ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 26 JUNE 2012 TABLE OF …...City of Gosnells Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 26 June 2012 Item Report Title Page No. iii 13.5.6 AMENDMENT NO. 130 TO TOWN

i

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING26 JUNE 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS - MINUTES

Item Report Title Page No.

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

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE............................................................................2

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST......................................................................3

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER......................................3

5. REPORTS OF DELEGATES.............................................................................3

6. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE RECEIVING OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS.....................................................................................3

6.1 QUESTION TIME...................................................................................5

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS.........................................................................6

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES........................................................................7

8. THE RECEIVING OF PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ............................................................................................7

9. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ...................................................7

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN............................7

11. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY ...............................................................................8

13.5.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - FAST FOOD OUTLET (MCDONALD'S) - 95 (LOT 8) FOREST LAKES DRIVE, THORNLIE .....................................................9

13.5.5 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - PLACE OF WORSHIP - 1720 (LOT 304) ALBANY HIGHWAY, KENWICK ..............................................................................19

13.5.6 AMENDMENT NO. 130 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 - FINALISATION - CREATION OF A DEVELOPMENT ZONE AND REZONING OF LAND, VERNA AND EILEEN STREETS, GOSNELLS .....................27

13.6.1 CRYSTAL BROOK CARAVAN PARK - APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE ..............................................36

12. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS ........................................................37

City of GosnellsOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes 26 June 2012


ii

13. REPORTS .......................................................................................................38

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE...............................................................38

13.1.1 CITY OF GOSNELLS GARDEN COMPETITION ..................38

13.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ............................................................42

13.3 CORPORATE SERVICES ...................................................................43

13.3.1 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - MAY 2012 ..............4313.3.2 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - MAY 2012...............................45

13.4 INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................46

13.4.1 PROPOSED LEASE TO LIDDELOW HOMESTEAD ARTS & CRAFTS CLUB INC OF PORTION OF LOT 11 (NO 9) COOPER AVENUE KENWICK .............................46

13.4.2 ANTI-HOON SPEED HUMP EVALUATION - STENNETT STREET, GOSNELLS........................................48

13.4.3 POLICY 2.4.7 - CROSSINGS REVIEW .................................5113.4.4 GOSNELLS ROADWISE ADVISORY GROUP - 6

JUNE 2012.............................................................................53

13.5 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY ....................................................55

13.5.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - FAST FOOD OUTLET (MCDONALD'S) - 95 (LOT 8) FOREST LAKES DRIVE, THORNLIE (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11) .........55

13.5.2 SOUTH EAST REGIONAL ENERGY GROUP - DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING..............................56

13.5.3 DEDICATION AS ROAD (ALBANY HIGHWAY) - LOT 803 ON PLAN 23482 AND LOT 321 ON DEPOSITED PLAN 61379...........................................................................60

13.5.4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - ADDITIONS TO EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT (HOME ECONOMICS AND GYM) - 17 (LOT 501) TONBRIDGE WAY, THORNLIE ............................................63

13.5.5 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - PLACE OF WORSHIP - 1720 (LOT 304) ALBANY HIGHWAY, KENWICK (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11) .........71



iii

13.5.6 AMENDMENT NO. 130 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 - FINALISATION - CREATION OF A DEVELOPMENT ZONE AND REZONING OF LAND, VERNA AND EILEEN STREETS, GOSNELLS (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11) .........71

13.5.7 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY - PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAYS......................................................................72

13.6 GOVERNANCE....................................................................................75

13.6.1 CRYSTAL BROOK CARAVAN PARK - APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11) .........75

13.6.2 RIVERSIDE GARDENS ESTATE CARAVAN PARK - APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE .....................76

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ...................78

15. NOTICES OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING ........................................................................................................78

16. URGENT BUSINESS ......................................................................................78

17. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS ............................................................................78

18. CLOSURE .......................................................................................................78

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY


1

Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held in the City of Gosnells Civic Centre Council Chambers, 2120 Albany Highway, Gosnells on Tuesday 26 June 2012.

1. OFFICIAL 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

A printed copy of this notice is provided in the Public Gallery:

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 (complete with FTR Reader) 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

2.1 ATTENDANCE

ELECTED MEMBERS

MAYOR CR D GRIFFITHSDEPUTY MAYOR CR R MITCHELL

CR J BROWNCR T BROWNCR G DEWHURSTCR R HOFFMANCR S IWANYKCR K JONESCR R LAWRENCECR O SEARLE

STAFF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR I COWIEDIRECTOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MS A COCHRANACTING DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES MR F SULLIVANACTING DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE MR D DENTONDIRECTOR PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY MR C TERELINCKDIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MR T PERKINSMINUTE CLERK MISS S MACGROTTY

PUBLIC GALLERY 12

2.2 APOLOGIES

Nil.

2.3 LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr L Griffiths was granted Leave of Absence from 22 June 2012 to 17 July 2012 vide Resolution 228 of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 12 June 2012.

Cr W Barrett was granted Leave of Absence from 26 June 2012 to 3 July 2012 vide Resolution 228 of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 12 June 2012.


3

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Cr T Brown declared an Impartiality Interest in Item 13.4.4, "Gosnells RoadWise Advisory Group - 6 June 2012".Reason: Presiding Member of the RoadWise Advisory Group.

Cr S Iwanyk declared a Proximity Interest in Item 13.5.6, "Amendment No. 130 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 - Finalisation - Creation of a Development Zone and Rezoning of Land, Verna and Eileen Streets, Gosnells".Reason: Own property directly opposite in Verna Street, Gosnells.

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER(without discussion)

The Mayor circulated to Councillors a list of functions and events he had attended since 12 June 2012.

5. REPORTS OF DELEGATES(without debate)

Cr T Brown advised Council that he had recently attended a tree planting event at the Tom Bateman Reserve where invited guests planted approximately 2000 seeds. Furthermore, Cr Brown informed the Council that he met a group of people from the 'members of the happiness group' who were volunteering their time to the City of Gosnells. Cr Brown presented two DVD's to the Council on behalf of the members of the happiness group.

Cr R Hoffman informed the Council that MWAC and the Waste Authority will be holding a 'Waste to Energy Seminar' at the Pagoda Hotel on the 18 July 2012 from 4 to 7.30pm. Application forms for this seminar will be available from the CEO and all are encouraged to attend this very educational seminar.

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.


4

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS AWAITING RESPONSE

Nil.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS

12 June 2012 Ordinary Council Meeting

Mrs Sandra Baraiolo on behalf of the Gosnells District Ratepayers Association asked the following questions at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on the 12 June 2012:

Q1 How many residents and households are in the 1000 metre radius of Lot 2, diagram 80819 Austin Avenue, Kenwick, known as New Age Recycling?

Q2 How many infringements have been issued within the last 6 months in and around the Thornlie Islamic College in Tonbridge Way and Clancy Way, Thornlie?

Response: In reply to Mrs Baraiolo the Director Planning and Sustainability provided the following written response on 20 June 2012.

"At the 12 June Council meeting, you asked two questions on behalf of the Ratepayers Association. These are produced below together with responses:

Question 1: How many residents and households are in the 1000 metre radius of Lot 2, diagram 80819 Austin Avenue, Kenwick, known as New Age Recycling?

Response: There are 750 residential properties with the 1,000 metre radius.

Question 2: How many infringements have been issued within the last 6 months in and around the Thornlie Islamic College in Tonbridge Way and Clancy Way, Thornlie?

Response: A review of Council records has identified that no infringement notices were issued in either of the streets referred to in the last six months."


5

6.1 QUESTION TIME

Question Time for the Public commenced at 7.35pm.

Mrs Sandra Baraiolo on behalf of the Gosnells District Ratepayers Association asked the following questions:

Q1 On which date did the City of Gosnells become aware that the Development Approval that was given under delegated authority for New Age Recycling at No.24 (Lot 86) Austin Avenue in Kenwick, may have been incompatible with the "Light Industry" zoning for that land, and if so, what action will the City of Gosnells take to rectify this situation?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that he could not provide the exact date, however concerns have been raised in various ways with the City. Some of these concerns have been raised by observations from the community when the facility was being established and other concerns have been aired in the media and have been answered by the media.

The outcome of that contention is that the City is currently in the process of talking to the DEC to compare the details of the licence application to the DEC with the details of the planning application that was lodged with the City to ensure that they are consistent.

Q2 During the approval process for New Age Recycling in 2009, did the City of Gosnells refer or discuss the proposal to the EPA and/or DEC?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that the question would be taken on notice and responded to in writing.

Ms Maureen Hegarty on behalf of Urbis, Level 1/55 St Georges Terrace, Perth asked the following questions:

Q1 With respect to Appendix C of Item 13.5.1, what criteria was used to identify the fast food outlets, what is the significance of that criteria with respect to the issue of an additional 8 hours of trade per week for a premised located in a district centre and why have only some big brand fast food outlets been identified, eg Dominos which offer a delivery service and Subway and Chicken Treat which are also located at the Forest Lakes Centre have not been shown on the plan?


6

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that the criteria used by the City was to try and identify to the Councillors, the location of like facilities within the district. Some of the other fast food establishments don’t have a substantial restaurant component and their premises is exclusively 'take away', and some of these establishments are within the shopping centres instead of being external.

Therefore, the City was assessing the facilities that were similar in scale and the type of market appeal to the proposed McDonald's, so it could be seen where these facilities were located.

Q2 Other than the recently approved Subway at Forest Lakes, what other premises of any use (e.g., shop, restaurant, fast food outlet, tavern, service station) located in the centre zones (regional, district or local) of the City have had trading hour restrictions imposed as a condition of their planning approval?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that he was not aware of any off hand, however the McDonald's application is one of the first of its type within the City, where extending trading hours is proposed in what is essentially a local district centre.

Question Time for the Public concluded at 7.43pm.

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS

Public Statement Time commenced at 7.43pm.

6.2.1 Mr Scott Bellerby of 18 Lyall Street, Ascot submitted a statement in relation to Item 13.5.1 "Development Application - Fast Food Outlet (McDonald's) - 95 (Lot 8) Forest Lakes Drive, Thornlie" speaking against the proposed staff recommendation:

Mr Bellerby expressed his thanks to the Council for the application approval and further explained the need for signage and extended trading hours that do not compromise the safety of the site but address the commercial needs and customer expectations.

Mr Bellerby advised the Council of the outcomes that McDonalds were willing to offer to achieve a mediated outcome, these being 5 directional signs at 1.8m as opposed to the 2.1m signs that were originally proposed, and 1 additional trading hour from Sunday to Thursday and 3 additional trading hours on Friday for the restaurant to use as opposed to the unrestricted trading in the original application. In conclusion Mr Bellerby requested that Council support the trading hours and signage being sought to enable the matter to be resolved.


7

6.2.2 Mr Paul Temov of 35 Kosella Street, Stirling submitted a statement in relation to Item 13.6.1 "Crystal Brook Caravan Park - Application for Renewal of Licence" speaking in favour of the proposed staff recommendation:

Mr Temov expressed his thanks to all the staff for their assistance and requested that Council support the staff recommendation.

Public Statement Time concluded at 7.48pm.

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

252 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr T Brown

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 12 June 2012, as published and distributed be confirmed as an accurate record.

CARRIED 10/0FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones,

Cr R Lawrence, Cr R Mitchell, Cr O Searle and Cr D Griffiths.

AGAINST: Nil.

8. THE RECEIVING OF PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

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

Copies of petitions and any documentation tabled or shown during a Deputation or Presentation must be provided to the Chief Executive Officer immediately following completion of the submission.

Nil.

9. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Clause 2.9 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003 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 paragraph (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.


8

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 2.15.4(9) of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law]

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

253 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr O Searle

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

Item 13.5.1 Development Application - Fast Food Outlet (McDonald's) - 95 (Lot 8) Forest Lakes Drive, Thornlie;

Item 13.5.5 Development Application - Place of Worship - 1720 (Lot 304) Albany Highway, Kenwick;

Item 13.5.6 Amendment No. 130 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 - Finalisation - Creation of a Development Zone and Rezoning of Land, Verna and Eileen Streets, Gosnells;

Item 13.6.1 Crystal Brook Caravan Park - Application for Renewal of Licence.CARRIED 10/0

FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones, Cr R Lawrence, Cr R Mitchell, Cr O Searle and Cr D Griffiths.

AGAINST: Nil.


9

13.5.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - FAST FOOD OUTLET (MCDONALD'S) - 95 (LOT 8) FOREST LAKES DRIVE, THORNLIE

Author: A ThompsonAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: 216163Application No: DA11/00366Applicant: Urbis Pty LtdOwner: Omega Point Pty LtdLocation: 95 (Lot 8) Forest Lakes Drive, ThornlieZoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: District CentreReview Rights: Yes. The application is currently the subject to review by the

State Administrative TribunalArea: 2,384m2

Previous Ref: OCM 13 March 2012 (Resolutions 92-94)Appendices: 13.5.1A Approved Site Plan and Elevations

13.5.1B Amended Site Plan and Elevations13.5.1C Location of Major Stand-alone Fast Food Outlets

within the City13.5.1D Perspective View of Proposed Wall Sign

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to reconsider its position on two conditions of planning approval granted on 13 March 2012, as requested by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

BACKGROUND

History

On 13 March 2012, Council considered an application for a Fast Food Outlet at the subject site and resolved (Resolution 94) to approve the proposal, subject to 13 conditions.

The applicant lodged an appeal to the SAT for a review of two of the conditions of approval, namely Condition 1 (relating to the hours of operation) and Condition 13 (relating to the signage on the site). Following mediation, the SAT issued orders requiring the Council to reconsider its decision in relation to the hours of trading and signage.

Site Description and Planning Framework

The subject site has frontage to Murdoch Road to the north, Ovens Road to the east and Forest Lakes Drive to the south. The site forms part of the Forest Lakes district centre which currently includes a shopping centre, the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre, Lakers Tavern and its associated bottle shop and a gym. Nearby land uses comprise predominantly residential lots, with an area of parkland on the opposite side of Forest Lakes Drive.


Item 13.5.1 Continued

10

A location plan follows:

OVENS

DR

DRLAKES

MURDOCH

RD

FOREST

Original Proposal

The original application sought approval for a Fast Food Outlet on the subject site, proposed to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week (for both the restaurant and the drive-through).

A condition was imposed on the approval restricting the hours of operation for the restaurant component to be from 6am to 11pm Sunday to Friday, and from 6am Saturday to 2am Sunday. The drive-through was permitted to operate 24 hours a day. This restriction forms one part of the appeal application to the SAT.

The second part of the original proposal that is subject to the appeal application relates to the condition requiring amended signage plans. The original proposal provided one pylon sign, various direction signs and wall signs. The pylon sign was considered acceptable and approved without requiring changes, however the direction signs and certain components of the wall signs required modification through an amended signage plan. Those modifications include:

The direction signage being setback a minimum of 2m from the boundary of the subject site and reduced in size so signage does not exceed 1.2m in height and 0.6m in width

The wall signage elements being modified so as to conform to the City's Signage and Flags Policy.

The approved elevation and site plan are contained as Appendix 13.5.1A.

Consultation

As part of the original assessment, the application was advertised for 28 days to properties within a 300m radius of the subject site.



11

At the completion of the advertising period 88 submissions were received, of which 60 objected to the proposal, 23 raised no objection and five provided comment. A summary of the original submissions received and comments thereon was contained in the report presented to Council on 13 March 2012.

The main issues of concern raised by submitters related to:

Traffic

Parking

Noise

Odour

Potential for anti-social behaviour

Aesthetic impacts

The suitability of the use.

DISCUSSION

Invitation to Council to Reconsider its Decision

The SAT has invited Council to reconsider the proposal in the context of the amended application and justification put forward by the applicant. The options are as follows:

Affirm the previous decision

Vary the previous decision

Set aside the previous decision and substitute a new decision.

Amended Application

Hours of Operation

The applicants have advised, during the SAT mediation process, that they are no longer pursuing 24 hour operation for both the restaurant and drive-through, however they are requesting amended operating hours, to reflect the other McDonald's stores in Western Australia. The table below demonstrates the proposed hours of trading compared with the approved hours of trading:

Day Approved Trading hours

Proposed Modified Trading Hours Difference

RestaurantSunday to Thursday 6am to 11pm 6am to midnight Additional one hourFriday 6am to 11pm 6am to 2am (Saturday) Additional three hoursSaturday 6am to 2am (Sunday) 6am to 2am (Sunday) No changeDrive ThroughAll days 24 hours a day, 7 days

a week24 hours a day, 7 days a week

No change



12

Signage

The City has received amended plans and justification to support modifications to the signage aspect of the proposal. The amended plans include six signs (one wall sign and five direction signs) that require Council consideration.

An amended elevation and site plan are contained as Appendix 13.5.1B.

Hours of Operation

The SAT application and supporting justification, as it relates to the hours of operation, identify that the original application proposed 24 hour operation of both the restaurant and the drive-thru facility, however the SAT review and amended proposal are not seeking approval of 24 hour operation, but rather, extended hours of operation to what was approved by Council.

The applicant has attempted to justify that the amended hours of operation are appropriate as they are consistent with other McDonald's stores within Western Australia and it is important from a corporate branding and marketing perspective that all stores are consistently operating on a demand basis. The amended hours of operation have also been justified as being acceptable as the outlet and the adjoining tavern can coordinate security measures across the broader site with a view to contribute funding towards the overall security of the area. In this regard, it is noted that the Lakers Tavern is able to trade between 6am and midnight Monday to Saturday and 10am to 10pm on Sundays. It is not considered the approved hours of operation for McDonalds will restrict any measures to coordinate security across the broader commercial site.

It is considered however that the applicant has failed to address how the proposed hours of operation will affect the amenity of the surrounding area, specific to the site's context. It is important to determine whether the proposed changes in hours of operation would generate a level of activity that would have an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the locality. The surrounding residential uses influence the assessment of the impact on amenity due to the close proximity in which the two uses are located. It is important to consider the compatibility of the use, in terms of the proposed extended hours, with the surrounding uses. In this regard, the following should be considered:

There is the potential for noise impacts on the neighbouring residential uses

The site's flanking roads act as local traffic distributors, rather than fulfilling any significant traffic role. Stand alone Fast Food Outlets are more commonly located on major roads that fulfil a regional traffic function, where there would be less of an impact on neighbouring residents. The roads around the subject site are generally quiet at times when the shopping centre is closed. The functionality of the flanking roads is discussed further below.

The local distributor roads have a low frequency of vehicles at night (as compared to major regional roads) and therefore the potential for passive surveillance by passing traffic is reduced significantly in the case of this proposal.



13

The site's proximity to the Lakers Tavern creates the potential for tavern patrons to remain in the area, particularly if the tavern has closed and the McDonald's outlet remains open for a period of time. This generates the potential to encourage noise and anti-social behaviour if people are loitering around the area, rather than moving on once the tavern has closed.

Apart from the recently approved gymnasium on the adjoining property, no other uses in the district centre operate 24 hours a day, meaning that the centre is typically quiet between late evening and early morning.

There is the potential for the parkland located opposite the subject site to be used late in the evening in connection with the proposed development and the consequential issues that might generate in respect to loitering and other anti-social behaviour.

Further to the above, the location of the McDonald's on a local road is considered uncommon for a major stand alone "big brand" Fast Food Outlet. A plan showing the location of other major, stand alone Fast Food Outlets (for example not located within a shopping centre food court) within the City is contained as Appendix 13.5.1C. This plan clearly demonstrates that all other stand alone Fast Food Outlets within the City are located on roads reserved as Primary Regional Roads or Other Regional Roads under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The only exceptions are those Fast Food Outlets located within the Gosnells Town Centre, where Albany Highway is not reserved under the MRS but is still classified as a Primary Distributor Road and is still under the care of Main Roads WA. The location of the outlet on a local road requires a more sensitive consideration of the impact on the amenity of the surrounding area due to the close proximity to surrounding residential uses and the greater expectation of residential amenity from nearby landowners, compared to other landowners that reside on a higher order road.

The City is aware of an application for a McDonald's restaurant on Great Eastern Highway in Belmont which was the subject of a review at the SAT. The SAT approved the proposal for the McDonald's subject to conditions. It is important to note that Great Eastern Highway is a Primary Regional Road under the MRS, which serves a regional function. The table below demonstrates the differences in the trading hours between the subject application and the McDonald's on Great Eastern Highway in Belmont.

Day Proposed McDonald's Thornlie Trading Hours

Proposed McDonald's Belmont Trading Hours

RestaurantSunday to Thursday 6am to midnight 5am to 11pmFriday 6am to 2am (Saturday) 5am to 12pmSaturday 6am to 2am (Sunday) 5am to 12pmDrive ThroughAll days 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 24 hours a day, 7 days a week

It is clear that the proposed operating hours of the Thornlie McDonald's is more extensive than what was proposed and considered acceptable for a facility located on Great Eastern Highway, a regionally significant road. The SAT considered the regional role of Great Eastern Highway, serving as a link between the Perth Central Business District and Perth Airport, when making its determination to approve the McDonald's in Belmont. Forest Lakes Drive merely performs a district level function and it is therefore considered that more extensive operating hours (when compared to what the SAT considered as appropriate for an outlet located on a regionally significant road) is not appropriate at the subject site.



14

Clause 11.2(i) and 11.2(n) of TPS 6 requires Council, when considering applications for planning approval, to take into consideration the compatibility of a use within its setting and the preservation of amenity. The proposed extended trading hours is therefore not supported as the impact on the amenity of the surrounding area is considered to be unacceptable on the surrounding residential properties. It will therefore be recommended that Council not support the request to extend the trading hours.

Local Planning Policy 4.9 - Signage and Flags

The signage component of the application has been amended since Council approved the development on 13 March 2012 (Resolution 94).

In the original application, a number of proposed signs did not comply with the City's Signage and Flags Policy. A number of the signs have been modified to comply with the requirements of the Policy since the application was approved. In this regard, the amended signage includes:

Numerous signs which are exempt pursuant to Schedule 5 of TPS 6 due to their compliance with the prescribed design standards or which were previously accepted by Council

Two flagpoles and one wall sign have been deleted to achieve compliance with the Policy

Six signs (one wall sign and five directional signs) are the subject of this request for reconsideration.

Wall Signs

The proposed amended wall signs have been assessed against the Policy.

Policy Standards for Wall Signs Proposed Wall SignsSize A wall sign shall not protrude more than

600mm from the surface of the wall to which it is attached.

All signs comply.

Location Signs that protrude more than 10mm from the surface of the wall shall afford a minimum height clearance of 2.7m from the ground level.

All signs comply.

The sign shall not be within 600mm of the end of the wall to which it is attached.

All signs comply with the exception of sign 2C.

Policy Standards for Wall Signs Proposed Wall SignsThere shall be at least 4m between other wall signs on the same face of any building.

All signs comply.

The sign shall not project more than 750mm above the top of the wall

All signs comply.

Composition Lettering of the sign shall not exceed 1.2m in height.

All signs comply.

Maximum Number Two signs per tenancy per street frontage. All signs comply.



15

Wall sign 2C does not comply as it is located 440mm from either end of the wall, in lieu of 600mm required by the Policy. The applicant has justified this variation as it is extremely minor and not considered to detrimentally impact the streetscape. A perspective view is contained as Appendix 13.5.1D, which demonstrates that the quality of the streetscape and amenity for the adjoining residents will not be compromised by this variation to the signage. This above variation is considered to be minor in nature and is considered acceptable. It is therefore recommended that Council support this variation.

Direction Signs

The proposed amended direction signs have been assessed against the Policy.

Policy Standards for Direction Signs Proposed Direction SignsMaximum height 1.2m All proposed direction signs are

1.8m in height and therefore do no comply.

Size

Maximum width 0.6m All proposed direction signs are 0.7m wide and therefore do not comply.

Location Minimum boundary setback 2m All proposed direction signs are setback 2m from property boundaries with the exception of sign S8B, which is setback 0.5m from the Forest Lakes Drive boundary.

Maximum Number Two signs per business operating from the site.

There are five proposed direction signs, which therefore does not comply.

The application considered by Council on 13 March 2012 proposed five direction signs which were 2.3m in height and 0.7m wide. Council approved the application subject to the signs being modified to be setback 2m from property boundaries, the height not exceeding 1.2m and the width not exceeding 0.6m.

Setback Variation

In justifying the setback variation for sign S8B, the applicant has stated that the sign achieves a 2m setback to a side lot boundary (with adjacent Lot 108) and strict compliance with the street setback requirement would lead to the loss of a car parking bay.

In addition to the above, the proposed sign is located 1.66m from the existing footpath, which is considered sufficient distance in terms of safety and visual amenity. The location of this sign is therefore considered acceptable.

Number of Signs

The text for each of the proposed signs is as follows:

Two 'Welcome' signs (signs S8A and S8B)

One 'Drive Thru' sign (sign S8C)



16

One 'Thank you' sign which displays 'No Entry' on the opposite side (S8D)

One 'Any Lane, Any Time' sign (Sign S8E).

Signs S8A, S8B, S8C and S8D are considered to perform a traffic management function by indicating the entrances to the site, by directing traffic through the most appropriate entrance to the drive-through facility and by indicating there is no entry through the exit of the drive through. Sign S8E is not considered to perform a legitimate traffic management function as it is considered evident from the numerous other drive-through signs and order booths that there are two drive-through lanes. In terms of the number of signs, it is considered that four of the five proposed signs are acceptable, with Sign S8E considered unacceptable.

Height Variation

In justifying the height variation of the direction signs, the applicant has stated that the purpose of direction signage is to provide advice to customers as to how to enter and manoeuvre through a site, performing a traffic management and safety function. The applicants further state that direction signage at a height of 1.2m is likely to be blocked from view by other vehicles which would lead to problems which the direction signage is designed to overcome, for example, providing advice to customers as to how to enter and exit the site safely.

The proposed signage at 1.8m in height is not considered acceptable as it is expected that it will detract from the existing streetscape. In this regard, one of the objectives of the Signage and Flags Policy is to:

"Protect the quality of the streetscape and the amenity of the adjoining and nearby residents by minimising the visual impacts of the signs."

It is considered that the proposed height of the direction signs, being 1.8m, is excessive in an area which is defined, at least in part, by the existing residential land uses that surround the centre. Whilst larger, more visually dominant signs may be considered acceptable in areas that are defined by a larger commercial component and/or the presence of a higher order regional road, the subject site does not abut such a road and is located in close proximity to residential dwellings. The visual impact of the number of signs, combined with the proposed height of the signage at 1.8m is considered excessive and will not protect the quality of the streetscape for the neighbouring residents. It is therefore recommended that Council not support the variation to the height of the signage at 1.8m.

Width variation

The proposed direction signs are 700mm wide, which is a variation to the 600mm requirement of the Policy. The variation is considered minor and not one that will materially affect the quality of the streetscape for the surrounding residential uses. The variation is therefore considered acceptable.



17

CONCLUSION

The signage component of the application is supported, with the exception of the height and number of direction signs. It will be recommended that Council support the request to vary the condition of planning approval relating to signage, subject to the direction sign heights being limited to 1.2m and sign S8E being removed.

In terms of the hours of operation, the amended proposal is not supported. The facility is located within a district centre, surrounded by residential uses with a high amenity. It is considered that the proposed extension to the hours of operation would be better suited to a store located on a regional road and not in close proximity to existing residential uses.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004

Town Planning Scheme No. 6

Local Planning Policy 4.9 - Signage and Flags.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority required for recommendation 1. (Requires the support of one third (4) of the offices of Members of Council for the matter to be considered).

Simple Majority required for recommendation 2.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 OF 2) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

254 Moved Cr G Dewhurst Seconded Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman and Cr S Iwanyk

That Council vary the planning approval granted on 13 March 2012 for a Fast Food Outlet at 95 (Lot 8) Forest Lakes Drive, Thornlie, by amending Condition 13 to read as follows:

13. An amended signage plan being submitted, prior to an application for a building licence being lodged, showing sign S8E removed, and signs S8A, S8B, S8C and S8D being reduced in height to 1.2m.

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/1FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones,

Cr R Lawrence, Cr O Searle and Cr D Griffiths.

AGAINST: Cr R Mitchell.



18


255 Moved Cr G Dewhurst Seconded Cr O Searle

That Council refuse to vary the planning approval granted on 13 March 2012 for a Fast Food Outlet at 95 (Lot 8) Forest Lakes Drive, Thornlie, as it relates to Condition 1 (Hours of Operation), for the following reasons:

1. The extended operating hours are expected have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential uses.

2. The proposed extension to the operating hours is considered to be inconsistent with the nature of the district centre in which it is located.

CARRIED 7/3FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr K Jones, Cr R Lawrence, Cr O Searle and

Cr D Griffiths.

AGAINST: Cr G Dewhurst, Cr S Iwanyk and Cr R Mitchell.


19

13.5.5 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - PLACE OF WORSHIP - 1720 (LOT 304) ALBANY HIGHWAY, KENWICK

Author: L LangfordAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: 222436Application No: DA11/00435Applicant: Define Creations Design & DraftingOwner: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Debre Amin Abune

Teklehaimanot Church IncLocation: 1720 (Lot 304) Albany Highway, KenwickZoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: General Industry (Additional Use - Place of Worship)Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council.Area: 3,788m²Previous Ref: OCM 9 September 2008 (Resolution 420)

OCM 25 March 2008 (Resolution 107)Appendices: 13.5.5A Site Plan

13.5.5B Floor Plan13.5.5C Elevation Plan13.5.5D Previously Approved Site Plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval for a Place of Worship at 1720 (Lot 304) Albany Highway, Kenwick. The application is being presented to Council for determination as Council has previously determined a similar proposal for the subject site.

BACKGROUND


The subject site contains several existing buildings which are approved to be used for Community Purposes (the intent was for welfare related services). The property is located on Albany Highway which is designated as a Primary Regional Road under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The property abuts the Armadale Train Line and is located approximately 340 metres from the Kenwick train station.

The property is zoned General Industry under Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) with an additional use as a Place of Worship.

A map identifying the location of the subject property follows:



20

Site History

Council at its meeting of 9 September 2008 resolved (Resolution 107) to approve an application for a Place of Worship on the subject site. This application involved the following:

Demolition of all buildings on the site, with the exception of one brick building which was proposed to be extended and used as a 'minor hall' associated with the Church

The construction of a chapel/worship building

The construction of 50 car parking bays which represents a variation to the car parking requirements under TPS 6 (as a shortfall of 23 car bays was proposed).

This approval has since lapsed as development did not commence within two years from the date of approval. The current application seeks re-approval of what is effectively the same proposal.

Proposal

The proposal involves the development of new buildings, being a place of worship, a caretaker unit and a storeroom. It is also proposed to extend the existing building on the site. The details of the proposal are as follows:

The demolition of all buildings on the site, with the exception of one brick building, located closest to Albany Highway

A new 357m² church hall building with seating for 200 persons and a seating floor space of 182m²

A 209m² extension to the existing building to be retained, which will be used as a 'minor hall' to accommodate ancillary activities associated with the main church hall (such as meetings and post-church service gatherings)



21

A 58m² caretaker unit to be located to the rear of the lot to accommodate the Archbishop of the church

A 9m² storeroom located to the rear of the lot for ancillary storage

A total of 50 car parking bays are proposed on the site

The Place of Worship will be predominantly used on Sundays during the day and on religious holidays, except Good Friday, where the main celebration is during the evening

There will be a maximum of 200 people on site at any one time, with people using the "minor hall" outside of peak worship times.

A copy of the site plan, floor plan and elevation plan are contained as Appendices 13.5.5A, 13.5.5B and 13.5.5C respectively.

As mentioned previously in the report, the subject application is effectively the same application approved by Council on 9 September 2008; however the following minor changes have been made:

The proposed car parking area has been slightly reconfigured

The store room has been relocated so as to now be 3.5m from the northern boundary

The provision of a stormwater detention pit in the north-western corner of the site, which was not previously proposed.

A copy of the previously approved site plan is contained as Appendix 13.5.5D.

Consultation

Under TPS 6, the application is not required to be advertised. It should be noted however that the application that was approved by Council on 9 September 2008 was advertised for public comment for 14 days, during which time one submission was received from the Public Transport Authority, raising no objection to the proposal subject to the existing 2.2m fence on the railway boundary remaining in place during and after construction. It is considered unnecessary to readvertise this application given that the current proposal is generally the same as the previously approved application, and no issues were raised as part of consultation on the previous application.

DISCUSSION


Land Use Permissibility

In accordance with Schedule 2 of TPS 6, a Place of Worship is an Additional Use on the subject site, meaning that it is permitted providing the use complies with the relevant development standards and the requirements of the Scheme. If the proposal does not comply with the relevant standards, Council is able to use its discretion in considering these variations.



22

Car Parking

The table below details TPS 6 parking requirements for the proposal:

Use Class

TPS 6 Car Parking Standards

TPS 6 Car Parking Requirements

Car Parking Bays Provided

Place of Worship

1 space for every 4 seats, or

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

1 space for every 2.5m² seating area, whichever is the greater.

The seating floorspace is 182m². On this basis 73 bays (rounded from 72.8) are required.

The proposed minor hall component of the application will not allow for an additional seating area for the purposes of worship or involve more people attending the site, and will simply be ancillary to the main church hall building. As such, it does not generate a requirement for car parking in addition to the predominant Place of Worship.

The application proposes 50 bays therefore representing a shortfall of 23 bays.

As indicated above, the proposal requires the provision of 73 bays, however 50 bays are proposed, which represents a shortfall of 23 bays.

It is open to Council to consider whether a variation to the carparking standard is warranted in this instance. Clause 5.13.3 of TPS 6 enables Council to grant a reduction in the number of carparking spaces that are required, where Council is satisfied that the carpaking will not result in the lowering of safety, convenience and amenity standards of the site or in the immediate vicinity.

There are a number of characteristics which affect the assessment of parking as follows:

The applicant anticipates that the number of vehicles requiring car parking will be between 20 and 35, as many of the vehicles visiting the site will accommodate more than one person (for example car pooling). A significant number of members of the Church reside in the surrounding area meaning that at least some worshippers are expected to walk to the Church.

It should be noted that the subject site can be accessed via public transport as there is a bus stop located on Albany Highway, directly opposite the subject site. The subject site is also situated approximately 340 metres from Kenwick Train Station, which is within easy walking distance as there is a continuous footpath along Albany Highway which provides direct pedestrian access from the train station to the Church.

The proposal is unlikely to negatively affect the amenity of the local area (including the nearby industrial businesses) as usual services will be held outside of normal business hours.



23

For the reasons mentioned above, it is considered that the parking variation will not result in the lowering of safety, convenience and amenity standards of the area and is therefore acceptable under Clause 5.13.3 of TPS 6. It should be noted that Council approved the same car parking variation on the previous application.

Local Planning Policy 2.8 - Planning Guidelines for Places of Worship

Local Planning Policy 2.8 was adopted by Council in March 2011 in response to an increasing trend towards the development of public worship and multi-use facilities within the City. These facilities were generally characterised by occasional gatherings for specific events or practices which can result in changes to traffic flow, parking availability, and impact on the prevailing amenity of an area, amongst other town planning factors.

The policy is intended to assist consistent decision making on planning grounds, in a manner that meets the aims of the Scheme, and therefore expresses the major town planning considerations that the Council will consider when assessing such proposals. These considerations include the following:

Zoning and Location Factors

Scale of operation

Built form

Acoustic characteristics

Traffic and road hierarchy

On site parking.The issues are analysed as follows.

Scale of Operation

LPP 2.8 provides that the Council take into account the capacity of the development, the intended role, degree of usage and permanent on-going use when considering an application for a Place of Worship.

It is considered that the proposed development (involving a maximum capacity of 200 people) is of an appropriate scale for its location, given the non-residential nature of surrounding land uses and the access to a regional road.

Amenity

Visual Amenity

The proposed Church is a new single storey building with an overall height of 12.5m. The proposed building height is not dissimilar to that of a standard industrial building and would be setback a significant distance from the street.

With regards to the extension of the existing building (to be used as a minor hall) and the construction of the caretaker dwelling at the rear of the site, it should be noted that these buildings are single storey and will be approximately 5.5 metres in height, similar to that of a residential dwelling. Furthermore, these buildings are to be located behind



24

the existing building on site and will not be clearly visible from the street. It is considered that this component of the development will have minimal, if any, impacts on the visual amenity of the area.

Noise

The use would be required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 at all times. Given that the subject site is within an industrial area and abuts a railway line, it is not anticipated that any noise generated from the proposed development would exceed the assigned noise levels or cause nuisance to surrounding land owners.

In terms of the train line abutting the rear of the property, the subject site could potentially be impacted by adverse noise. In accordance with State Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning, a noise-sensitive development such as that proposed requires the submission of a noise assessment in order to address compliance with noise parameters. The assessment may determine that certain building design elements, such as double glazed windows, need to be implemented. If the application is approved, it will be recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the preparation and implementation of a noise assessment in accordance with State Planning Policy 5.4.

Traffic

The application proposes a single crossover on to Albany Highway which is classified as a 'Primary Distributor Road' under the Perth Metropolitan Functional Road Hierarchy and as a 'Primary Region Road' reservation under the MRS.

A Traffic Statement has been prepared with the purpose being to assess the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed development.

In terms of increasing traffic volumes in the area, the statement identified that the overall development is estimated to generate 80 vehicle trips per day on a weekday and up to 300 vehicle trips per day on weekends, with an estimated 125 vehicle trips occurring during the development's peak hour period. Currently Albany Highway accommodates 16,600 vehicles per day on a weekday and approximately 12,500 vehicles per day on a Saturday. The statement notes that this is significantly less than the expected capacity of a four-lane undivided Primary Distributor road which could carry between 25,000 and 30,000 vehicles per day. Although data is not available for Sundays, which is the development's peak period, it is reasonable to suggest that the number of vehicle movements on Albany Highway on Sunday will be less than that of a Saturday. It is therefore considered that the impact of the development on the road network would be low.

In addition, the statement recommended a number of modifications to the car parking layout. These recommendations have resulted in the car parking layout differing from the layout approved in the previous application.



25

CONCLUSION

The proposal is supported for the following reasons:

Subject to the imposition of conditions, the development is not expected to significantly impact on the amenity or impose on surrounding properties

The car parking variation is considered to be satisfactory to meet the demands generated by the intended use of the site and there are adequate public transport facilities within the area to provide access for those who choose not to drive to the subject site

The proposal is of an appropriate scale for its location

The site will not generate traffic that is outside the capacity of the existing and future road network, as the development's peak traffic generation is at off peak times for the surrounding road network

The proposed peak use of the site complements and will not conflict with peak operating times for surrounding business.

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


Nil.


Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority required.


256 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr O Searle

That Council approve the application for a Place of Worship at 1720 (Lot 304) Albany Highway, Kenwick, dated 29 December 2011, subject to the following conditions:

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



26

2. The applicant shall submit details prescribing a functional drainage system, including detailed engineering drawings, and where required geotechnical site assessment (soil profile, groundwater conditions and permeability), as well as hydrologic and hydraulic calculations to demonstrate functionality of the design to the satisfaction of the City of Gosnells.

3. A minimum of 50 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.

4. All cut and fill to be retained within the property boundaries by structural engineer designed retaining walls of masonry or similar approved material, and are required to provide support to the boundary and any structure reliant on its integrity.

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

6. The site is to be connected to the reticulated sewerage system.

7. A landscape plan for the development site and the adjoining road verge(s) is to be submitted in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.5 – Development – Landscaping, and approved by the City, prior to the lodgement of a building permit application.

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

9. A noise report is to be prepared in accordance with State Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning, prior to the lodgement of a building permit application, and any recommendations from this report are to be implemented to the satisfaction of the City.

10. External finishes and colour schemes are to be submitted prior to the lodgement of a building permit application to the satisfaction of the City.

11. The existing 2.2 metre fence on the railway reserve boundary must remain in place during and after construction, to the satisfaction of the Public Transport Authority.

12. A maximum of 200 people are permitted on the site at any one time.CARRIED 10/0


AGAINST: Nil.


27

The Mayor advised the meeting that Cr S Iwanyk had disclosed a Proximity Interest in the following item in accordance with Section 5.60 of the Local Government Act 1995.

8.01pm - Cr S Iwanyk left the meeting.

13.5.6 AMENDMENT NO. 130 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 - FINALISATION - CREATION OF A DEVELOPMENT ZONE AND REZONING OF LAND, VERNA AND EILEEN STREETS, GOSNELLS

Author: R WindassAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: Various.Application No: PF11/00028Applicant: Planwest Owner: Della-Vedova FamilyLocation: Various lots, Verna and Eileen Streets, GosnellsZoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Residential R17.5Review Rights: None, however finalisation of the proposal is subject to the

approval of the Minister for PlanningArea: 277 haPrevious Ref: OCM 25 October 2011 (Resolution 459-460)Appendices: 13.5.6A Schedule of Submissions - Landowners

13.5.6B Schedule of Submissions - Agencies 13.5.6C Amendment No. 130 - Operative Provisions13.5.6D Scheme Amendment Map

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider the final adoption of Amendment No. 130 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6), which proposes to:

Create a new zone, to be named "Development"

Rezone land generally bound between Verna Street, Corfield Street, Eileen Street, Seaforth Avenue, Tonkin Highway and the Wungong River, Gosnells, which is zoned predominantly for Residential R17.5 to the Development zone.

BACKGROUND

Amendment No. 130 was submitted by planning consultant, Planwest, on behalf of the Della-Vedova family. It proposes to create a new zoning category, named the Development zone, and apply it to the family's expansive landholding in Gosnells.

The 277ha area proposed to be rezoned to Development is shown on the location plan that follows. The rezoning area comprises almost half of the total landholding in the applicant's ownership, given that the combined landholdings exceed 570ha in area.



28

It has been foreshadowed that in the long term future, the area could provide for a residential population of more than 15,000 people. The development of the area would require a new and complete delivery of transport links and community infrastructure as a component of its development.

The initiation of broad zoning changes to the area represents the first step in setting a framework for the assessment of the urbanisation of the area, with various detailed hierarchies of planning assessment to come in future that will reflect community aspirations for its development.

On 25 October 2011 Council resolved to initiate Amendment No. 130 to TPS 6 (Resolutions 459 and 460) and, subject to advice from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), advertise the proposal for public comment.

Consultation

The EPA determined that Amendment No. 130 did not require formal environmental assessment and the amendment was consequently advertised for public comment during March and April 2012 for a period of 42 days, by way of:



29

Letters to landowners on lots immediately adjoining the proposal site (130 letters to the owners of 147 properties)

Letters to relevant government agencies

An advertisement placed in the local paper

An advertisement placed in The West Australian newspaper

Advertising on the City's website

Public displays at the City's Civic Centre and libraries

Signage on major roads at the borders of the proposal site.

The City received nine submissions from landowners, of which three were in objection, two indicated no objection and four provided comment.

A summary of the submissions with comments in response is contained in Appendix 13.5.6A.

The proposal was also referred to various relevant government and servicing agencies for comment and six submissions were received. A summary of those submissions and comments in response are contained in Appendix 13.5.6B.

The consultation plans that follow indicate the location of submitters' properties. As the amendment relates to a large land area, multiple plans have been provided.

REFERRAL AREA

CONSULTATION

SUB PLANS

Public Consultation

Legend

Referra l areaNo objection Com ment Objec tions

Referra l areaNo objection Com ment Objec tions

REFERRAL AREA

CONSULTATIONSUB PLANS

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

LEGEND

REFERRAL AREANO OBJ ECTION COM M ENT OBJ ECTIONS

REFERRAL AREANO OBJ ECTION COM M ENT OBJ ECTIONS

SUBJECT SITES

80

C ORFIELD

2

1

1271

ST

3

ST

C2C1

C3

C R

1273

ST

1274

1275

300

1272

CHAMBERLAIN

GREEN

OUGH

ST

1278

1276

CT

NEWBOLD

CARSO

N

CT

D WYER

1277

1283

15651564

VERNA

1279

12821281

1280

WY

ST

EI LEEN

VERNA

1559

1558

15601561

1562

1284

RD

ST

LESLIE

PL

GARVEY

ASHBURTON

DR

HANN

CT

15639001

GREENOUGH

WY

ST

1567

TH OMAS

YOUNG

ST

WOONGAN

ST

ST

YOUNG

S T

ACOTT

1551

1550

ST

CHAMBERLAIN

C HANDI LLA

WAY

KOOKAS T

MAR GARETS T

1566

15571556

1552

1554

15551553



30

Public Consultation

Legend

Referral area

No objection

Comment

Objections

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

LEGEND

REFERRAL AREA

NO OBJECTION

COMMENT

OBJECTIONS

1278

60

101

SUBJECT SITES

9001

ST

ST

ST

EILEE

N

CORFIELD

125

EUDORIAPL

PLAT

TE

CT

BRETT

ST

JAMES

Public Consultation

Legend

Referral area

No objection

Comment

Objections

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

LEGEND

REFERRAL AREA

NO OBJECTION

COMMENT

OBJECTIONS

52

2

200

3

ST80

1

CORFIELD300

1272

CR

SUBJECT SITES

VERNA

259 ST



31

Public Consultation

Legend

Referral areaNo objection Comment Objections

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

LEGEND

REFERRAL AREANO OBJECTION COMMENT OBJECTIONS

1275

SUBJECT SITES

1273

VERN

A

413

492

GREENO

UGH

WY

1276490

ST

1277

415

Proposal Overview

The details of Amendment No. 130 and its rationale were detailed in the report to Council on 25 October 2011.

In summary, it is intended that the proposed Development Zone will operate in a similar manner to the existing Residential Development and Business Development zones in TPS 6, in that land zoned this way will be subject to a requirement for an Outline Development Plan (ODP) to be prepared and adopted as a guide to subdivision and development.

An advantage of the proposed Development zone is that an ODP can detail a mix of land uses as well as the usual range of residential density codes, which would have statutory effect but can be readily modified to accommodate a change to the development layout or land use arrangements if required.

It is proposed to modify the TPS 6 text to introduce provisions for the Development zone. These provisions are contained in Appendix 13.5.6C.

It is also proposed to modify the TPS 6 map to apply the Development zone to approximately 277 hectares of land adjacent to Tonkin Highway in Gosnells, the majority of which is owned by the Della-Vedova family and is currently zoned Residential R17.5. The amendment map is contained in Appendix 13.5.6D.



32

The family has indicated its intent to develop its land in Gosnells and Southern River for a range of land uses. The existing R17.5 zoning does not provide for the intended development, nor the flexibility to both delineate and modify land use arrangements and the desired urban structure over time to respond to changes in planning trends and market forces.

DISCUSSION

Nearby Landowner Comments

Several nearby landowners raised a number of issues during the consultation process, which are summarised as follows:

Development of the amendment land and the resulting increased traffic and activity will negatively impact on the surrounding area

Development will negatively affect landowners' enjoyment and amenity of the area as it will alter the scenic rural character and result in loss of vegetation and wildlife

Development will negatively affect the environmental attributes of the site such as wetlands, birds, natural vegetation and wildlife generally

Concerns were expressed about whether the amendment area is suitable for urban development, particularly regarding proximity of dwellings to Tonkin Highway and potential noise issues

Landowners have sought more details on various land uses that will be introduced to the site, particularly those located nearest the established urban area and how this might affect their amenity.

It is understandable that residents who presently enjoy an uninterrupted outlook to the subject land would value its amenity, the views and environment features.

However, the subject land has long been identified for future urban development. It is located well within Perth's urban footprint and lies immediately adjacent to established suburban areas and infrastructure. Accommodating a growing population in Perth is and will be an ongoing responsibility for Council and the subject land represents one of the most significant development and community creation opportunities.

The subject land, coupled with the Della Vedova family's Southern River landholding, is substantial enough to establish a multi-functional urban area with a variety of land uses including commercial centres, education and training precincts, civic and community services and residential precincts.

Development is expected to occur gradually over a period of around 20 years because of the size of the project and large number of practicalities involved in its planning and implementation.

As with all new urban areas, suitable service infrastructure will be required including, but not limited to, new roads and access to public transport. As development occurs and the associated population is established there will be a proportionate and unavoidable increase in traffic. The road network will need to be planned in accordance with relevant policy and applicable standards so that traffic can be accommodated and safely managed as urban growth occurs over time.



33

Careful consideration of the environment attributes of the site will be required to ensure, where possible, that significant features can be protected and integrated with the urban development in a sustainable manner. Planning will involve various investigations and assessments to be undertaken to demonstrate the land can sustainably accommodate urban development and proposals will be referred to the relevant environmental agencies for advice. Management plans relating to wetlands and areas to be set aside for conservation will be required.

It is good planning practice to provide some separation between noise emitters and sensitive land uses such as residential dwellings however this is not the only measure that can be taken to reduce the affects from noise. Others include using noise sensitive design principles for the construction of dwellings. In this regard the potential noise created by Tonkin Highway does not, in itself, prevent the land from becoming and urban area.

In terms of noise issues, such as Tonkin Highway and the Southern River kennel zone, there are established policy and other guidelines that assist to manage potential conflict between noise-emitting land uses and nearby sensitive development. The subject situation is not particularly unique in this respect and applicable measures are likely to include buffering or separation of incompatible land uses, noise walls and incorporating noise attenuation into building design and construction.

It is also understandable that nearby landowners would be keen to gain an understanding of the type, structure and pattern of development that may occur. Concerns about particular forms of development occurring nearby, such as commercial or industrial uses, are acknowledged.

It is beyond the scope of the subject proposal to address these issues. Importantly however, the proposed amendment will establish the requirement for an ODP (or combination of ODPs) to be prepared to guide the spatial arrangement of land uses and general form and structure of development.

Any ODP prepared for the subject land will involve consultation with affected landowners and government authorities and servicing agencies and will be the key mechanism to address the concerns expressed by landowners.

As additional detailed planning for the area is developed, the issues will be dealt with in detail, and will also be subject to Council's assessment processes.

Government Agency Comments

Summary of Issues

Most Government and servicing authorities consulted on Amendment No. 130 were supportive of the proposal, with the exception of the Department of Transport (DoT), Main Roads Western Australian (MRWA) and the Public Transport Authority (PTA).

These authorities have indicated that they would prefer that a regional transport modelling initiative that recently commenced between the City and MRWA should be completed to provide guidance on the adequacy of the major road network, prior to the amendment progressing.



34

Whilst the modelling initiative and subsequent assessment may provide valuable input into the design of the road network for the subject land, the City considers that this information is not essential at this stage in the planning process. As detailed above, the amendment is seeking only to introduce a zoning mechanism as the foundation to the further detailed planning through the preparation and consideration of an ODP (or ODPs). It is through an ODP that the details relating to land uses and associated road networks can be properly addressed, supported by an accompanying assessment to inform and shape the desired urban structure and guide subsequent and more detailed subdivision and development applications. Any ODP and associated transport assessments would be referred to all relevant authorities for review.

Notwithstanding the views of the DoT and MRWA it will be recommended that Council adopt Amendment No. 130 so that an appropriate planning framework can be put in place to guide development of a strategically important and significant parcel of land.

CONCLUSION

The creation of a Development zone and applying this zone to the subject land is an appropriate approach to preparing the land for future urbanisation and the preparation and establishment of an ODP.

This proposal is consistent with State Government planning strategies and structure plans that have identified the subject land as accommodating future urban growth.

It will therefore be recommended that Council grant final adoption to Amendment No. 130 to TPS 6 without modification.


Nil.


Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



257 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council, pursuant to Regulation 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, note the submissions received in response to Amendment No. 130 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and endorse the responses to those submissions, as contained within this report and in Appendices 13.5.6A and 13.5.6B.

CARRIED 9/0FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr R Hoffman, Cr K Jones, Cr R Lawrence,

Cr R Mitchell, Cr O Searle and Cr D Griffiths.

AGAINST: Nil.



35


258 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council, pursuant to Regulation 17(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, adopt Amendment No. 130 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and forward the proposal to the Western Australian Planning Commission for final approval.

CARRIED 9/0FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr R Hoffman, Cr K Jones, Cr R Lawrence,


AGAINST: Nil.

Notation

8.03pm - Cr S Iwanyk returned to the meeting.

The Mayor, upon the return of Cr S Iwanyk to the meeting, advised that Council had endorsed the staff recommendations as contained in the agenda.


36

13.6.1 CRYSTAL BROOK CARAVAN PARK - APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE

Author: W EllisAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: OCM 28 June 2011 (Resolution 270)Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to approve the application for renewal of the Crystal Brook Caravan Park licence, in accordance with section 7(4) of the Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Act 1995 (the Act).

BACKGROUND

An application for the renewal of the Caravan Park licence for Crystal Brook Caravan Park, located at 366-388 Kelvin Road Orange Grove, has been received by the City. Under regulation 47 of the Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Regulations 1997 (Regulations), this application must be determined within 35 days of receiving the application.

The Regulations prescribe the duration of the Licence as being 12 months.

DISCUSSION

Crystal Brook Caravan Park consists of 87 long stay sites, 83 short stay sites, 8 camp sites and 4 overflow sites. The caravan park has been subject to regular inspections by City Environmental Health Officers with no major issues being identified.

As the caravan park complies with the requirements of the Act and the Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Regulations 1997, it is recommended that Council approve the application for renewal of the licence for Crystal Brook Caravan Park.


Nil.


Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Act 1995.Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Regulations 1997.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




37



That Council pursuant to section 7(4) of the Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Act 1995 approve the application for renewal of the licence to operate the facility known Crystal Brook Caravan Park located at 366-388 Kelvin Road Orange Grove.



AGAINST: Nil.

12. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Nil.


38

13. REPORTS

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE

13.1.1 CITY OF GOSNELLS GARDEN COMPETITION Author: J Phillips Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to approve the implementation of a City of Gosnells Garden Competition.

BACKGROUND

In the past, the City has worked hard on improving the district's visual amenity. To continue this improvement journey, the City has established a special cross-directorate taskforce to develop an action plan that aims to address the various issues affecting the City's visual amenity. In particular, the action plan will identify initiatives to reduce the illegal dumping of both domestic and building waste, improve the City's streetscapes and open space areas and reduce graffiti / vandalism.

The action plan is currently being drafted. It is envisioned that the plan will be presented to Council shortly.

DISCUSSION

One of the initiatives that will be included in the final version of the action plan is the proposal to establish a garden competition within the City of Gosnells. The competition aims to address the issue of untidy front yards by providing residents with incentives to improve their front yard appearance. If the competition is successful, it has the potential to improve the City's amenity by providing neater and cleaner suburban streetscapes. This report will recommend that Council implements a garden competition as a precursor to considering the action plan, so that the improvement journey can be progressed sooner rather than later.

Before the garden competition can be implemented it is necessary for Council to approve a core structure for the competition. A Councillor workshop was held on 5 June 2012 in order to outline the core elements of the competition structure. Based on the feedback given at this workshop a basic structure for the competition has been developed. The individual elements of the competition structure are outlined below.

Element One: Competition Entry

Residents will be required to complete a simple entry form to enter their front garden into the competition.

Element Two: Competition Categories

The competition will have six prize categories, which include:



39

Most Improved Front Garden - This category is designed to give those residents who have unsightly gardens an incentive to make basic and affordable improvements to their gardens. (Before and after photos will be requested in order to determine how much a garden has been improved)

Best Residential Front Garden - This category is for residents who pride themselves on their gardens and put continual effort into having an attractive front garden

Best Rental Front Garden - This category is aimed at rental occupants who have unsightly front gardens. It is hoped that incentives will encourage rental occupants to take more pride in their front garden even though they do not own the property

Best Community Assisted Front Garden - This category will provide humanitarian community groups with an opportunity to improve the garden of a local resident who is incapable of making their own improvements

Best Commercial / Industrial Front Garden - This category is for commercial and industrial properties that develop a visually aesthetic front garden

Best Pensioner Front Garden - This category is for senior citizens who maintain attractive front gardens.

Element Three: Award Winners

Award winners will be as follows:

1. There will be no second or third prizes in any category.2. Each of the City's 11 suburbs will have an individual winner for the categories of

Most Improved and Best Residential.3. There will be only one winner City wide for the categories of Best Rental, Best

Community Assisted, Best Commercial / Industrial and Best Pensioner.

Element Four: Competition Prizes

Each category winner will receive a cash prize for the amount displayed below.

Category WinnerMost Improved Front Garden (winner for each suburb) $650*Best Residential Front Garden (winner for each suburb) $500Best Rental Front Garden (one winner City wide) $500Best Community Assisted Front Garden (one winner City wide) $500Best Commercial / Industrial Front Garden (one winner City wide) $500Best Pensioner Front Garden (one winner City wide) $500Total Cost $14,650

* The winner of the Most Improved category receives a higher cash prize, as it has been identified as the most important category of the competition.

City staff will also be looking into potential sponsorship from local businesses. If sponsorship is achieved, then spot prizes or prizes for highly commended gardens could be considered.



40

Element Five: Competition Judging

The judging panel will be an Advisory Group (similar to that used for the Christmas Lights Competition) consisting of an external garden expert and at least two Councillors.

The judging criteria will be designed in collaboration with the external garden expert and outlined in the competition guidelines. Examples of criteria that may be used include:

Initial impact

Biodiversity

Presentation

Condition of plants

Design and layout

Use of native plants

Waterwise initiatives

Neatness

Degree of improvement.Element Six: Competition Timeframe and Award Ceremony

Judging is to occur during October, as it is during Spring when gardens will be in their best condition.

The announcement of winners and presentation of awards could be done at the Annual Electors Meeting or other function soon after the close of the competition.

Conclusion

If the garden competition is approved, then the City will develop a policy that will outline the City's approach to determining the winning entries.

It should also be remembered that the garden competition is only one initiative that will be included in the Action Plan designed to address the issue of unsightly front yards. The taskforce is also considering appropriate methods of dealing directly with those who fail to keep their properties tidy. However, the garden competition is seen as the most positive approach to addressing unsightly front yards and its implementation is recommended. The approach will be reviewed for effectiveness after its first year of operation.


Budget for garden competition is an estimated $20,000 (includes prizes, media expenses and other associated costs), which can be funded from Account Number: JL80-96001-3389-000 - City Clean Up and Beatification Project.



41


Nil.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



260 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr K Jones

That Council approve the introduction of a City of Gosnells garden competition, the aim of which is to enhance the visual amenity of the district.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council approve the following prize categories for the garden competition:

1. Most Improved Front Garden2. Best Residential Front Garden3. Best Rental Front Garden4. Best Community Assisted Front Garden5. Best Commercial / Industrial Front Garden6. Best Pensioner Front Garden.With the respective prize monies allocated as follows:

Category WinnerMost Improved Front Garden (winner for each suburb) $650*Best Residential Front Garden (winner for each suburb) $500Best Rental Front Garden (one winner City wide) $500Best Community Assisted Front Garden (one winner City wide) $500Best Commercial / Industrial Front Garden (one winner City wide)

$500

Best Pensioner Front Garden (one winner City wide) $500Total Cost $14,650



AGAINST: Nil.



42



That Council establish a Garden Competition Advisory Group consisting of Cr O Searle, Cr D Griffiths and Cr T Brown to assist an external horticultural expert in judging entries.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council approve that the competition is to run from July to October, with the announcement of winners and presentation of awards to be done at the Annual Electors Meeting or other function soon after the close of the competition.



AGAINST: Nil.

13.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil.


43

13.3 CORPORATE SERVICES

13.3.1 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - MAY 2012Author: K SmithAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.3.1A Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of

May 2012

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to adopt the Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of May 2012.

BACKGROUND

In accordance with Financial Management Regulation 34 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

Reserve Movements

Capital Expenditure Detail

Outstanding Debtor Information

Rates Report

Investment Report.

DISCUSSION

The Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of May 2012 is attached as Appendix 13.3.1A.


Nil.


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

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




44



That Council, in accordance with Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations. 1996, adopt the following reports, contained in the Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of May 2012, attached as Appendix 13.3.1A:

A. Commentary and report on variancesB. Operating Statement by ProgramC. Balance SheetD. Statement of Financial ActivityE. Reserve MovementsF. Capital Expenditure DetailG. Outstanding Debtor InformationH. Rates reportI. Investment Report.



AGAINST: Nil.


45

13.3.2 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - MAY 2012 Author: K SmithAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.3.2A Cheque and EFT Payment Listing for the period

1 May 2012 to 31 May 2012

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Council of payments made for the period 1 May 2012 to 31 May 2012.

BACKGROUND

Nil.

DISCUSSION

Payments of $6,933,175.82 as detailed in the cheque and EFT payment listing for the period 1 May 2012 to 31 May 2012 attached as Appendix 13.3.2A 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 for approval 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




That Council note the payment of accounts totalling $6,933,175.82 as shown in the cheque and EFT payment listing, attached as Appendix 13.3.2A for the period 1 May 2012 to 31 May 2012.



AGAINST: Nil.


46

13.4 INFRASTRUCTURE

13.4.1 PROPOSED LEASE TO LIDDELOW HOMESTEAD ARTS & CRAFTS CLUB INC OF PORTION OF LOT 11 (NO 9) COOPER AVENUE KENWICK

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

Previous Ref: OCM 12 June 2007 Resolutions 242 and 243Appendix: 13.4.1A - Liddelow Homestead Lease Plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek Council approval to lease a portion of Lot 11 (No 9) Cooper Avenue, Kenwick to Liddelow Homestead Arts & Crafts Club Inc (Club).

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of 12 June 2007 Council resolved (Resolutions 242 and 243) to lease to the Club for a five-year period a portion of Lot 11 (No 9) Cooper Avenue, Kenwick.

The lease expires on 30 September 2012 and the Club has requested to renew its lease for a further five years.

DISCUSSION

The Club has complied with the terms of its existing lease and the request to renew the lease for a further term is supported.

The Club has agreed with the proposed terms as stated in the Staff Recommendation.


Local government rates for 2011/12 were $5,186.30 and the Emergency Services Levy was $891.75. These amounts will be adjusted following the 2012/13 budget adoption.


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

Regulation 30 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 provide exemptions to non profit organisations such as Liddelow Homestead Arts & Crafts Club Inc from the tender and advertising provisions of section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




47


266 Moved Cr S Iwanyk Seconded Cr T Brown

That Council approve of a lease of a portion of Lot 11 (No 9) Cooper Avenue, Kenwick to the Liddelow Homestead Arts & Crafts Club Inc in accordance with the plan attached as Appendix 13.4.1A.



AGAINST: Nil.


267 Moved Cr S Iwanyk Seconded Cr T Brown

That Council approve the following terms and conditions of lease to the Liddelow Homestead Arts & Crafts Club Inc:

Rental Peppercorn

Local government rates and Emergency Services Levy Payable by Tenant

Commencement of lease 1 October 2012

Term of lease Five yearsCARRIED 10/0


AGAINST: Nil.


48

13.4.2 ANTI-HOON SPEED HUMP EVALUATION - STENNETT STREET, GOSNELLS

Author: O Pereira Author’s Declaration of Interest: Nil.

Previous Ref: 9 February 2010 OCMAppendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to grant in-principle support for the inclusion of speed cushions treatments as part of suitable road safety and traffic calming repertoire to be installed on the City's roads; and should the opportunity for external funding arise, to provide in-principle support for future submissions to explore associated funding opportunities, so that suitable roads can be treated successfully.

BACKGROUND

In the 2008/09 financial year the State Government of Western Australia launched a new initiative named the “Anti-Hoon Speed Hump Program”, to assist in addressing hoon and anti-social driver behaviour on local roads by installing a number of rubberised speed cushions in problem traffic areas. This program is administered by Main Roads Western Australia.

The installation of anti-hoon speed cushions are a relatively low cost, low impact treatment and have been demonstrated to be effective in addressing the anti-social road behaviours. The rubberised speed cushions are designed to reduce the travel speed of vehicles and therefore discourage "hoon" activity such as street racing.

The City applied for and was successful in obtaining funding under the 2009/10 Anti-Hoon Speed Hump Program for the installation of speed cushions on Stennett Street. The speed cushions were installed on Stennett Street during June 2010 and were spaced at 90-100 metre intervals and positioned with consideration to residential crossovers, relative location to intersecting side roads as well as existing overhead street lighting in order to provide the essential illumination during night time hours.

DISCUSSION

As part of the funding agreement, the City undertook to evaluate the performance of the anti-hoon speed cushions and to determine if these treatments should be installed on similar roads within the City of Gosnells.

Notwithstanding, speed cushions have previously not been installed by the City, due to perceived and reported problems associated with this type of treatment. Typically residents whose properties are directly adjacent to these treatments claim that noise levels increase following the installation of a speed cushion treatment. This not only occurs whenever a vehicle traverses the treatment at a high speed, but can also be exacerbated by excessive braking and acceleration that can occur on the approach and departure sides of the devices. Furthermore, motorists often complain about damage to their vehicles every time they drive over the treatment and some motorists even take the treatment as a challenge to explore a vehicle engine's torque and ability to conduct “wheel spins” and “burnouts”.



49

It should be noted that most of these claims can be related to poor driver behaviour and drivers that don't practice a defensive and anticipatory driving style.

Additionally, bus companies and emergency vehicle operators typically are not in favour of any anti-speed treatment, due to the size of their vehicles or required vehicle speeds in an emergency situation.

Hence, the City in the past only considered the installation of speed humps or cushions where they are implemented as part of a suite of traffic management measures, and where there is overwhelming support from the local community for such treatments.

The new speed cushion design has minimal impact on buses, commercial vehicles and emergency vehicles as large vehicles can straddle the cushions when correctly positioned, therefore the vehicle wheels do not make contact with the cushion's raised section. Additionally, the speed cushions are made from recycled tyres and produce less noise than traditional speed humps when vehicles drive over them.

Stennett Street residents have previously expressed road safety concerns to the City and one of the outcomes of an on-site meeting with Councillors and residents was that local residents would be very supportive of the installation of speed humps along the whole length of Stennett Street.

When the speed cushions were first installed on Stennett Street, the City received a number of complaints regarding "hoons" using the cushions to conduct “wheel spins”. However, these complaints were short lived and once the novelty of the new speed cushions wore off, no further complaints were received. Additionally, some residents in neighbouring streets complained of an increase in traffic as motorists were avoiding the speed cushions on Stennett Street. However, analysis of the traffic survey undertaken after the installation of the speed cushions indicates that motorists are using the major roads in the area rather than detouring along adjacent minor roads.

Traffic surveys were conducted at Stennett Street, both before and after the installation of the speed cushions, and similarly at three intersecting roads that adjoin Stennett Street. The results are shown below.

Operating Speed 24hr AWT* VolumeTraffic Survey LocationBefore After Before After

Stennett Street (south of Southern River Road) 63.4km/h 46.4km/h 3,537

vehicles2,128

vehiclesStennett Street (north of Ashburton Drive) 63.7km/h 46.1km/h 2,099

vehicles2,121

vehiclesNullagine Way(west of Stennett Street) 47.5km/h 47.5km/h 1,115

vehicles1,034

vehiclesKellerman Way(east of Stennett Street) 49.7km/h 49.3km/h 1,094

vehicles749

vehiclesOakover Way(east of Stennett Street) 55.1km/h 52.9km/h 253

vehicles263

vehiclesAWT* Volume is Average Weekday Traffic Volume

From the traffic survey results it can be concluded that the operating speed at Stennett Street reduced by approximately 17km/h after the installation of the speed cushions, whilst it remained constant at Nullagine Way and Kellerman Way, and there was even a small reduction in speed at Oakover Way.



50

The Average Weekday Traffic Volumes remained constant at Nullagine Way, Oakover Way and at the southern end of Stennett Street, but reduced at Kellerman Way and at the northern end of Stennett Street, with quite a large reduction equal to 1,409 vehicles. This reduction in traffic volumes is considered to be attributed to the installation of the speed cushions, whereby motorists, who may have previously used Stennett Street as a short-cut route, are now travelling on Southern River Road instead, which is designed to accommodate larger volumes of traffic.

CONCLUSION

The results of the traffic surveys conducted before and after the installation of the speed cushions on Stennett Street demonstrate that the speed cushions effectively reduce the operating speed of vehicles. Additionally, speed cushions can reduce traffic volumes on the streets where such treatments have been installed, and care should be taken when proposing future speed cushion locations so that traffic patterns are not modified and transferred to adjacent local streets where the traffic would adversely impact on road safety and residential amenity.

Hence, it is concluded that speed cushions can be a beneficial treatment in the road safety repertoire, especially if they are installed on Local Distributor and Local Access Roads with typically higher than normal operational speed and/or frequent "rat running". In any given case they shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Main Roads WA guidelines.


Nil.


Nil.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




That Council support the installation of speed cushion treatments as part of the road safety and traffic calming repertoire to be applied on the City's Local Distributer and Local Access Roads network where they meet the required criteria.

CARRIED 9/1FOR: Cr T Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones, Cr R Lawrence,


AGAINST: Cr J Brown.


51

13.4.3 POLICY 2.4.7 - CROSSINGS REVIEW Author: M BotteAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: OCM 409/25/08/2009Appendix: 13.4.3A Existing Policy 2.4.7 - Crossings

13.4.3B Circulated Policy 2.4.7 - Vehicle Crossings13.4.3C Proposed Policy 2.4.7 - Vehicle Crossings

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To recommend that Council:

Revoke Policy 2.4.7 - Crossings

Adopt the new Policy 2.4.7 - Vehicle Crossings in order to meet the statutory provisions of the Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996

BACKGROUND

Council adopted Policy 2.4.7- Crossings at its Committee Meeting in November 1978 and has amended or reviewed the Policy eight times since. A copy of the current policy 2.4.7 is attached as Appendix 13.4.3A.

Previously the management of vehicle crossings was covered in the Activities on Thoroughfares and Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law 2000.

This Local Law was repealed and substituted with the Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law 2012 which was gazetted on 12 March 2012. A section in relation to the management of vehicle crossings was not included.

As the Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996 prescribe a standard crossing as a crossing of a kind determined by a local government resolution, a policy is considered the best format for this definition.

On 3 May 2012 the proposed amended Policy 2.4.7 was circulated to Councillors in accordance with Council Policy 5.4.5 Policy Management for a 21 day review period and feedback. A copy of the proposed amended policy is attached as Appendix 13.4.3B.

DISCUSSION

At the close of the 21 day period, feedback was received providing a range of proposed amendments. Due to the extent of changes it is proposed to revoke the existing policy and substitute it with new policy attached as Appendix 13.4.3C which incorporates the bulk of those amendments.


Nil.



52


Council's role includes responsibility for determining the local government's policies under section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995.Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996 - Clauses 12 - 16.Specifications for the Construction of Vehicle Crossings.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority required for recommendation 1. (Requires the support of one third (4) of the offices of Members of Council for the matter to be considered).

Simple Majority is required for recommendation 2.


269 Moved Cr T Brown Seconded Cr G Dewhurst, Cr R Hoffman and Cr K Jones

That Council revoke Policy 2.4.7 Crossings as contained in Appendix 13.4.3A.CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 10/0


AGAINST: Nil.


270 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr T Brown

That Council adopt the proposed Policy 2.4.7 Vehicle Crossings as contained in Appendix 13.4.3C.



AGAINST: Nil.


53

The Mayor advised the meeting that Cr T Brown had disclosed an Impartiality Interest in the following item in accordance with Regulation 34C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

13.4.4 GOSNELLS ROADWISE ADVISORY GROUP - 6 JUNE 2012 Author: O PereiraAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.4.4A Action Sheet of the City of Gosnells RoadWise

Advisory Group Meeting held on Wednesday 6 June 2012

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to receive the Action Sheet of the RoadWise Advisory Group Meeting held on Wednesday 6 June 2012.

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 Action Sheet of the meeting is attached as Appendix 13.4.4A.

DISCUSSION

Proposed Actions from the Group Meeting held on Wednesday 6 June 2012

There is no proposed action from the RoadWise Advisory Group meeting which requires Council consideration. There are two proposed actions that have been addressed within operational parameters with the status now being reported to Council.


Nil.


City of Gosnells Policy 2.4.19 City of Gosnells RoadWise Advisory Group – Terms of Reference.



54

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



271 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council receive the Action Sheet of the City of Gosnells RoadWise Advisory Group Meeting held on Wednesday 6 June 2012 attached as Appendix 13.4.4A.



AGAINST: Nil.


272 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council note and endorse the officer's response undertaken within operational parameters to address the proposed Actions from the Group's meeting held on Wednesday 6 June 2012.

Action Reference Action Status

RAG 6/6/2012 – Proposed Action 18

World Day Remembrance Event:The RAG sub-group is to meet and discuss event matters in relation to invitations and selection of a Guest Speaker. The sub-group is to table this information to the next RAG meeting in order for the RAG members to finalise the event.

RAG sub-group are to meet within the next two weeks and bring a prepared report to the next meeting.

RAG 6/6/2012 – Proposed Action 19

The Senior Road Safety Officer is to contact the Fire and Emergency Services with a follow up call, as no response was received from Mr G Millar.

Senior Road Safety Officer is to follow up and report back at the next meeting.



AGAINST: Nil.


55

13.5 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY

13.5.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - FAST FOOD OUTLET (MCDONALD'S) - 95 (LOT 8) FOREST LAKES DRIVE, THORNLIE (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003 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.


56

13.5.2 SOUTH EAST REGIONAL ENERGY GROUP - DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Author: J McMinnAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: OCM 21 December 2004 (Resolution 710)OCM 11 March 2008 (Resolution 80)

Appendices: 13.5.2A South East Regional Energy Group Expired Terms of Reference (2004)

13.5.2B South East Regional Energy Group revised Draft Terms of Reference (2012)

13.5.2C Draft Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Armadale, City of Gosnells and Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale for the management and conduct of the South East Regional Energy Group and the Switch your thinking! Program

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to accept and endorse the South East Regional Energy Group's revised Draft Terms of Reference.

For Council to accept the Draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the City of Armadale, City of Gosnells and Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale for the management and conduct of the SEREG and the Switch your thinking! (Syt!) Program and to appoint the Chief Executive Officer as signatory on behalf of the City of Gosnells.

BACKGROUND

Since 1999 the partner Councils, City of Gosnells, City of Armadale and Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire have been working together as the South East Regional Energy Group (SEREG) to reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions.

SEREG Revised Draft Terms of Reference

At the 21 December 2004 Council meeting, the now expired SEREG Terms of Reference (Appendix 13.5.2A) were endorsed (Resolution 710).

The City of Armadale and Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale also made similar resolutions endorsing SEREG's Terms of Reference in 2004. Since this time the now-expired Terms of Reference have governed conduct of SEREG.

In accordance with Article 9.0 of the Terms of Reference, a review of the document was suggested to occur during 2010. However, due to staff issues which resulted in the Switch your thinking! program appointing a new Coordinator in mid-2011, the review was not undertaken until recently.

In accordance with the terms, SEREG has reviewed and updated the expired Terms of Reference for consideration by the three partner Councils.



57

All three SEREG partner Councils have been requested to accept and endorse the revised draft Terms of Reference.

SEREG Draft MoU

Council, at its meeting held on 11 March 2008, adopted the development of an MoU between the three SEREG partner Councils (Resolution 80).

The attached MoU (Appendix 13.5.2C) has been developed by SEREG with support and input from each partner organisation. Each Council has been requested to endorse and sign the MoU.

DISCUSSION

Revised Draft Terms of Reference

SEREG has produced the revised Draft Terms of Reference (Appendix 13.5.2B) for consideration by Council. At the 5 May 2012 SEREG meeting, the Group made the following resolution 020512.

"That SEREG Resolve to accept the revised Draft Terms of Reference and forward to partner Councils for consideration."

The revised Draft Terms of Reference includes the following amendments:

Removal of reference to the now defunct Federal Government Cities for Climate Protection program and outdated partner Council policies

A new item relating to the distribution of SEREG minutes to partner Councils has also been included to strengthen channels of communication between SEREG and partner Councils.

Memorandum of Understanding

At the 5 May 2012 SEREG meeting the group made the following resolution to accept the Draft MoU and to forward it to partner Councils for consideration. (Resolution 080512).

"That SEREG accept the revised Draft Memorandum of Understanding and forward to partner Councils for consideration."

The Draft MoU clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the three partner Councils, with the City of Gosnells responsible for the administration of the Syt! Program staff and finances. The City has undertaken this responsibility since 2003/04.

Prior to 2003/04 the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale administrated the Syt! program on behalf of the three partner Councils. The City of Armadale is responsible, through an agreement similar to the proposed Draft MoU, for the administration of the Armadale Gosnells Landcare Group.

The Draft MoU does not commit Council to providing any additional services or resources to the Syt! Program and affords the City additional security as all three partner Councils are formally agreeing to funding budget shortfalls (for a limited term) should they arise.



58

On average 40 percent of the Syt! Program Budget is funded through external sources (a mix of grants, corporate sponsorship and intellectual property licence fees). Salary and wages for the Syt! Program Officer position is entirely reliant on external funding.

To date, the Syt! Program has been extremely successful in attracting external funding and securing diversified income streams (for example intellectual property licence fees). A modest carry forward is also budgeted each year to allow for variation in external funding. However, currently no agreement exists to ensure the Program's financial security, should external funding become unavailable. The Draft MoU seeks agreement from the three partner Councils that any short-term funding shortfall be shared, insulating the City from shouldering full responsibility by default.


Revised SEREG Draft Terms of Reference

There are no financial implications associated with endorsing the revised SEREG Draft Terms of Reference.

Draft SEREG MoU

There are no immediate financial implications associated with endorsing the Draft MoU.


Revised SEREG Draft Terms of Reference

There are no statutory implications associated with endorsing the revised SEREG Draft Terms of Reference.

Draft SEREG MoU

There are no statutory implications associated with endorsing the MoU.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




That Council accept and endorse the revised South East Regional Energy Group Draft Terms of Reference, attached as Appendix 13.5.2B.



AGAINST: Nil.



59



That Council accept and endorse the Draft Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Armadale, City of Gosnells and Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale for the management and conduct of the South East Regional Energy Group and the Switch your thinking! Program attached as Appendix 13.5.2C.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign the Draft Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Armadale, City of Gosnells and Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale for the management and conduct of the South East Regional Energy Group and the Switch your thinking! Program.



AGAINST: Nil.


60

13.5.3 DEDICATION AS ROAD (ALBANY HIGHWAY) - LOT 803 ON PLAN 23482 AND LOT 321 ON DEPOSITED PLAN 61379

Author: K BonsorAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider dedicating as road, two parcels of land currently comprising part of Albany Highway.

BACKGROUND

The subject lots form part of the constructed surface of Albany Highway, are held by the Crown and require action under the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA) to be dedicated as road.

Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) has control of Albany Highway but does not have any statutory ability to dedicate roads. MRWA has approached the City for assistance as the LAA allows for a local government to seek the dedication of land within its district.

RAILWAY

RESERVE

ROEHWY

ALBANYHWY

SUBJECT SITES

803

321

LADYWELL

ST

BROOKLANDST



61

DISCUSSION

Lot 803 on Plan 23482

Lot 803 was acquired by MRWA as part of a previous subdivision proposal and transferred to the State of WA, but was not dedicated at that time.

Comments on the proposed dedication were sought from service providers and government agencies, in accordance with the LAA regulations, with no objections being received.

It is considered that dedication is in keeping with the current land use and is therefore supported.

Lot 321 on Deposited Plan 61379

Lot 321 is owned by the State and vested with the Public Transport Authority. The State supports the dedication of the subject lot as road. This site accommodates a slip way bus stop and provides pedestrian access to a rail underpass.

Comments on the proposed dedication were sought from service providers and government agencies, in accordance with the LAA regulations, and no objections were received.

It is considered that dedication is in keeping with the current land use and is therefore supported.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council request that the Minister for Lands, via the Department of Regional Development and Lands - State Lands (DRL), dedicate Lot 803 on Plan 23482 and Lot 321 on Deposited Plan 61379 land as road.


The LAA requires that Council indemnify the Minister for Lands against any claim for compensation equal to the amount of all costs and expenses incurred by the Minister in considering and granting the road dedication request. In this regard the City has sought and received indemnity from Main Roads in relation to the dedication of both subject lots.


Land Administration Act 1997

Land Administration Regulations 1998.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Simply Majority required.



62


276 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr R Lawrence

That Council request the Department of Regional Development and Lands - State Land Services to dedicate as road both Lot 803 on Plan 23482 and Lot 321 on Deposited Plan 61379, pursuant to Section 56 (1) (a) of the Land Administration Act 1997.



AGAINST: Nil.


277 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr R Lawrence

That Council indemnify the Minister for Lands against any claim for compensation associated with the dedication of Lot 803 on Plan 23482 and Lot 321 on Deposited Plan 61379, pursuant to Section 56 (1) (a) of the Land Administration Act 1997.



AGAINST: Nil.


63

13.5.4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - ADDITIONS TO EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT (HOME ECONOMICS AND GYM) - 17 (LOT 501) TONBRIDGE WAY, THORNLIE

Author: A ThompsonAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: 233593Application No: DA12/00083Applicant: Greg Rowe and Associates Owner: Australian Islamic College (Perth) IncLocation: 17 (Lot 501) Tonbridge Way, ThornlieZoning: MRS: Urban

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

decision of Council.Area: 12,265m2

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendices: 13.5.4A Site plan, Floor Plan and Elevations

13.5.4B Schedule of Submissions

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval for an extension to an Educational Establishment at 17 (Lot 501) Tonbridge Way, Thornlie as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff due to objections received during the advertising period.

BACKGROUND

On 26 October 2010 Council considered an application for a new library and classroom and for use of an existing building as a Place of Worship at the subject site. Council resolved (Resolution 477) to approve the library and classroom component of the application and (Resolution 478) to refuse the Place of Worship component.

An application for review was lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), following which a number of hearings were held. The SAT ordered Council to reconsider its decision to refuse the worship component of the application. On 26 July 2011, the Council reconsidered the Place of Worship component, and resolved (Resolution 329) to not approve the use of the site as a Place of Worship.

The issue of the use of the site as a Place of Worship is ongoing, and is currently with the SAT for determination, with no resolution to date. It is important to note that the application the subject of this report is a separate application for consideration by Council and does not relate to the use of the site for worship purposes.


The school campus is situated between three local roads, being Clancy Way, Tonbridge Way and the Spencer Road slip road. The Australian Islamic College has occupied the site since 1991. Various Council approvals have been granted for additions and enhancements to the school since that time. On each occasion, the approval granted has specifically stated that the use of the land for worship purposes was not permitted.



64

The site is flat and is surrounded primarily by low density residential development. Parking and access to the site is from Clancy Way and Tonbridge Way. The Thornlie Square Shopping Centre is located approximately 125m to the south east of the site. Public access ways are located along the north-eastern and south-eastern boundaries of the lot, linking Tonbridge Way with Clancy Way and Spencer Road respectively. The site has frontage to Spencer Road via a secondary access road in this location. The subject site is zoned Residential under Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6).

A map identifying the location of the subject property follows.

TONB

RIDGE

THORN

LIE

AVE

WYWY

Thornlie SquareShopping Centre

SPENCER

RD

CLANCY

SUBJECT LOT

501

Proposal

The application involves the following:

The construction of a single storey building in the vacant south west corner of the site

The building is to contain a home economics room, gymnasium, change room and office

The building is approximately 290m2, of brick construction with a Colorbond roof and will be connected to the other buildings on the site by a paved and landscaped area

The building is setback approximately 6m from Spencer Road and 1.5m from the north western side boundary

The use of the home economics room, gymnasium and change rooms is limited to students and staff only, during school hours. There will be no public use of the proposed buildings.

A site plan, elevations and floor plan is included as Appendix 13.5.4A.



65

Consultation

The proposal was advertised for public comment for 14 days in accordance with Council Policy/TPS 6 requirements, during which time nine submissions were received, three objecting to the proposal, one providing comment and five raising no-objection. A summary of these submissions and comments thereon are provided in Appendix 13.5.4B.

A map identifying location of each submission follows:

Public ConsultationLegend

INDICATIVE100m RADIUSReferral areaNo objection Comment Objections

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONLEGEND

INDICATIVE100m RADIUSREFERRAL AREA

NO OBJECTION COMMENT OBJECTIONS

TONB

RIDGE

WY

THORN

LIE

AVE

WY

356

252 236

1

BEREH

AVEN

HUGHENDEN

RANGEVIEW

WY

CLANCY

DR

AVE

SPENCER

RD

112

172

218

501

SUBJECT LOT

501

The main issues raised in the submissions are as follows:

The impact on traffic and parking

Proliferation of development on site.Each is discussed in turn, along with any other applicable technical matters.



66

DISCUSSION


Clause 5.7.1 of TPS 6 contains provisions for assessment of non-residential Development in the Residential zone, stating:

"Any non-residential development shall conform with the provisions of Section 1.5 - Setback Requirements and the maximum plot ratios prescribed in Table 1, of the Residential Design Codes, applicable to the density code afforded to the lot by the Scheme."

The subject site is zoned Residential R20/R30 under TPS 6 and requires a front setback of 6m and side setbacks that comply with Table 2a and 2b of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), which in this case, are a minimum of 1.5m. The proposal complies with these requirements.

The maximum permissible plot ratio for the R30 density is 0.5. Plot ratio is defined in the R-Codes as "the ratio of the gross total of all floors of buildings on a site to the area of land in the site boundaries." With the existing buildings on site and the proposed additions, the plot ratio will be 0.32, which complies with the requirements of the R-Codes.

The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in terms of setback and plot ratio requirements.

Traffic and Parking

Concern was raised during the advertising period relating to the traffic problems already experienced in the surrounding area and how the proposed development will exacerbate the situation. The proposed additions will only be used by students and staff during school hours and will not involve any increase in staff or student numbers. The proposal will therefore not result in any additional traffic congestion in the local area.

Proliferation of Development on Site

The proposed new buildings are considered to be minor in nature and an addition to an existing, approved use of the site as an Educational Establishment.

The new building replaces a converted house which was being used for a variety of purposes, including as a kindergarten and storage space. This building has since been demolished following an upgrade to facilities on the site, leaving the south western corner of the site vacant. The proposed additions are to be located in this vacant portion of the site.

Those activities carried out in the former kindergarten building now take place within the three classroom block at the south eastern corner of the site, approved by Council on 26 October 2010.



67

The proposal is a single storey building consisting of a home economics room, gym, change room and office. As demonstrated above, the building is set back from front and side boundaries in accordance with the R20/R30 R-Code applicable to the subject site and is below the maximum permissible plot ratio requirement for the R30 density. The face brickwork and Colorbond roof is considered consistent in appearance with the other buildings on the site and surrounding residential properties.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is supported for the following reasons:

The proposal complies with the requirements of TPS 6 for non-residential development in the Residential zone

The proposal will not generate additional students or staff numbers and as such, will not impact traffic or parking in and around the subject site

The proposal is considered to be of an appropriate scale of development and will not contribute to over development of the subject site, given the building will replace, in the same location, an older building which has since been demolished.

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


Nil.



Residential Design Codes 2010

Local Planning Policy 4.1 - Advertising/Referral of Development Applications.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS




68

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr S Iwanyk

That Council approve the application for additions to an Educational Establishment (home economics, gym, change room and office) at 17 (Lot 501) Tonbridge Way, Thornlie dated 30 March 2012 subject to the following conditions:


2. A landscape plan for the development site and the adjoining road verge(s) is to be submitted in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy LPP 4.5 – Development – Landscaping, and approved by the City, prior to lodgement of an application for building licence.


Amendment

During debate Cr T Brown moved the following amendment to the staff recommendation:

"The staff recommendation be amended by inserting the following additional condition:

"4. The proposed building not being used for public worship purposes."

Cr T Brown provided the following written reason for the proposed amendment:

“To clarify that the building is only to be used in conjunction with typical and normal school activities."

Cr K Jones Seconded Cr T Brown's proposed amendment.

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put Cr T Brown's proposed amendment, which reads:



69

Moved Cr T Brown Seconded Cr K Jones

That the staff recommendation be amended by inserting the following additional condition:

"4. The proposed building not being used for public worship purposes."

with the amended recommendation to read;

"That Council approve the application for additions to an Educational Establishment (home economics, gym, change room and office) at 17 (Lot 501) Tonbridge Way, Thornlie dated 30 March 2012 subject to the following conditions:




4. The proposed building not being used for public worship purposes."

CARRIED 8/2FOR: Cr T Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones, Cr R Mitchell, Cr O Searle

and Cr D Griffiths.

AGAINST: Cr J Brown and Cr R Lawrence.

The amendment was put and carried with the amendment becoming the substantive motion. The Mayor then put the substantive motion, which read:



70

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

278 Moved Cr T Brown Seconded Cr K Jones

That Council approve the application for additions to an Educational Establishment (home economics, gym, change room and office) at 17 (Lot 501) Tonbridge Way, Thornlie dated 30 March 2012 subject to the following conditions:




4. The proposed building not being used for public worship purposes.CARRIED 10/0


AGAINST: Nil.


71

13.5.5 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - PLACE OF WORSHIP - 1720 (LOT 304) ALBANY HIGHWAY, KENWICK (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003 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.

13.5.6 AMENDMENT NO. 130 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 - FINALISATION - CREATION OF A DEVELOPMENT ZONE AND REZONING OF LAND, VERNA AND EILEEN STREETS, GOSNELLS (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003 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.


72

13.5.7 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY - PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAYS Author: L. GibsonAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: PF12/00008Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.5.7A Draft Local Planning Policy - Pedestrian

Accessways

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider endorsing, for the purpose of public consultation, a draft local planning policy which is intended to formalise Council's position on, and approach to dealing with, requests to close Pedestrian Accessways (PAWs).

BACKGROUND

PAWs were originally established as part of land subdivision in accordance with section 20A of the, then, Town Planning and Development Act 1928. They were seen as a means of providing for the unimpeded movement of pedestrians and cyclists in and around residential neighbourhoods following the change from traditional grid pattern road layouts to designs based on cul-de-sac and loop roads. PAWs are also often used to locate public infrastructure such as water, sewer and gas pipes, and electrical cables.

There has been much concern expressed by the community about property damage, antisocial behaviour, drug abuse and burglaries associated with PAWs. This is because they are often narrow and have poor surveillance therefore providing opportunities for people to gather in an enclosed environment and can facilitate easy access into properties, with little or no passive surveillance.

The City has approximately 150 PAWs, created as part of an historical subdivision design practice. Contemporary urban design principles encourage the creation of permeable, accessible and sustainable street networks, with the aim of reducing car dependence by promoting non-car-based transport modes like walking, cycling and public transport. The principles also recognise the links between the increase in car use, obesity due to inactivity, and global climate change as a result of vehicle emissions.

Despite this, there are ongoing requests for the closure of PAWs on security and amenity grounds. However, existing PAWs provide access to essential services and provide pedestrian and cycle access both in neighbourhoods and to local and district facilities including public transport, schools, shops, parks and community facilities. In considering closure requests a balance needs to be found between resident access to facilities and public transport, and concerns regarding security and amenity.



73

DISCUSSION

Draft Local Planning Policy

A draft Local Planning Policy for PAWs, as contained in Appendix 13.5.7A, has been prepared for Council's consideration. The draft Policy will provide clear guidance on the assessment of applications proposing the closure of a PAW. The key aspects of the draft Policy are as follows:

Requiring any requests to close a PAW to be accompanied by the appropriate application fee and a "closure report", in accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission's Procedure for the Closure of Pedestrian Accessways - Planning Guidelines (October 2009).

Clearly establishing location and function criteria to guide the City in considering an application to close a PAW.

Stating that in the event that the City receives a complaint regarding the inappropriate use of a PAW, the complainant will be referred to the Western Australian Police, to enable a direct request that the said behaviour be investigated.

Anti-Social Behaviour

As detailed above, the draft Policy provides that in the event that the City receives a complaint regarding the inappropriate use of a PAW, the complainant will be referred to the Western Australian Police, to enable a direct request that the said behaviour be investigated. This is considered appropriate as the unlawful use of a public space (be it a PAW, a park or a road) is clearly a Police matter. Ultimately, the City is able to influence the built environment adjacent, (as discussed below) but is not responsible for controlling the use of, a PAW.

Design Responses

Notwithstanding the provisions of the draft Policy (which relate to the potential closure of PAWs), the City is able to influence the built environment in such a way that it deters the inappropriate use of PAWs. In this regard the following should be noted:

The City's SafeCity Urban Design Strategy advocates the widening of, and allowance for density increases adjacent to, PAWs.

The City's Local Housing Strategy recommends that density bonuses be granted for properties abutting (among other things) PAWs so as to encourage passive surveillance of those PAWs.

Any proposal to allow density bonuses adjacent PAWs would need to be progressed via an amendment to the City's Town Planning Scheme. Such an amendment may be considered in the future, in the context of the City's other competing planning projects.

Statutory Process

In accordance with Clause 2.4 of TPS 6, if Council supports the draft Policy, with or without modifications, it must be advertised for public comment for a period of not less than 21 days.



74

Advertising is proposed to be undertaken in the following manner, consistent with the requirements of TPS 6:

Advertisement in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks

Display on the City's website, at the Civic Centre and at City Libraries.

After the conclusion of the advertising period, Council will be required to review the draft Policy in light of any submissions received and may either adopt the Policy with or without modifications or not proceed with the Policy.

CONCLUSION

The proposed draft Local Planning Policy will provide a tool for dealing with requests to close PAWs.

It will be recommended that Council consent to advertising the draft policy for public comment for a period of 21 days.


The cost of advertising the draft Policy can be met from the Planning Implementation operational budget.


Planning and Development Act 2005

Land Administration Act 1997

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



279 Moved Cr R Lawrence Seconded Cr O Searle

That Council, pursuant to Clause 2.4 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, advertise the draft Local Planning Policy - Pedestrian Accessways, as contained in Appendix 13.5.7A, and invite public comment for a period of not less than 21 days, by way of:

i) Advertisement in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks.

ii) Display on the City's website, at the Civic Centre and at City Libraries.CARRIED 9/1

FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones, Cr R Lawrence, Cr R Mitchell, Cr O Searle and Cr D Griffiths.

AGAINST: Cr T Brown.


75

13.6 GOVERNANCE

13.6.1 CRYSTAL BROOK CARAVAN PARK - APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD - REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the fourth report in these Minutes.


76

13.6.2 RIVERSIDE GARDENS ESTATE CARAVAN PARK - APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE

Author: W EllisAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: OCM 14 June 2011 (Resolution 237)Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to approve the application for renewal of the Riverside Gardens Estate Caravan Park licence, in accordance with section 7(4) of the Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Act 1995 (the Act).

BACKGROUND

An application for the renewal of the Caravan Park licence for Riverside Gardens Estate, located at 2462 Albany Highway Gosnells, has been received by the City. Under regulation 47 of the Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Regulations 1997 (Regulations), this application must be determined within 35 days of receiving the application. The Regulations prescribe the duration of the licence as being 12 months.

DISCUSSION

Riverside Gardens is a retirement lifestyle village consisting of 297 long stay sites that has been subject to regular inspections by City Environmental Health Officers with no major issues being identified.

As the caravan park complies with the requirements of the Act and the Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Regulations 1997, it is recommended that Council approve the application for renewal of the licence for Riverside Gardens Estate.


Nil.


Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Act 1995.Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Regulations 1997.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



77


280 Moved Cr O Searle Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council pursuant to section 7(4) of the Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Act 1995, approve the application for renewal of the licence to operate the facility known as Riverside Gardens Estate located at 2462 Albany Highway Gosnells.



AGAINST: Nil.


78

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

15. NOTICES OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING

Nil.

16. URGENT BUSINESS(by permission of Council)

Nil.

17. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

18. CLOSURE

The Mayor declared the meeting closed at 8.20pm.

Documents

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 26 JUNE 2012 TABLE OF …...City of Gosnells Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 26 June 2012 Item Report Title Page No. iii 13.5.6 AMENDMENT NO. 130 TO TOWN