regard, the proposed LWMS seeks to distance itself from the drainage requirements of Lot 2008, particularly in relation to the existing agricultural drain that flows from the western boundary of Lot 2008 to wetland UFI 7635 and Yule Brook. The latest LWMS proposes to maintain pre-development flows through this drain, rather than considering the demand/reliance that future development on Lot 2008 might have for this drain.

Whilst it would be preferable to have the water management for the wider area addressed holistically, the proponent has satisfied the obligation to address drainage requirements for the SP area whilst respecting and accommodating the existing hydrology of the area. Furthermore, it is considered that the future planning for Lot 2008 can accommodate the drainage requirements for the site and the requirements of the relevant Government agencies.

Structure Plan Implementation

The proposed SP contains elements that present complex implementation and staging issues for the future development of the area. Namely, these issues relate to the following:

Establishing a trigger and timing for upgrades to local roads and intersections.

The widening of roads relying on land being acquired from several landowners.

The timing of the Edward Street road closure given that requires all lots currently being serviced by Edward Street to have legal access to another public road. The timing of this would therefore be subject to private developer intent.

Locating a proposed drainage basin in the future rail freight facility land.

The delivery of services to the area, including sewer.

It is expected that most of the abovementioned issues will be addressed through the Development Contribution Plan Report (DCPR) prepared in association with Amendment 167, which will be covered in a future report to Council. Alternatively, if subdivision of the Precinct 3A area proceeds ahead of the finalisation of a DCPR, it would be expected that the developer be required to take the necessary steps to ensure the delivery any infrastructure which has a bona-fide 'need and nexus' link to the subdivision.



38

In terms of the issues that cannot be addressed through the DCPR (because they rely on other landowners and their intent to develop) it should be acknowledged that this is a common, unavoidable issue where there is fragmented land ownership and subdivision is undertaken in a staged manner. As such, it cannot always be expected that an initial subdivision can deliver the ultimate SP outcome, and instead, negotiated temporary arrangements are often required. It is expected that this may occur for the proposed SP, particularly for the closure of Edward Street, the widening of roads and the provision of a drainage basin in the future rail facility land.

Statutory Process

In terms of the proposed SP, in accordance with Clauses 20(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions, the local government must provide a report to the WAPC containing the following:

(a) A list of submissions considered by the local government, including, if relevant, any submissions received on a proposed modification to the structure plan advertised under Clause 19(2);

(b) any comments by the local government in respect of those submissions;

(c) a schedule of any proposed modifications to address issues raised in the submissions;

(d) the local government’s assessment of the proposal based on appropriate planning principles;

(e) a recommendation by the local government on whether the proposed structure plan should be approved by the Commission, including a recommendation on any modifications.

In terms of Amendment 165, in accordance with Regulation 50(3) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the local government must, within 60 days after the end of the submission period, pass a resolution:

(a) to support the amendment without modification; or

(b) to support the amendment with proposed modifications to address issues raised in the submissions; or

(c) not to support the amendment.

Following the assessment of the proposals by the local government and the passing of a resolution, both proposals are forwarded to the WAPC and/or the Minister for Planning for consideration and final determination.



39

CONCLUSION

It will be recommended that Council endorses this report and recommends to the WAPC that the SP and Amendment 165 be approved subject to the following modifications and/or information requirements:

No. Recommended Modification and/or Information Requirement Reason(s)

Amendment 1651.

Page 9

Modify proposed Clause 6.1(i) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 to include the wording ‘subject to structure planning’.

To summarise the requirement for the identified Special Control Area.

1APage 9

Modify proposed Clauses 6.10 and 6.10.1 to replace references to "Structure Planning Areas" with "Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area Precinct 3A".

To specify the spatial area to which the provisions apply.

2.

Page 9

Delete proposed Clause 6.10.2 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

To remove duplication of clause 27(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions.

3.

Page 10

Inserting the following provision into Part 6 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6:

6.10.2 Notwithstanding Table 1, the use class of 'Warehouse' as defined in Schedule 1 is designated as a 'P' use within the Special Control Area for the purpose of clause 4.3.

To make the land use ‘Warehouse’ a ‘P’ use (Permitted) in the proposed Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area Precinct 3A General Industry zone.

4.

Page 19

Inserting the following provision into Part 6 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6:

6.10.3 To ensure the identification and protection of significant environmental values within and adjacent to the amendment area, the following information is required to accompany Structure(s) Plan (or subdivision/development applications where a Structure Plan is not required) where planning has the potential to impact significant environmental values:

6.10.3.1 Investigations to determine the water balance and buffer requirements for occurrences of the Threatened Ecological Community and wetland identified as UFI 7635 in the Geomorphic Wetlands Swan Coastal Plain dataset occurring adjacent to the Amendment area, prepared on advice by the Department of Parks and Wildlife and to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Authority

6.10.3.2 A boundary definition study for wetland UFI 7635 prepared on advice by and to the satisfaction of Department of Parks and Wildlife.

To incorporate Scheme provisions recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority.



40


6.10.3.3 Local Water Management Strategy(s) informed by the outcomes of the water balance and buffer investigations (where there are potential impacts to significant environmental values) prepared on advice of Department of Parks and Wildlife and responsible authority, to the satisfaction of the Department of Water.

6.10.3.4 Investigations to examine the occurrences of Eucalyptus gomphocephala (Tuart) potentially occurring on Muchea Limestone near Coldwell Road to enable assessment of their significance, prepared on advice of and, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Authority.

6.10.4 To ensure management of the significant environmental values within and adjacent to the amendment area, the following information is required to accompany subdivision and development applications:

6.10.4.1 Detailed Vegetation, Wetland and/or Buffer Management Plans for wetland UFI 7635 and occurrences of Threatened Ecological Communities, Declared Rare and Priority Flora and retained areas of significant vegetation including Declared Rare and Priority Flora (where applicable), on advice from Department of Parks and Wildlife and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Structure Plan5.

Page 15

Endorsement of the proposed intersection and access arrangements to Welshpool Road by Main Roads WA.

The issue of access to Welshpool Road remains unresolved and its resolution is critical to the Structure Plan design.

6.

Page 16

Endorsement of the vehicular access arrangements to the proposed rail freight facility by the Public Transport Authority.

The issue of access to the proposed rail freight facility remains unresolved.

7.

Page 17

The assessment of the Tuart trees (Eucalyptus gomphocephala) occurring along Coldwell Road, as prepared by Emerge Associates (September 2016) is to be endorsed by the EPA and DPaW, after which, the endorsed assessment is to be incorporated into the Local Structure Plan documentation.

To include additional environmental assessments as part of the Structure Plan documentation.



41


8.

Page 18

Endorsement of the Local Water Management Strategy by the City, the Department of Water, Water Corporation and the Department of Parks and Wildlife.

To provide a broad drainage strategy for the Structure Plan area so as to inform any future detailed drainage strategies forming part of subdivision proposals.

9.

Page 21

Endorsement of the Local Structure Plan and Bushfire Management Plan by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services.

To ensure that the Structure Plan and associated Bushfire Management Plan meet the objectives of State Planning Policy 3.7 - Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas and the associated Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas.


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


Town Planning Scheme No. 6

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

Planning and Development Act 2005

Local Planning Policy 5.8 - MKSEA Planning Framework.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS


STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 OF 5) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

328 Moved Cr P Yang Seconded Cr T Lynes

That Council, pursuant to Clause 20(2)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions, notes the submissions received in respect of Amendment 165 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and the proposed Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area Precinct 3A Structure Plan and endorses the responses to those submissions, as contained in Appendix 13.2.3E.



AGAINST: Nil.



42



That Council, pursuant to Section 50(3)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 supports Amendment 165 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 with a recommendation that the amendment be approved by the Minister for Planning, subject to the following modifications:

1. Modify proposed Clause 6.1.1(i) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 to summarise the requirement for the identified Special Control Area by including the wording ‘subject to structure planning’.

1A. Modify proposed Clauses 6.10 and 6.10.1 to replace references to "Structure Planning Areas" with "Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area Precinct 3A".

2. Delete proposed Clause 6.10.2 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 to remove duplication of clause 27(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions.

3. Inserting the following provision into Part 6 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 to make the land use ‘Warehouse’ a ‘P’ use (Permitted) in the proposed Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area Precinct 3A General Industry zone:

6.10.2 Notwithstanding Table 1, the use class of 'Warehouse' as defined in Schedule 1 is designated as a 'P' use within the Special Control Area for the purpose of clause 4.3.

4. Inserting the following provisions into Part 6 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, as recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority:

6.10.3 To ensure the identification and protection of significant environmental values within and adjacent to the amendment area, the following information is required to accompany Structure(s) Plan (or subdivision/development applications where a Structure Plan is not required) where planning has the potential to impact significant environmental values:

6.10.3.1 Investigations to determine the water balance and buffer requirements for occurrences of the Threatened Ecological Community and wetland identified as UFI 7635 in the Geomorphic Wetlands Swan Coastal Plain dataset occurring adjacent to the Amendment area, prepared on advice by the Department of Parks and Wildlife and to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Authority.



43

6.10.3.2 A boundary definition study for wetland UFI 7635 prepared on advice by and to the satisfaction of Department of Parks and Wildlife.

6.10.3.3 Local Water Management Strategy(s) informed by the outcomes of the water balance and buffer investigations (where there are potential impacts to significant environmental values) prepared on advice of Department of Parks and Wildlife and responsible authority, to the satisfaction of the Department of Water.

6.10.3.4 Investigations to examine the occurrences of Eucalyptus gomphocephala (Tuart) potentially occurring on Muchea Limestone near Coldwell Road to enable assessment of their significance, prepared on advice of and, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Authority.

6.10.4 To ensure management of the significant environmental values within and adjacent to the Special Control Area, the following information is required to accompany subdivision and development applications:

6.10.4.1 Detailed Vegetation, Wetland and/or Buffer Management Plans for wetland UFI 7635 and occurrences of Threatened Ecological Communities, Declared Rare and Priority Flora and retained areas of significant vegetation including Declared Rare and Priority Flora (where applicable), on advice from Department of Parks and Wildlife and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council, pursuant to Clause 20(2)(d) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions, endorses the assessment of the proposed Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area Precinct 3A Structure Plan, as outlined in this report.



AGAINST: Nil.



44



That Council, pursuant to Clause 20(2)(e) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions, recommends to the Western Australian Planning Commission that the proposed Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area Precinct 3A Structure Plan be approved subject to:

i) Endorsement of the proposed intersection and access arrangements to Welshpool Road by Main Roads WA.

ii) Endorsement of the vehicular access arrangements to the proposed rail freight facility by the Public Transport Authority.

iii) The assessment of the Tuart trees (Eucalyptus gomphocephala) occurring along Coldwell Road, as prepared by Emerge Associates (September 2016) is to be endorsed by the EPA and DPaW, after which, the endorsed assessment is to be incorporated into the Local Structure Plan documentation.

iv Endorsement of the Local Water Management Strategy by the City, the Department of Water, Water Corporation and the Department of Parks and Wildlife.

v) Endorsement of the Structure Plan and Bushfire Management Plan by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council, following assessment of the proposal by the City and determination of the proposal by the Commission, notifies those persons who made a submission on the Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area Precinct 3A Structure Plan of its assessment/decision.



AGAINST: Nil.


45

13.3.3 PETITION REQUESTING THE REVOCATION OF RESOLUTIONS 119 AND 120 - LONDON PLANE TREES, TOWNCENTRE DRIVE, THORNLIE

Author: D SmithAuthor’s Declaration of Interest: Nil.

Previous Ref: OCM 27 May 2008 (Resolution 210)OCM 22 April 2014 (Resolutions 119, 120)

Appendix: 13.3.3A Policy 2.3.9 Street Tree Policy

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To provide a report in relation to the petition presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting on 9 August 2016 requesting the removal of London Plane trees in Towncentre Drive, Thornlie.

BACKGROUND

In 2007 the City received correspondence from residents requesting the removal of Plane trees in Towncentre Drive, Thornlie. This matter was investigated with significant community consultation undertaken. A report was prepared and presented at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 27 May 2008 with Council making the following resolution:

“That Council note the submissions received on the proposed removal of the Plane Trees along the streetscape on Towncentre Drive, Thornlie and that the existing streetscape be retained.”

The City received a petition at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 17 December 2013 initiated by Ms Beverly Anne Rea of 70B Towncentre Drive, Thornlie containing 59 signatures. The petition stated:

“We the undersigned electors of the City of Gosnells request the City of Gosnells overturn the Council resolution of 27 May 2008 and return to the plan to remove the London Plane trees on Towncentre Drive and replace them with native trees; for the flowing reasons:

Plane trees are inappropriately huge for this streetscape; their roots damage residential and street infrastructure and their leaf litter is disproportionate.”

A report was prepared and presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 22 April 2014 with Council making the following resolution:

“That Council approves retention of the London Plane trees in Towncentre Drive, Thornlie due to their significant amenity value.”

“That Council approves the following management and operational strategies to provide improved management of Plane Trees in Towncentre Drive, Thornlie:

1. That the City undertakes weekly road sweeping during autumn to address peak times of leaf fall from deciduous street trees.



46

2. That residents of Towncentre Drive where London Plane trees are located on the verge be provided with up to two bags which can be filled only with leaves and placed on the verge for collection by the City on a weekly basis for an eight-week trial period during the current autumn season.

3. That the City investigates the purchase of a mobile vacuum unit for use in streetscapes where there is a high incidence of leaf litter and that funding be listed for consideration on future budgets should the investigation recommend this outcome.”

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 9 August 2016 Council received a further petition initiated by Beverley Anne Rea of 70B Towncentre Drive, Thornlie containing 72 signatures. The petition stated:

“We the undersigned electors of the City of Gosnells request the City of Gosnells revoke the Council resolution of 22 April 2014 and return to the plan to remove the London Plane trees on Towncentre Drive and replace them with native trees, for the following reasons:

Plane trees are inappropriately huge for this streetscape The roots damage residential and street infrastructure and the leaf litter is

disproportionate The pollen from the tree causes severe allergic reaction when the trees

pollinate”.

DISCUSSION

In April 2014 the City resolved to retain all trees in Towncentre Drive due to their significant amenity value.

Following receipt of the most recent petition (OCM 9 August 2016) the City undertook a visual tree inspection of all London Plane trees in Towncentre Drive. The inspection revealed that since the last inspection of London Plane trees in 2014, the health of the trees has not changed.

Specific issues raised in the petition are:

Issue: The trees are inappropriately huge for this streetscape

Response: The City has examined the width of the road reserve and condition of trees within similar avenues of Plane trees in the Perth metropolitan area.

Towncentre Drive has a road reserve width of 20m. This is consistent with Alexandria Boulevard and Roebuck Drive, Canning Vale which also have Plane trees and road widths of 20 metres.

Eucalyptus Drive in the City of Canning has a road reserve width of 19 metres with Plane trees and Oats Street in the Town of Victoria Park has a road reserve width of 20 metres and Plane trees.



47

This demonstrates that the Towncentre Drive trees are not growing in a street which is smaller than other streets where Plane trees occur.

Issue: The roots damage residential and street infrastructure and the leaf litter is disproportionate

Response: There are 50 trees within this streetscape and the City has received a comparatively low number of enquiries regarding root activity. The City continues to manage these issues successfully through root pruning, the installation of root barriers and the repair of paving and concrete surfaces on public land as required.

Since 1 January 2015 the City has received four complaints regarding root damage to infrastructure from London Plane trees in Towncentre Drive. One request related to interference with reticulation; with the remaining three requests relating to paving interference, two of which were rectified by root pruning and in one case the installation of a root barrier.

In terms of leaf litter, as part of a trial in 2015 the City provided all households in Towncentre Drive with bags to be filled with fallen leaves by the residents and placed on the verge to be collected by the City on a weekly basis. This initiative was not taken up strongly by residents with an average of 20 bags collected on a weekly basis by the City.

All trees both deciduous and evergreen species drop leaves. The specific difference is how and when leaf drop occurs. Deciduous trees typically drop all of their leaves at one point during the year in order to reduce their photosynthetic processes over the winter period. Evergreen species will drop the entirety of their leaf mass throughout the year, whilst progressively producing new growth to replace shed leaves. Whilst the frustration of residents can be understood, leaf drop is associated with the lifecycle of any healthy tree.

The advantage of a deciduous species is that leaf drop is completed in a relatively short period. Consequently, its impact can be lessened through some simple management methods which are already being undertaken by the City, including an increased frequency of street sweeping during the period of leaf drop, the ongoing pruning undertaken to uplift and thin the canopies of these trees, and a service of picking up bags of leaves from residents during the peak leaf drop period in order to alleviate the need to place leaves in their general waste bins. These measures are not practical for evergreen species where leaf drop continues throughout the year.

Issue: The pollen from the trees cause severe allergic reaction

Response: Currently the City is not aware of any documented scientific information to support this claim. All information found in relation to any possible allergic reaction is purely anecdotal with no scientific research available at this time to support this claim.



48

Conclusion:

The City's Street Tree Policy 2.3.9 states:

"The City will consider removing a street tree where the tree is dead, in a state of decline to the point that survival is unlikely, is causing significant damage to infrastructure or services, as well as presenting an unacceptable level of risk to surrounding infrastructure or if retention is not possible due to an approved development. All requests for the removal of street trees will be assessed by the City in accordance with best arboriculture practice to maximise the possibility of retaining the tree. Tree removal is considered as a final option in street tree management."

Consequently, it will be recommended that the London Plane trees not be removed.


The financial impacts associated with the retention of trees in the Towncentre Drive streetscape are related to increased street sweeping and litter bag collection during leaf fall season.

In accordance with Schedule 4 of Tender 22/2014 Street Tree Maintenance, the cost to remove 50 London Plane trees in Towncentre Drive is $47,600. An additional cost of $55,100 will be incurred to purchase suitable mature (45 litre size) trees to provide replacement planting, staking, fertilizing and watering of the trees, including formative maintenance for the first two years.


Nil.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



333 Moved Cr L Storer Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council approves the retention of London Plane trees in Towncentre Drive, Thornlie in accordance with Policy 2.3.9.

CARRIED 6/3FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr D Goode, Cr D Griffiths, Cr T Lynes, Cr L Storer and Cr B Wiffen.

AGAINST: Cr T Healy, Cr P Yang and Cr O Searle.

12. REPORTS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Nil.


49

13. REPORTS

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE

13.1.1 ILLEGAL DUMPING AT BUILDING SITES

Item 13.1.1 was withdrawn from the agenda.


50

13.2 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY

13.2.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - USE NOT LISTED (COMMUNITY HALL) - 16 (LOT 4) LOWER PARK ROAD, MADDINGTON (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.


51

13.2.2 DRAFT STRUCTURE PLAN - 303 (LOT 1) CORFIELD STREET, GOSNELLS


Nil.

Property Number: 203957Application No: PF16/00006Applicant: Planning Solutions (Aust) Pty LtdOwner: Zeditave Pty Ltd and Powerstar Pty LtdLocation: 303 (Lot 1) Corfield Street, GosnellsZoning: MRS: Urban

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

decision of Council.Area: 3.4663haPrevious Ref: Nil.Appendices: 13.2.2A Proposed Structure Plan Map

13.2.2B Schedule of Submissions

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider a draft Structure Plan for 303 (Lot 1) Corfield Street, Gosnells.

BACKGROUND

Site Description and Planning Context

The draft Structure Plan (SP) proposed for 303 (Lot 1) Corfield Street, Gosnells affects land abutting Seaforth Primary School to the north and the Della Vedova landholding to the south and opposite the Corfield Shopping Centre.

The site is zoned Urban under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and Development under Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6). The site abuts Corfield Street which is reserved as an Other Regional Road under the MRS.

The site forms part of a wider landholding that has been identified as requiring a structure plan.

A plan identifying the subject area follows.



52

CorfieldShopping

Centre

SeaforthPrimary School

1

Della Vedova landholding

303

SUBJECTSITE

Della Vedova landholding

Proposal

The draft SP contains the following elements:

The provision of a residential density coding of R30

The designation over a portion of the site abutting Corfield Street as “Local Centre”

The provision of a portion of the site abutting Corfield Street for Public Open Space, including a modification to the boundary of a mapped Resource Enhancement Wetland

The provision of a local road network generally representing a “grid” layout

The requirement for a Local Development Plan for the proposed “Local Centre” site.

The requirement for a detailed acoustic assessment to be provided at the development stage for the “Local Centre” site.

A copy of the proposed SP is contained as Appendix 13.2.2A.



53

Consultation

In accordance with Clause 18 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions, the proposal was advertised twice, for a period of 21 days each (from 4 May 2016 to 25 May 2016 and then again from 29 July 2016 to 19 August 2016) by way of letters to directly affected and immediately surrounding landowners and relevant authorities. The proposal was advertised twice as it was modified by the proponent after the conclusion of the first consultation period.

The City received nine submissions in total during the advertising periods, with six being received from government agencies and three being received from landowners. Of the three from landowners, two raised objections and one provided comments. A summary of submissions received and comments thereon are included in a Schedule of Submissions, contained as Appendix 13.2.2B.

A map identifying the extent of the consultation area and the origin of each submission follows. It should be noted that the submission that provided comments represents three properties within the consultation area.

BEXLEYST

303

LOT 1SUBJECT

SITE

REFERRAL AREA

NO OBJECTION

COMMENT

OBJECTIONS





54

The main issues raised by the submitters are as follows:

Development of the Local Centre

Movement Network

Water Management

Environmental Considerations.

These are discussed in the following sections, along with any other technical matters.

DISCUSSION

Proposed Zoning and Reservation

Residential Density Coding

The draft SP makes provision for medium density residential development, with the density provided at Residential R30. The total estimated lot yield for the site is 36 lots with an average lot size of 300m2.

Liveable Neighbourhoods seeks to ensure residential densities of at least 20 to 30 dwellings per hectare within 400m of a local activity centre. The proponent has indicated that the proposed SP achieves an anticipated residential density of 30.8 dwellings per site hectare, which therefore satisfies the requirements of Liveable Neighbourhoods.

Local Centre Zoning

The proposed SP provides for a Local Centre site abutting Corfield Street. The Local Centre is proposed to accommodate approximately 1,600m2 floor area within a 3,462m2 site area. It is proposed that land use permissibilities within the Local Centre will be in accordance with the zoning table in TPS 6. The SP text also proposes:

“A Retail Sustainability Assessment is required for any proposal for shop/retail floorspace within the subject site. The Retail Sustainability Assessment is to confirm no detrimental impact on the vitality of the existing Corfield Shopping Centre and other nearby retail centres.”

Further, the SP text discusses preferred future potential uses of the local centre site, including a child care centre, consulting rooms, fast food outlet and/or convenience store.

The City’s draft Activity Centres Planning Strategy (ACPS) does not include the subject site as being located within an activity centre, however, it does identify three centres within close proximity to the subject site, being the existing Corfield Street Shopping Centre, and two future centres within the adjacent Della Vedova land (referred to as DV-01 and DV-02).



55

The Corfield Street Shopping Centre is classified as a Neighbourhood Centre, capable of accommodating 4,500m2 retail floorspace. The centre is located opposite the subject site and currently accommodates 1,644m2 shop/retail floorspace. The ACPS describes the Corfield Street Shopping Centre as having low amenity, requiring renovation and constrained by it being comprised of two, unlinked parts that discourages pedestrian through-traffic across the centre. It also states that the lack of vitality of the centre is reflected within the amount of vacant floor space, being 25% of the total.

The two future centres (DV-01 and DV-02), located within the adjoining Della Vedova land, include a large Neighbourhood Centre and a Local Centre. Both centres are subject to further planning through the structure plan process. For the large Neighbourhood Centre (DV-01) the ACPS states:

“Subject to detailed structure planning, the location of centre DV-01 (17) is flexible. Furthermore it could be split into two smaller neighbourhood centres if desired.”

To date, the detailed planning for the Della Vedova land has not been undertaken and therefore the location of both future centres is yet to be determined.

In considering the above, the following is relevant:

The subject site is not within the activity centre defined by the draft ACPS, nor does the ACPS provide for any retail in this specific location.

The draft ACPS identifies the Corfield Street Shopping Centre (opposite the subject site) the two future centres to be provided within the Della Vedova land as being appropriate to accommodate retail uses and this land would accommodate complementary uses.

Providing a Local Centre zoning, which allows for shop (retail) uses within close proximity to another centre that is currently underperforming and has high vacancy rates, has the potential to detrimentally affect the sustainability of that centre.

The applicant has not submitted a Retail Sustainability Assessment to determine whether there are any implications on the adjoining Corfield Street Shopping Centre.

In the absence of detailed planning having been prepared for the remainder of the precinct (that includes the surrounding Della Vedova land), Council needs to be satisfied that the proposed structure plan will not be prejudicial to development elsewhere in the precinct. Notwithstanding the potential impacts on the adjoining Corfield Street Shopping Centre, the provision of a centre at this location has the potential to prejudice the future structure planning for the Della Vedova land and therefore consideration should be given to whether the subject site should be progressed ahead of the wider precinct.

There is the option of changing the proposed designation from Local Centre to Office, which would effectively resolve the retail issue (on the basis that a Shop is a prohibited use in the Office zone) but would still allow all the 'potential future land uses', with the exception of Fast Food Outlets.



56

Based on the above, should Council consider recommending the SP be approved, it will be recommended that a modification be made to the SP map and text to replacing the Local Centre zoning with an Office zoning so that the adjacent sites are not directly competitive (Modification 1).

Public Open Space

The draft SP provides 8,247m2 of Public Open Space (POS) abutting Corfield Street and accommodates the Resource Enhancement Wetland, the associated buffer and two 1:1 year stormwater detention basins.

When considering the issue of POS, it must be noted that POS often provides a range of functions, including recreation, conservation and drainage. Liveable Neighbourhoods acknowledges that land for conservation and/or drainage can provide some recreation functions, therefore provision is made for land ceded for conservation and drainage to be counted towards satisfying the 10% POS requirement, although there are limitations on credit allowances. These allowances/limitations include:

A minimum of 80% of the 10% POS for the purpose of active and passive recreation, which may include drainage areas that do not accommodate storm events equal to or less often than a 1:5 year event.

The remaining 20% (of the 10%) may comprise restricted POS, being areas that incorporate stormwater captured from between 1:1 year and 1:5 year events.

The detention of stormwater for a 1:1 year event is not included as POS.

Resource Enhancement Wetlands (REW) and Multiple Use Wetlands (MUW) where they can be used for recreational purposes.

An assessment of the proposed POS against the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhoods, is set out in the following table.

Public Open Space Calculations TableTotal Site Area 3.4663haLess

Local Centre 0.3462ha 1:1 year drainage 0.104ha

Gross Subdivisible Area 3.0161haPOS Requirement 10% 0.30161haPOS may comprise80% unrestricted use - minimum 0.241ha20% restricted use - maximum 0.06haPOS ProvidedComprisingRestricted POS 0haUnrestricted use 0.3160haTotal creditable POS provided 0.3160ha% of Gross Subdivisible Area 10.4%



57

As demonstrated above, the POS provided complies with the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhoods requirements in terms of quantity of POS.

During the consultation period, the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPAW) provided a submission in relation to the modified REW boundary and its buffer. The DPAW indicated that the wetland on the subject site appears to have been impacted by past land use activities and that the area to be retained within the SP area appears to be consistent with the extent of the low forest vegetation unit, which has been assessed as being in Good condition by the applicant’s environmental consultants. The draft SP proposes a buffer of varying width around the modified wetland which, while inconsistent with the Environmental Protection Authority’s Guidance Statement, was not opposed by the DPAW. It was however recommended that grassed areas are not included directly adjacent to the wetland area, as proposed by the landscape concept plan. It is considered critical that separation is achieved between turf areas and the wetland. This is required from not only an environmental health perspective but also a management perspective to help reduce nutrient and water input into the wetland to reduce the potential for weed growth and potential mosquito and midge issues. The REW buffer is already heavily compromised, and while a conciliatory approach has been taken, consideration needs to be given to whether there is enough space for drainage, turfed areas and planted areas that buffer the wetland.

It will therefore be recommended that Council recommends to the WAPC that the SP not be determined until such a time as the landscape concept plan is modified to ensure grassed areas are not included directly adjacent to the wetland areas, as recommended by DPAW, to the satisfaction of the City and DPAW (Modification 2).

Environmental Considerations

The subject area is affected by a Resource Enhancement Wetland. The below table outlines the difference between the three wetland classifications in terms of their conservation status.

Classification DescriptionConservation Category Wetland (CCW)

All CCW wetlands and appropriate buffers are fully protected and any proposals that are likely to lead to a significant adverse impact on these wetlands are likely to be formally assessed by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).

Resource Enhancement Wetland (REW)

All reasonable measures are taken to minimise the potential impacts on REW and appropriate buffers. These wetlands have the potential to be restored to CCW, and rehabilitation is encouraged.

Multiple Use Wetland (MUW)

All reasonable measures are taken to retain the hydrological functions of the wetland (including on-site water infiltration and flood detention) and, where possible, other wetland functions.

As mentioned above, the SP documentation suggests that the mapping of the REW on the subject site is incorrect. An environmental assessment was undertaken by Aurora Environmental in 2015 and recommends a revised wetland boundary which is reduced in size and covers areas of good condition vegetation. The minimum buffer around a REW is normally 50m from the mapped wetland boundaries, however studies should be undertaken to determine an appropriate buffer based on the environmental values of the wetland and the threats from surrounding land uses. The SP proposes a reduced buffer around the edge of the revised wetland boundary that is between 3.5m and 36m in width. During the consultation period the DPAW did not oppose the reduced buffer width, however it did recommend that grassed areas not be located directly opposite wetlands.



58

The proponent has provided the following response to DPAW’s comments:

“The wetland on Lot 1 has been highly modified by past land use practices. The best portion of the wetland has been retained within the Structure Plan and is intended to manage open space with multiple purposes including conservation, recreation and stormwater management. Given the highly modified condition of the wetland and the urban setting that surrounds the site, this is considered to be an appropriate and sustainable approach to managing this wetland. The landscape concept plan demonstrates the proposal to retain and enhance the wetland core, while providing recreation opportunities within the buffer area for future residents. Within this context it is acknowledged that on-going maintenance will be necessary for the wetland POS area, as is the case with other POS areas. A hard edge will be provided between turf and planted zones to control the potential spread of turf into revegetated areas. Fertilisers and herbicides will only be applied when necessary and in accordance with manufacturers specifications. Only herbicides suitable for use in or adjacent to aquatic environments will be utilised.”

As discussed above, and in considering the conciliatory approach already taken in terms of the REW buffer, it will be recommended that Council recommends to the WAPC that the SP not be determined until such a time as a landscape concept plan ensures that grassed areas are not included directly adjacent to wetland areas and as many paperbark (M. rhaphiophylla) trees are retained as possible, as recommended by the DPAW and to the satisfaction of the City and DPAW (Modification 2).

Water Management

The WAPC’s Better Urban Water Management (2008) guideline document stipulates that a Local Water Management Strategy (LWMS) is to accompany a SP. Typically, a LWMS is a broad drainage strategy for a specific development area that addresses the management of additional quantities of stormwater created from urban development.

As part of the current proposal, the applicant has prepared a LWMS to support the SP in accordance with the WAPC guideline document.

It should be noted that the LWMS has been assessed and is considered to be generally acceptable subject to minor changes, however it is still required to be referred to the Department of Water (DoW) for assessment and final endorsement. It is considered that any changes required by the City or DoW are unlikely to significantly impact on the Structure Plan design.

It will be recommended that the WAPC not approve the draft SP until the LWMS is formally endorsed by the City and the DoW, on advice of the Department of Parks and Wildlife (Modification 3).



59

Bushfire Management

In accordance with State Planning Policy 3.7 - Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP 3.7), a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) has been prepared with the purpose of outlining the bushfire attack level (BAL) across the site and demonstrating compliance with the WAPC’s Bushfire Protection Guidelines. The main aspects of the BMP include:

BAL ratings have been assigned to all future lots and range from between BAL 12.5 to BAL 29, with the higher BAL ratings generally located along the lots facing the south western boundary and the local centre site.

The provision of a formal vehicle access point to Corfield Street and an emergency access point (through the proposed Local Centre site) to Corfield Street. The emergency access point is proposed to be protected with an easement in gross for the public and is proposed to comply with the requirements for an emergency access way under the SPP 3.7 Guidelines.

The provision of Asset Protection Zones (APZ) of varying width contained within the subject site. The APZ is proposed to comprise of road reserves, street setbacks and POS land to be maintained with low fuel loads.

In assessing the BMP against SPP 3.7, the draft SP, as proposed, meets the requirements of the SPP 3.7 Guidelines document. However, as discussed above, the retention of paperbark trees (as required by DPAW) may conflict with the requirement for the APZ to maintain low fuel loads. The SPP 3.7 Guidelines provide comment on the issue of the retention of native vegetation and the resultant impact this has on addressing bushfire planning requirements, as follows:

“Note that Asset Protection Zones and Hazard Separation Zones can adversely affect the retention of native vegetation. Where the loss of vegetation is not acceptable or causes conflict with landscape or environmental objectives, such as waterway foreshore areas and wetland buffers, reducing lot yield may be necessary in order to minimise the removal and modification of remnant vegetation.”

The current BMP appears to be based on the proposed landscape plan that depicts grassed areas adjacent to the wetland and therefore low fuel loads within the REW buffer. As such, the BMP requires updating to reflect the DPAW's required amendments to the landscape plan and as a result of the updated BMP, the SP will require subsequent updating. Given the uncertainty as to the ultimate spatial outcome, it will be recommended the SP not be determined until such a time as the BMP (Modification 4) and subsequently, the SP (Modification 5) are updated to the satisfaction of the City and DPaW.

In addition, given the emergency access through the Local Centre site will not change in the future (as BAL levels do when surrounding land is developed), it is considered that a notation should be provided on the SP to ensure the retention of emergency access. As such, it will be recommended that prior to the SP being approved by the WAPC, the SP map should be updated to include a notation referencing the requirement for the emergency access to Corfield Street, as provided for in the BMP (Modification 6).



60

Movement Network

The draft SP provides vehicle access to Corfield Street only, as the neighbouring land is yet to be developed. Corfield Street is reserved as an ‘Other Regional Road’ under the MRS. Opposite the subject site, the Corfield Street shopping centre is provided with a full vehicle access crossover to Corfield Street. In terms of the movement network of the SP, the key aspects of the proposal are as follows:

The provision of a local road network which generally represents a “grid layout”.

The provision of a fourth connection at the Corfield Street/Harry Street intersection, including the provision of a new roundabout at that location.

The provision of a restricted vehicle movement access to the proposed Local Centre site. This is proposed through a crossover to an internal ‘private’ driveway, rather than a public road. The access through the Local Centre site also serves as an emergency access point from the site to Corfield Street to satisfy the WAPC’s Bushfire Protection Requirements.

In assessing the proposed movement network, the following is provided:

The proposed roundabout treatment at the Harry Street and Corfield Street intersection has been discussed in the SP explanatory text, however is not shown on the SP map or within the implementation section of the SP text. It will therefore be recommended that prior to the SP being approved by the WAPC, the roundabout is to be shown on the SP map (Modification 7).

Given the vehicle access movement through the Local Centre site is not proposed to be provided as a public road, the details of this connection should be assessed and determined once land uses and development outcomes are known, during the subdivision and development process, provided the emergency access is provided in accordance with the BMP requirements. As such, it will therefore be recommended that prior the SP being approved by the WAPC, the SP map shall be updated to include a notation indicating that vehicle access and egress at the Local Centre site will be limited to emergency access as provided in the BMP, and any proposed vehicle access to or from Corfield Street will be assessed as part of the relevant subdivision or development application (Modification 8).

Statutory Process

In accordance with Clauses 20(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions, the local government must provide a report to the WAPC containing the following:

“(a) A list of submissions considered by the local government, including, if relevant, any submissions received on a proposed modification to the structure plan advertised under Clause 19(2);

(b) any comments by the local government in respect of those submissions;

(c) a schedule of any proposed modifications to address issues raised in the submissions;

(d) the local government’s assessment of the proposal based on appropriate planning principles;



61

(e) a recommendation by the local government on whether the proposed structure plan should be approved by the Commission, including a recommendation on any modifications.”

CONCLUSION

It will be recommended that Council recommends to the WAPC that it not determine the SP, as proposed until such time as the following modifications and/or information requirements have been finalised:


1. The Structure Plan map and text being modified so as to replace the Local Centre zoning with an Office zoning.

The Local Centre zone is not an appropriate zone for the subject site.

2. The landscape concept plan being updated to remove grassed areas adjacent to the wetland.

In accordance with DPAW’s recommendation

3. Endorsement of the Local Water Management Strategy by the City and the Department of Water and subject to any advice from the Department of Parks and Wildlife.


4. The BMP being updated to reflect the amendments to the landscape plan.

To ensure the BMP is in accordance with the updated landscape plan.

5. Any subsequent changes being made to the structure plan map as a result of the updated BMP.

To ensure that the Structure Plan map reflects the requirements of the BMP.

6. The Structure Plan map being updated to include a notation referencing the requirement for the emergency access to Corfield Street, as provided for in the Bushfire Management Plan.

To ensure that the requirements of the Bushfire Management Plan are carried through to the structure plan requirements at the time of subdivision and development.

7. The roundabout is to be shown on the Structure Plan map.

To ensure that the requirement for the roundabout to be provided at the time of subdivision is shown on the structure plan map.

8. The Structure Plan map being updated to include a notation indicating that vehicle access and egress at the Local Centre site is limited to emergency access, as provided in the Bushfire Management Plan, and any proposed vehicle access to or from Corfield Street is to be assessed as part of the relevant subdivision or development application.

To ensure that the vehicle access to and from the proposed Local Centre site is considered in the context of the future development of the site and that the emergency access to and from that site is maintained.

It will also be recommended that subject to the above modifications being made to the City’s satisfaction, Council endorses this report and recommends to the WAPC that the SP be approved.


All costs associated with the SP will be borne by the applicant.



62


Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions.

Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

Local Planning Policy 4.7 - Planning and Development of Public Open Space and Streetscapes.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



334 Moved Cr T Healy Seconded Cr L Storer

That Council, pursuant to Clause 20(2)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions, notes the submissions received in respect of the proposed Structure Plan for 303 (Lot 1) Corfield Street, Gosnells and endorses the responses to those submissions, as contained in Appendix 13.2.2B.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council, pursuant to Clause 20(2)(d) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions, endorses the assessment of the proposed Structure Plan for 303 (Lot 1) Corfield Street, Gosnells, as outlined in this report.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council, pursuant to Clause 20(2)(e) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions, recommends to the Western Australian Planning Commission that the proposed Structure Plan for 303 (Lot 1) Corfield Street, Gosnells not be determined until such time as the following modifications and/or information requirements have been finalised:



63


1. The Structure Plan map and text being modified so as to replace the Local Centre zoning with an Office zoning.

The Local Centre zone is not an appropriate zone for the subject site.

2. The landscape concept plan being updated to remove grassed areas adjacent to the wetland.

In accordance with DPAW’s recommendation

3. Endorsement of the Local Water Management Strategy by the City and the Department of Water and subject to any advice from the Department of Parks and Wildlife.


4. The BMP being updated to reflect the amendments to the landscape plan.

To ensure the BMP is in accordance with the updated landscape plan.

5. Any subsequent changes being made to the Structure Plan map as a result of the updated BMP.

To ensure that the Structure Plan map reflects the requirements of the BMP.

6. The Structure Plan map being updated to include a notation referencing the requirement for the emergency access to Corfield Street, as provided for in the Bushfire Management Plan.

To ensure that the requirements of the Bushfire Management Plan are carried through to the structure plan requirements at the time of subdivision and development.

7. The roundabout is to be shown on the Structure Plan map.

To ensure that the requirement for the roundabout to be provided at the time of subdivision is shown on the structure plan map.

8. The Structure Plan map being updated to include a notation indicating that vehicle access and egress at the Local Centre site is limited to emergency access, as provided in the Bushfire Management Plan, and any proposed vehicle access to or from Corfield Street is to be assessed as part of the relevant subdivision or development application.

To ensure that the vehicle access to and from the proposed Local Centre site is considered in the context of the future development of the site and that the emergency access to and from that site is maintained.



AGAINST: Nil.



That, subject to the required modifications to the Structure Plan being to the satisfaction of the City’s Chief Executive Officer, Council, pursuant to Clause 20(2)(e) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 – Schedule 2 – Deemed Provisions, recommends to the Western Australian Planning Commission that the proposed Structure Plan for 303 (Lot 1) Corfield Street, Gosnells be approved.



AGAINST: Nil.



64



That Council, following determination of the proposal by the Western Australian Planning Commission, notifies those persons who made a submission on the 303 (Lot 1) Corfield Street Structure Plan of the decision.



AGAINST: Nil.


65

13.2.3 AMENDMENT NO. 165 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 AND DRAFT STRUCTURE PLAN - MADDINGTON KENWICK STRATEGIC EMPLOYMENT AREA PRECINCT 3A (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.


66

13.3 INFRASTRUCTURE

13.3.1 COMMUNITY SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITY FUND ANNUAL GRANTS ROUND SEPTEMBER 2016

Author: R WatkinsAuthor’s Declaration of Interest: Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider two applications for funding through the Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) Annual Grant and Forward Planning Grant Round in September 2016 and the provision of financial support from the City.

BACKGROUND

The CSRFF is administered by the Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) with the aim of providing State Government financial assistance for the development of sporting and recreational infrastructure that increases opportunities for physical activity.

To be eligible for a CSRFF grant an applicant must be a local government or an association incorporated in accordance with the Associations Incorporation Act 1987. DSR will make a maximum contribution of one-third of the project cost. Applicants must be able to demonstrate that they can fund the balance of the total cost of the project.

Under the CSRFF guidelines, the City of Gosnells must submit documentation which demonstrates:

Council's support (or otherwise) for each application

Council's commitment to a contribution (where applicable)

Council's recommended priority order of applications.

DISCUSSION

In this round there are two applications to be considered by Council. The Southern River Hockey Club Inc. is seeking funding assistance to establish a synthetic hockey field at Sutherlands Park Reserve E and the City of Gosnells will be applying for funds to upgrade the floodlighting at Berehaven and Cassidy Ovals at Walter Padbury Reserve.

Sutherlands Park Hockey Club Inc.

Southern River Hockey Club Inc. has been lobbying Council for many years to establish a synthetic hockey pitch on Sutherlands Park Reserve E. In February 2016 the Club finalised an independent feasibility study that recommended the installation of a single pitch initially, with an allocation of space for a second synthetic pitch, once demand is proven. In the interim the second site would operate as a turf pitch.



67

The proposed synthetic surface is the same as that used at the Rio Olympics and is far more sustainable in terms of water use than previous generations of synthetics. The floodlighting is compliant with Australian Standards for small ball sports. The fencing will be designed to protect not only the surface but also the spectators.

In January 2016, the City was approached by Hockey WA to submit a tripartite funding application to Round Three of the National Stronger Regions Fund in partnership with Hockey WA and the City of Cockburn to improve hockey facilities in the southeast and southwest metropolitan regions.

The Sutherlands Park project cost estimate for the synthetic hockey pitch, floodlighting and fencing was $2,616,091 and the application sought 50% funding. Council endorsed the application at the 8 March 2016 Ordinary Council Meeting, via Resolution 71.

During the pre-election period, the Liberal Party promised $1.3m for the Sutherlands Park hockey synthetic project and it has been confirmed that the election commitment will be met from the Federal Government’s Community Development Grant Scheme.

The application to the CSRFF will be for a three-way split of the balance of the project costs as per the following table:

Source Amount$

Southern River Hockey Club Inc 438,697City of Gosnells 438,697Community Sport and Recreation Facility Fund 438,697Federal Government - Community Development Grant 1,300,000Total (GST exclusive) 2,616,091

The project budget includes contingency and cost escalation estimates. Southern River Hockey Club has secured its funding from a private investor and the funds will be available once funding is finalised.

The project meets the criteria established for CSRFF funding in that:

The Southern River Hockey Club Inc. is an incorporated organisation

The Southern River Hockey Club Inc. is able to contribute a minimum of one third of the cost to the project from its own resources

The project will provide an opportunity for increased physical activity by providing a high quality hockey training and competition facility to meet the needs of the Southern River Hockey Club Inc. membership.

Walter Padbury Reserve Floodlighting Upgrade

In 2015, a City-wide assessment of the floodlighting on sports fields was undertaken to determine compliance with Australian Standards, asset condition and suitability for purpose.

The floodlighting at Berehaven and Cassidy Ovals was identified as substandard in all areas. A detailed report on the floodlighting performance and recommended solutions was commissioned.



68

The current Australian Standard for Large Ball Sports Floodlighting for training is an average of 50 lux. Cassidy Oval has an average of 20 lux and Berehaven Oval an average of 40 lux. Whilst the report reviewed the possibility of retaining the current infrastructure, this was not viable as the Standards have changed in regard to pole height and floodlight configuration.

The project will remove the existing infrastructure which will be assessed for possible re-use at other sites. Berehaven Oval will have four new 30 metre poles with four 2000w globes on each pole to accommodate AFL football.

Cassidy Oval is predominantly used for soccer and will need eight new 30 metre poles with four 2000w globes on each pole. This will ensure the entire surface can be used for training.

The cost estimates have contingency and escalation amounts factored in to the total value.

The application to the CSRFF will be for a one-third contribution to the floodlighting upgrade as per the following table:

Source Amount$

City of Gosnells 642,327Community Sport and Recreation Facility Fund 321,163Total (GST exclusive) 963,490

The project meets the criteria established for CSRFF funding in that:

The City of Gosnells is a Local Government

The City of Gosnells is able to contribute two thirds of the cost to the project from its own resources

The project will provide an opportunity for increased physical activity by providing high quality compliant training facilities to meet the needs of the user groups of the two sports grounds.

Assessment

It is important for the City to determine whether or not a project accords with the strategic direction and financial capacity of the City, and is compliant with the CSRFF guidelines. The projects have been assessed based on benefit to the community and social return on investment. The assessment criteria, which are based on the City's expectations and the CSRFF guidelines, are:

Criteria Potential Score

Hockey Synthetic

Floodlighting Upgrade

Fully addressed CSRFF funding criteria 10 9 9The project's ability to increase physical activity 10 8 8Impact on current operations if denied 10 8 7Alignment with the City's Community Plan 10 7 7Impact on future asset management costs 10 8 5Total 50 40 36



69

Under the above assessment the ranking of the projects would be

1. Southern River Hockey Synthetic Project2. Walter Padbury Reserve Floodlighting Upgrade


Successful applications are expected to be announced in January 2017 and the first claims can be made in July 2017. The City's contribution to the projects will be funded from Reserve Accounts as follows:

Recreation and Community Infrastructure Reserve AccountThe Account's purpose is to establish facilities for the wellbeing of the community. The Recreation and Community Infrastructure Reserve Account has an opening balance of $1,103,729, an expected income of $134,368 and commitments of $44,585 during the 2016/17 financial year period leaving a projected closing balance at 30 June 2017 of $1,193,502.

Walter Padbury Park Reserve AccountThe purpose of the account is to provide future works at Walter Padbury Park funded from the Telco Tower leases. The Reserve Account has an opening balance of $378,879, an expected income of $54,993 and no commitments during the 2016/17 financial year period leaving a projected closing balance at 30 June 2017 of $433,872

Floodlighting Levy Reserve AccountThe purpose of the floodlighting Levy Account is to upgrade the City’s active reserve floodlighting. The account has an opening balance of $33,359, an expected income of $11,800 and no commitments leaving a projected closing balance of $45,159.

The funding requirements are summarised as follows:

Project Hockey Synthetic

$

Floodlighting Upgrade

$

Total

$Federal Government 1,300,000 1,300,000CSRFF 438,697 321,163 759,860Southern River Hockey Club 438,697 438,697City of Gosnells Reserve Accounts:Recreation and Culture Infrastructure 438,697 163,296 601,993Walter Padbury Park Reserve 433,872 433,872Floodlighting Levy Reserve 45,159 45,159Total 2,616,091 963,490 3,579,581

Budgets for both projects have a contingency sum and cost escalation allowance.

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONSNil.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




70


339 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr P Yang

That Council supports Southern River Hockey Club Incorporated's application for funding through the Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund Forward Planning Grant Round in September 2016 for the installation of a synthetic hockey pitch at Sutherlands Park Reserve E.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council agrees to match any State funding contribution through the CSRFF to a maximum of $438,697 should the Southern River Hockey Club Incorporated be successful with its application for the installation of a synthetic hockey pitch at Sutherlands Park Reserve E.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council supports the application for funding through the Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund Forward Planning Grant Round in September 2016 for the upgrade of floodlighting at Berehaven and Cassidy Ovals at Walter Padbury Reserve in Thornlie.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council agrees to contribute two thirds of the project cost should the CSRFF agree to provide one third of the funding for the upgrade of floodlighting at Berehaven and Cassidy Ovals at Walter Padbury Park, Thornlie.



AGAINST: Nil.



71



That Council agrees to the ranking of the two projects in the CSRFF Forward Planning Grants in September 2016 as:

1. Southern River Hockey Club Incorporated Synthetic Surface Project at Sutherlands Park Reserve E.

2. City of Gosnells Upgrade of floodlighting at Berehaven and Cassidy Ovals at Walter Padbury Park.



AGAINST: Nil.


72

13.3.2 PROPOSED LEASE TO THE HUNTINGDALE JUNIOR FOOTBALL CLUB INC. OF THE MEETING ROOM AND TWO STORE ROOMS LOCATED WITHIN SUTHERLANDS PARK F PAVILION ON SUTHERLANDS PARK, LOT 1596 GAY ST, HUNTINGDALE

Author: J ScrimshawAuthor’s Declaration of Interest: Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.3.2A Lease Plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek Council approval to lease the meeting room and two store rooms located within F Pavilion on Sutherlands Park, Lot 1596 Gay Street, Huntingdale.

BACKGROUND

Huntingdale Junior Football Club Inc. was established in 1983 and has occupied Sutherlands Park since the establishment of Sutherlands F Reserve. In 1991 the original plans for the F Pavilion consisted of two change rooms, a kiosk and an umpire’s room. At the time of construction the Club contributed $19,000 towards costs for an additional meeting room and two storerooms.

Huntingdale Junior Football Club has used F Pavilion as its home since that time and has established itself as a well-respected Club with in excess of 150 members.

DISCUSSION

Due to the exclusive use that has developed over time, it is proposed to give the Club a formal tenancy agreement for these spaces in line with all other clubs which have exclusive use arrangements.

Having met and consulted with the Club, they are happy to have a secured tenure, they agree with the standard lease documentation and the lease commencement date of 1 October 2016.


Income from local government rates and the Emergency Services Levy will not be known until the Gross Rental Valuation (GRV) has been assessed by the Valuer General. This will occur after the lease has been executed.

The rates and the Emergency Services Levy will vary each year in accordance with changes in the valuation and rate in the dollar agreed by Council at its annual budget meetings.



73


Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides for the disposition of local government property that includes the leasing of land and buildings.

Regulation 30 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 provides for certain property to be exempt from the provisions of section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Where local government property is disposed to a body the objectives of which are charitable, benevolent, religious, cultural, educational, recreation, sporting or other like nature and the members of the Body are not permitted to receive profit from the Body’s transactions then the disposition is an exempt disposition.

The Club is a not for profit sporting organisation and is therefore exempt from the provisions of section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



344 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr B Wiffen

That Council agrees to lease to the Huntingdale Junior Football Club Inc. part of F Pavilion located on Sutherlands Park Reserve on Lot 1596 Gay Street, Huntingdale in accordance with the Lease Plan attached as Appendix 13.3.2A on the following terms and conditions:

Rental: Peppercorn

Term of lease: Five years

Term of renewal: Five years

Date of commencement: 1 October 2016

Local government rates and the Emergency Services Levy:

Payable by tenant

Outgoings: Payable by tenant

Internal building maintenance: Payable by tenant

Purpose of lease: Meeting and store rooms.CARRIED 9/0


AGAINST: Nil.


74

13.3.3 PETITION REQUESTING THE REVOCATION OF RESOLUTIONS 119 AND 120 - LONDON PLANE TREES, TOWNCENTRE DRIVE, THORNLIE (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.


75

13.3.4 GOSNELLS ROADWISE ADVISORY GROUP MEETING - 7 SEPTEMBER 2016

Author: Y SekiAuthor’s Declaration of Interest: Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.3.4A RoadWise Advisory Group Meeting Minutes 7

September 2016

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to receive the Minutes of the RoadWise Advisory Group meeting held on Wednesday 7 September 2016.

BACKGROUND

The City of Gosnells RoadWise Advisory Group meets on the first Wednesday of every month. The Group was established with the guiding principles to:

Improve road safety in the City of Gosnells

Raise community awareness of road safety issues and initiatives in the City of Gosnells

Facilitate community planning, development and implementation of road safety programs and promotions

Develop programs and initiatives which target groups and issues identified in the State Road Safety Strategy.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2016 are attached as Appendix 13.3.4A.

DISCUSSION

Proposed Actions from the Group Meeting held on Wednesday 7 September 2016

There are two Proposed Actions from the RoadWise Advisory Group meeting that require Council's consideration, being:

Action Reference Action CurrentStatus

RAG 7/9/2016 Proposed Action 4

RAG members unanimously agreed on purchasing LED torches in gift boxes costing $5.85 per torch. It is proposed that 150 torches be purchased and engraved and gift boxes labelled at a total cost of $878, including GST. Funding to be provided from the RoadWise grants funds - Account Number 76-93103-3392-000. (These torches will be given out at the World Day of Remembrance.)

Staff recommendation seeking Council approval.

RAG 7/9/2016 Proposed Action 5

RAG members unanimously agreed to continue presenting the hosting college with a gift to the approximate value of $110 from the RoadWise grant funds – Account Number 76-93103-3392-000.

Staff recommendation seeking Council approval.



76


An amount of $988 is required from JL76-93100-3392-000 RoadWise Expenditure.


Nil.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



345 Moved Cr B Wiffen Seconded Cr D Goode

That Council receives the Minutes including Proposed Actions of the City of Gosnells RoadWise Advisory Group Meeting held on Wednesday 7 September 2016 attached as Appendix 13.3.4A.



AGAINST: Nil.


346 Moved Cr B Wiffen Seconded Cr D Goode

That Council approves expenditure of $988 from Account 76-93100-3392-000 RoadWise Expenditure for gifts to present at the World Day of Remembrance Event as stated in Proposed Actions 4 and 5 of the Minutes of the RoadWise meeting of 7 September 2016.



AGAINST: Nil.

13.4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil.


77

13.5 CORPORATE SERVICES

13.5.1 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - AUGUST 2016Author: K GillAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.5.1A Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of

August 2016

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to receive the Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of August 2016.

BACKGROUND

In accordance with Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the following reports are contained in the Financial Activity Statement Report:

Commentary and report on variances

Operating Statement by Program

Balance Sheet

Statement of Financial Activity

Net Current Assets Report

Reserve Movements

Capital Works Expenditure

Outstanding Debtor Information

Rates Report

Investment Report.

DISCUSSION

The Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of August 2016 is attached as Appendix 13.5.1A.


Nil.


Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Regulation 34.



78

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



347 Moved Cr P Yang Seconded Cr D Goode

That Council, in accordance with Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, receives the following reports, contained in the Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of August 2016, attached as Appendix 13.5.1A:

A. Commentary and report on variancesB. Operating Statement by ProgramC. Balance SheetD. Statement of Financial ActivityE. Net Current Assets ReportF. Reserve MovementsG. Capital Works ExpenditureH. Outstanding Debtor InformationI. Rates ReportJ. Investment Report.



AGAINST: Nil.


79

13.5.2 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - AUGUST 2016Author: K GillAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.5.2A Cheque and EFT Payment Listing for the period

1 August 2016 to 31 August 2016

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Council of payments made for the period 1 August 2016 to 31 August 2016.

BACKGROUND

Nil.

DISCUSSION

Payments of $10,672,459.70 as detailed in the cheque and EFT payment listing for the period 1 August 2016 to 31 August 2016, attached as Appendix 13.5.2A, have been approved by the Director Corporate Services under delegated authority.


Nil.


Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Regulation 13 (2) requires a local government to prepare a list of accounts approved for payment under delegated authority showing the payee's name; the amount of the payment; and sufficient information to identify the transaction and the date of the meeting of the Council to which the list is to be presented.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



348 Moved Cr T Healy Seconded Cr T Lynes

That Council notes the payment of accounts totalling $10,672,459.70 as shown in the cheque and EFT payment listing, attached as Appendix 13.5.2A, for the period 1 August 2016 to 31 August 2016.



AGAINST: Nil.


80

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

Nil.


PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek approval from Council to adjust the 2016/17 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$

JL76-93116-3762-000 Increase Expenditure

Land resumption for Lot 11 Southern River Rd - Other Expenditure

402,256

JL76-93116-2310-000 Increase Income

Southern River Rd Duplication - Ranford Rd to Holmes St - Southern River ODP Precinct 3 - Transfer from Reserve - Operating

402,256

REASON:To purchase land associated with the construction of a roundabout at Holmes Street and Southern River Road funded from Southern River ODP Precinct 3.JL14-80222-3800-499 Increase

ExpenditureNicholson Rd Duplication - Ranford Rd to Clontarf Tce - Capital Purchases

363,031


Nicholson Rd Duplication - Ranford Rd to Clontarf Tce - Direct Grant

363,031

REASON:



81

Account Number Type Account Description Debit$

Credit$

Additional funds required for new intersection at Tranmore Tarn and modifications at intersections at Clontarf Terrace in order to finalise the second stage of the project which was pending completion of Tranmore Tarn by a private developer.JL15-60638-3800-741 Increase

ExpenditureGosnells Rd West Entry Statement Rectification Works - Capital Purchases

36,425


Gosnells Rd West Entry Statement Rectification Works - Capital Reimbursement

36,425

REASON:Rectification works following signalisation of Tonkin Highway and Gosnells Road West funded by contribution from Main Roads.JL14-80249-3800-499 Increase

ExpenditureSouthern River Rd Duplication - Ranford Rd to Holmes St - Capital Purchases

474,000


Southern River Rd Duplication - upgrade existing carriageway - Capital Purchases

749,138


Station St Bridge Rehabilitation - Capital Purchases

140,000


Southern River Rd Duplication - Ranford Rd to Holmes St - Grants - Roads to Recovery Program

474,000


Southern River Rd Duplication - upgrade existing carriageway - Capital Purchases

749,138


Station St Bridge Rehabilitation - Grants - Roads to Recovery Program

140,000

REASON:Distribution of annual grant allocation of Roads to Recovery grant, to be expended 30 June 2017. a) Funds to committed project - Station St design and b) Southern River Road.


Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority required.



82


349 Moved Cr L Storer Seconded Cr D Goode

That Council approves the following adjustments to the 2016/17 Municipal Budget:

Account Number Account Description Debit$

Credit$

JL76-93116-3762-000 Land resumption for Lot 11 Southern River Rd - Other Expenditure

402,256

JL76-93116-2310-000 Southern River Rd Duplication - Ranford Rd to Holmes St - Southern River ODP Precinct 3 - Transfer from Reserve - Operating

402,256

JL14-80222-3800-499 Nicholson Rd Duplication - Ranford Rd to Clontarf Tce - Capital Purchases

363,031

JL14-80222-1363-498 Nicholson Rd Duplication - Ranford Rd to Clontarf Tce - Direct Grant

363,031

JL15-60638-3800-741 Gosnells Rd West Entry Statement Rectification Works - Capital Purchases

36,425

JL15-60638-1482-716 Gosnells Rd West Entry Statement Rectification Works - Capital Reimbursement

36,425

JL14-80249-3800-499 Southern River Rd Duplication - Ranford Rd to Holmes St - Capital Purchases

474,000

JL14-80263-3800-499 Southern River Rd Duplication - upgrade existing carriageway - Capital Purchases

749,138

JL14-80259-3800-499 Station St Bridge Rehabilitation - Capital Purchases

140,000

JL14-80249-1353-498 Southern River Rd Duplication - Ranford Rd to Holmes St - Grants - Roads to Recovery Program

474,000

JL14-80263-1353-498 Southern River Rd Duplication - upgrade existing carriageway - Capital Purchases

749,138

JL14-80259-1353-498 Station St Bridge Rehabilitation - Grants - Roads to Recovery Program

140,000

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr D Goode, Cr D Griffiths, Cr T Healy, Cr T Lynes, Cr L Storer, Cr B Wiffen,


AGAINST: Nil.


83

13.5.4 TENDER 01/2016 - ASSET MANAGEMENT SOFTWAREAuthor: F SullivanAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.


PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Council of submissions received in relation to Tender 01/2016 - Asset Management Software.

BACKGROUND

Tenders were advertised in The West Australian newspaper on Wednesday 20 January 2016 and closed at 2pm on 25 February 2016 to select a consultant to provide Asset Management Software.

Submissions were received from the following companies:

Company Name AddressAssetFinda Pty Ltd PO Box 338, Mudgeeraba, QLD 4213Assetic Australia Proprietary Limited

Level 12, 257 Collins Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

TechnologyOne Limited 1 Agnew Way, Subiaco, WA 6008

DISCUSSION

The tender submissions were assessed by the Evaluation Panel against the evaluation criteria defined within the tender documentation: Relevant Experience, Key Personnel, Skills and Resources, Demonstrated Understanding and the Price.

Following scoring conducted by the Evaluation Panel it was determined that none of the tenderers adequately addressed the requirements of the tender specification. As such, it will be recommended that Council declines to accept any tender received.


Nil.


Section 3.57(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to invite tenders before it enters a contract of a prescribed kind under which another person is to supply the goods or services.

Regulation 18(5) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 allows a local government to decline to accept any tender.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




84


350 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr D Goode

That Council, in accordance with Regulation 18(5) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, declines to accept any tender received in relation to Tender 01/2016 - Asset Management Software.



AGAINST: Nil.

13.6 GOVERNANCE

Nil.

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

15. URGENT BUSINESS(by permission of Council)

Nil.


85

16. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

16.1 COMMUNITY SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF SPONSORSHIP REQUESTS FOR AUGUST 2016 SPONSORSHIP ROUND

Author: A JarvisAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 16.1A Confidential Appendix – Sponsorship Matrix

Summary of Applications and Staff Assessment – August 2016 Sponsorship Round.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Council of the applications received in the August 2016 round of the City’s Community sponsorship program and for Council to determine the awarding of sponsorships in accordance with Council Policy 3.2.2 – Community Sponsorship Program.

BACKGROUND

The Community Sponsorship Program is facilitated by the City to assist community organisations in the delivery of programs and services within the local community and individual community members to achieve high standards in their chosen field of endeavour.

An invitation to apply for sponsorship for the August 2016 round was advertised to local community organisation in July 2016 with the closing date for submissions being 19 August 2016. Based on previous sponsorship rounds it is usual for the City to receive between 20 and 30 applications each round. For the current round, a total of 13 applications have been received in the available categories as detailed below. This is a rare occurrence as the previous seven rounds of the Community Sponsorship Program have all been oversubscribed.

Categories Number of Applications Received

Sponsorship Requested

Minor Capital Works and Equipment 7 $30,010Programs and Events 3 $15,000Training and Support 2 $2,200History and Heritage Conservation 1 $1,345Total 13 $48,555

Following the closing date, the applications were evaluated using the sponsorship assessment criteria contained within Council Policy 3.2.2 – Community Sponsorship Program. The evaluation matrix is presented to Council for consideration and is attached as Confidential Appendix 16.1A.

DISCUSSION

Confidential Appendix 16.1A provides a summary of applications received by the City and the assessments including comments against the criteria contained within Council Policy 3.2.2 – Community Sponsorship Program for those applicants.


Item 16.1 Continued

86

Applications have been given a project assessment score after being assessed against the following:

Community Benefit – Has the applicant provided sound justification of the need for their proposal and indicated what members of the community will benefit?

Project Management – Has the applicant described how their proposal will be planned and managed?

Access and Opportunity – Does the proposal provide equitable access and opportunities for people to participate?

Consultation – Has the applicant consulted with other stakeholders that may be affected by the proposal?

Sustainability – Has the applicant shown how their proposal will be financially viable and how will the delivery of the proposal affect the organisation’s operations in the long term?

The assessment process also involved checking that applicants complied with all eligibility requirements, namely:

Eligible Applicant Structure – A not-for-profit community, recreation or sporting organisation, based or operating in the City, servicing a significant number of local residents; a charitable institution; or an incorporated body under the Associations Incorporations Act 1987.

Maximum Sponsorship Permitted – applicants are eligible to receive a maximum of two sponsorships per sponsorship round with the exception of the Minor Capital Works and Equipment category, where applicants are eligible to receive a maximum of one sponsorship per annum within that category.

Sponsorship Restrictions – sponsorship will not be available for:o Projects that commence before approvals are announced and

sponsorship agreements have been signedo Development of facilities owned by private individuals, businesses or

non-public buildingso Projects considered to be a full State or Federal Government

responsibilityo Recurrent costs

o Facilities or fixtures for the express purpose of serving alcohol

o Projects that do not meet relevant Australian Standards, legislative requirements or comply with Council Policies

o Use as a contribution toward other funding programs

o Additional or ‘top up’ funds for projects already receiving financial assistance from the City in previous sponsorship rounds

o Organisations which have not satisfactorily acquitted previous sponsorships.

Following the assessment, the applications were ranked in priority order from the highest to the lowest score. The recommended outcomes are listed in Confidential Appendix 16.1A.


Item 16.1 Continued

87

Not all applications are recommended for sponsorship as they either did not comply with Council Policy 3.2.2 – Community Sponsorship Program or received a lower overall assessment score.

In accordance with Council Policy 3.2.2 – Community Sponsorship Program, Council is required to determine the sponsorship applications received in each category.

Formal sponsorship agreements will be developed for all successful applicants to ensure compliance with the terms for which the sponsorship is provided and to require the lodgement of acquittal documentation following the completion of respective projects.


The total value of the sponsorships requested in the current round is $48,555. As this is the first round for the financial year, there are sufficient funds in the City’s 2016/17 operating budget for the Community Sponsorship Program which is $117,000.

It is recommended that Council approves sponsorship totalling $39,446 in this round. The table below shows the breakdown of sponsorship recommended within each sponsorship category.

Sponsorship Categories Sponsorship Recommended

Minor Capital Works and Equipment $20,901Programs and Events $15,000Training and Support $2,200History and Heritage Conservation $1,345

Total $39,446

It should be noted that the sponsorship amounts indicated are all exclusive of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Where an applicant is GST registered, their sponsorship will be ‘grossed up’ to accommodate for the GST.


Council Policy 3.2.2 – Community Sponsorship Program is relevant.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



Item 16.1 Continued

88


351 Moved Cr T Lynes Seconded Cr B Wiffen

That Council, in accordance with Council Policy 3.2.2 – Community Sponsorship Program, approves the following sponsorship applications received for Category 1 – Minor Capital Works and Equipment:

Number Applicant Project Sponsorship Amount

1 Gosnells Men’s ShedRefurbishment of additional facility for Men’s Shed activities.

$8,000

2 Animal Protection Society of WA Inc.

Renovation of Animal Protection Society’s Kitten Shed Area and access pathways.

$8,000

3 Boys Brigade WA (20th) Company

Upgrade financial recording – MYOB and Laptop. $500

4 Gosnells Hawks Baseball Club Permanent Baseball Back net. $2,989

5 Jetz Netball Club Inc. Laptop replacement. $1,412CARRIED 9/0


AGAINST: Nil.



That Council, in accordance with Council Policy 3.2.2 – Community Sponsorship Program, approves the following sponsorship applications received for Category 2 – Programs and Events:


1 Coolabaroo Neighbourhood Centre

Coolabaroo Neighbourhood Centre 30 Year Anniversary. $5,000

2 Gosnells District Neighbourhood Watch

Homegrown Festival 2017 Annual Safety and Security Program.

$5,000

3 Dyslexia Foundation Boost: Help Your Child to Read and Spell. $5,000



AGAINST: Nil.


Item 16.1 Continued

89



That Council, in accordance with Council Policy 3.2.2 – Community Sponsorship Program, approves the following sponsorship applications received for Category 3 – Training and Support:


1 Parkrun Inc. Specialised First Aid and Defibrillator Training. $1,100

2 Teenspirit Inc.Celebration – The End of an Era – Family Fun Day/Xmas Party.

$1,100



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council, in accordance with Council Policy 3.2.2 – Community Sponsorship Program, approves the following sponsorship applications received for Category 5 – History and Heritage Conservation:


1 Gosnells Football & Sports Club

Club Historical Displays of Pennant Flags since 1911. $1,345



AGAINST: Nil.


90

17. CLOSURE

The Mayor declared the meeting closed at 8.06pm.

Documents

Ordinary Council Meeting Standard · trees from Barents Road, Canning Vale and 9 healthy trees were removed. In February 2016, this will be Towncentre Drives third petition requesting