MINUTES Ordinary Council Meeting Tuesday, 21 September 2021 - Date: Tuesday, 21 September 2021 - Town of Claremont
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MINUTES
Ordinary Council Meeting
Tuesday, 21 September 2021
Date: Tuesday, 21 September 2021
Time: 7.00pm
Location: Town of Claremont
Claremont Council Chambers
308 Stirling Highway, Claremont
Liz Ledger
Chief Executive Officer
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
DISCLAIMER
Would all members of the public please note that they are cautioned against taking any
action as a result of a Council decision tonight until such time as they have seen a copy of
the Minutes or have been advised, in writing, by the Council’s Administration with regard to
any particular decision. This meeting shall be recorded for Administration purposes only.
Page 2
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
Order Of Business
1 Declaration of Opening/Announcement of Visitors ............................................................. 4
2 Record of Attendance/Apologies/Leave of Absence (Previously Approved) ................... 4
4 Response to Previous Public Questions Taken on Notice ................................................. 4
5 Public Question Time ............................................................................................................... 5
6 Public Statement Time ............................................................................................................. 7
8 Petitions/Deputations/Presentations ..................................................................................... 8
9 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meetings .................................................................... 8
10 Announcement of Confidential Matters for which the Meeting may be Closed to
the public ................................................................................................................................... 8
11 Business Not Dealt with From a Previous Meeting .............................................................. 8
12 Reports of Committees ............................................................................................................ 9
12.1 Foreshore Advisory Committee.................................................................................... 9
12.1.1 Claremont Foreshore Land Survey and Boundary Rationalisation ................ 9
13 Reports of the CEO ................................................................................................................ 15
13.2 PEOPLE ..................................................................................................................... 15
13.2.1 CSRFF Application LED Lighting - Claremont Oval ..................................... 15
13.1 Liveability .................................................................................................................... 36
13.1.1 Footpath Options at Mrs Herberts Park ........................................................ 36
13.1.2 Strata Lot 1, Lot 23, (8) Park Lane, Claremont - Proposed Carport to
Heritage Dwelling .......................................................................................... 44
13.2 Leadership and Governance ...................................................................................... 53
13.3.1 Monthly Statement of Financial Activity for the Period ending 31 July
2021............................................................................................................... 53
13.3.2 List of Payments 1 to 31 July 2021 ............................................................... 84
14 Announcements by the Presiding Person .......................................................................... 94
15 Elected Members’ Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given ........................... 94
16 New Business of an Urgent Nature Approved by the Presiding Person or by
Decision of Meeting................................................................................................................ 94
17 Confidential Matters for which the Meeting may be Closed to the Public ...................... 94
18 Future Meetings of Council ................................................................................................... 94
19 Declaration of Closure of Meeting ........................................................................................ 94
Page 3
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
MINUTES OF TOWN OF CLAREMONT
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING
HELD AT THE TOWN OF CLAREMONT, CLAREMONT COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 308 STIRLING
HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT
ON TUESDAY, 21 SEPTEMBER 2021 AT 7.00PM
1 DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS
Deputy Mayor Jill Goetze welcomed members of the public, press, staff and Councillors and declared
the meeting open at 7.01pm.
2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE
(PREVIOUSLY APPROVED)
PRESENT
Deputy Mayor Jill Goetze
Cr Peter Browne OAM, JP
Cr Sara Franklyn
Cr Peter Edwards
Cr Bruce Haynes
Cr Kate Main
IN ATTENDANCE:
Liz Ledger (Chief Executive Officer)
Bree Websdale (Director Governance and People)
David Vinicombe (Director Planning and Development)
Kathleen Breuer (Acting Director Infrastructure)
Jessica Guy (Governance Officer)
Amanda Bryant (Manager Community Engagement)
7 members of the Public, 1 member of the Press
APOLOGIES:
Mayor Jock Barker
Cr Paul Kelly
LEAVE OF ABSENCE:
Cr Annette Suann
Cr Peter Telford
3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
Nil
4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE
Nil
Page 4
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Mr Simon Dawkins of 28 Goldsmith Road, Claremont
Regarding footpaths on Goldsmith Road
Question 1:
In the area around Goldsmith Road there are footpaths that travel east west but not north south. This
creates the situation where it is often necessary to walk on the road, but more importantly
wheelchairs, bikes and strollers are bound to use the road.
I have noticed that there is an increasing use of the roads and footpaths by young families and older
people walking, commuting and exercising. This ability to stay safe on the footpath ends when you
enter Dalkeith but also when you want to travel north or south.
This photo below shows a person being wheeled in a chair towards the park – the place we all want
to go to at some point. I have experienced this many times with a neighbour who is confined to a
chair. There is a sense of vulnerability when I am walking him to the park. Cars make unnecessary
large detours because they also feel the need to demonstrate the sense of additional care required
around such situations.
I am requesting that the Council review the footpath policy and determine the most urgent application
of footpaths, rather than the current program of expanding the current paths to accommodate two
wheelchairs passing each other.
Does the Council agree this is a planning and infrastructure policy worth pursuing in the interests of
an active safe Claremont?
Answer 1:
The Town is proactively renewing the existing paths within Claremont. This involves removing the
existing, old narrow and sometimes dangerous slab paths and replacing with wider concrete
pathways built to Australian Standards.
Should Council wish to request that a path is constructed along Loton Road to provide a link to
College Park from Goldsmith Road, then this would require:
• Consultation with the residents along Loton Road (noting that the Town have previously
consulted with the residents of Loton Road on their interest in a footpath on their street. The
residents at the time did not support this suggestion);
• Budget formulation and design; and
• Presentation to Council through the 22/23 Draft Budget Process.
It would not require a change to the Footpath Policy as this already supports the provision of a safe
and accessible environment.
To note: Loton Road is a very low traffic volume Access Road servicing approximately 227 vehicles
per day. According to the Town’s classification for adding a path at such a location, it is not deemed
“required” however it “may” be installed on one side of the road.
Mrs P. Ermengarde Robinson of 69 Wood Street, Swanbourne
Regarding Claremont Aquatic Centre Fees and Charges
Question 1:
Why have lane fees to professional coaches using Claremont Pool been raised by 32% from $26.50
to $35 per lane per hour given that comparable pools such as Bold Park, Somerset, Innaloo and
Scarborough charge $19.50, $15.50, $23.00 and $23.00 respectively? Fees for personal training
have increased to $70 per lane hour. All increases are well above inflation.
Answer 1:
The amounts provided in the question are not able to be compared as the Claremont Aquatic Centre
has rates for 3 different types of user groups, minor and major commercial operators and non-for-
Page 5
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
profit clubs. These fees vary from $25 per hour per lane to $35 per hour per lane for major
commercial operator.
Many local government run pools don’t have major commercial operators at their pool and run their
swim schools instead. They charge varying amounts for this service. She advised by way of
comparison, the entry fee for an adult at Claremont Aquatic Centre is less than the Scarborough
Pool, Terry Tyzack Pool and Craigie Leisure Centre.
The fee for personal training does not relate to lane hire and the fee is for a personal training session
where a Town of Claremont staff member instructs an individual or a group of 3 or more. This fee is
a new fee to this year’s budget and has not increased from 2020/21.
Question 2:
Why should professional coaches who bring in a conservative estimate of 25,000 entries annually,
most of whom pay full entry fees, be penalised for using the facility?
Answer 2:
The centre has a variety of programs that operate at the facility and some of the groups offer
professional coaching services. The user group that is being referred to is Swim Smooth and this is
a commercial busines and operates for profit. The rate of $35 is still subsidised by Council.
Question 3:
If Council’s intent is to recoup costs, then surely this should be spread equitably across all users of
the pool, not just the coaches and those who utilise them who will be paying more for coaching on
top of their pool entry costs?
Answer 3:
All swimmers pay an entry fee that is comparable or less than other aquatic centres.
User groups are not penalised for using the facility as they request to make a booking and are not
held to any contractual term.
The lane hire is also a subsidised fee and does not reflect the actual operating cost for each lane
and the high level of service that is offered at the centre.
The fees are distributed equitably across all users of the centre. There is no exception to any user
as the fees and charges are applied to all bookings and entries.
How the individual user groups charge their clients cannot be controlled by Town. This is driven by
the individual business operator and should be addressed to them.
Question 4:
Are Councillors aware that at least one professional coach will utilise Bold Park and will not be
returning to Claremont after the closure, costing the centre approximately 7200 entries plus beginner
course entries in summer, at least $44,000 of entry fees foregone?
Answer 4:
The statement about one professional coach utilising Bold Park is known. This operator has been
using lanes at Bold Park before the current fees and charges were adopted and has moved two of
the sessions in recent times.
She advised the source of the figure of 7,200 entries is not known and may not be correct.
Question 5:
Are Councillors aware that Swimsmooth will now be paying $8000 per month for 17.5 hours of lane
use per week – around $100,000 per year – for the privilege of bringing around 18,000 swimmers
and over $100,000 in entry fees to the pool – most of whom would probably swim elsewhere if not
for the Swimsmooth program? Coaches bringing in so many extra patrons should be incentivised,
not penalised.
Page 6
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
Answer 5:
The comment about Swim Smooth paying $8,000 per month is not correct and the correct data is:
o 17.5 hours per week at $35 = $612.50 per week;
o $612.50 times four weeks = $2,450 per month or $29,400 per year.
The lane hire hours and estimation of $100,000 per year is not correct and would be around $63,000
per year if the group continues with the current lane hours.
The professional for-profit businesses use lanes at the high demand periods of the day and
compromise the community from using lanes during these periods. The groups also block out large
time slots and do not allow other groups access including schools and non-for-profit organisations.
6 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME
Darcy Coffey of Claremont Football Club, 3 Davies Road Claremont
Regarding Item 13.2.1 – CSRFF Application LED Lighting – Claremont Oval
Mr Coffey spoke in favour of the Officer Recommendation.
7 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE
RESOLUTION 112/21
Moved: Cr Sara Franklyn
Seconded: Cr Peter Edwards
That Cr Peter Telford be granted Leave of Absence for Ordinary Council Meeting 5 October
2021.
For: Mayor Jill Goetze, Cr Peter Browne OAM, JP, Cr Sara Franklyn, Cr Peter
Edwards, Cr Bruce Haynes, Cr Kate Main
Against: Nil
CARRIED 6/0
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE
RESOLUTION 113/21
Moved: Cr Sara Franklyn
Seconded: Cr Peter Edwards
That Mayor Jock Barker be granted Leave of Absence for Ordinary Council Meeting 5
October 2021.
For: Mayor Jill Goetze, Cr Peter Browne OAM, JP, Cr Sara Franklyn, Cr Peter
Edwards, Cr Bruce Haynes, Cr Kate Main
Against: Nil
CARRIED 6/0
Page 7
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
8 PETITIONS/DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
Nil
9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
RESOLUTION 114/21
Moved: Cr Sara Franklyn
Seconded: Cr Peter Browne OAM, JP
That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 7 September 2021 be confirmed.
For: Mayor Jill Goetze, Cr Peter Browne OAM, JP, Cr Sara Franklyn, Cr Peter
Edwards, Cr Bruce Haynes, Cr Kate Main
Against: Nil
CARRIED 6/0
10 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING
MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC
Nil
11 BUSINESS NOT DEALT WITH FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING
Nil
Page 8
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
12 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
12.1 FORESHORE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
12.1.1 CLAREMONT FORESHORE LAND SURVEY AND BOUNDARY RATIONALISATION
File Number: GOV/00049-02, D-21-30610
Author: Marty Symmons, Acting Director Infrastructure
Authoriser: Liz Ledger, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: 1. Case 130269C - Claremont Foreshore Draft Survey Instructions -
16.08.2021 ⇩
PURPOSE
To approve the undertaking of a land survey of the Claremont Foreshore as a joint project with the
Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA).
BACKGROUND
The Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (DPLH) have met with the Town and the DBCA to
discuss the rationalisation of the boundaries along the Claremont Foreshore now that the South
West Settlement Native Title Claim has been settled.
It has been recommended by the DPLH and by the Foreshore Advisory Committee (FAC) that the
Town and the DBCA have the work undertaken as a joint exercise.
DISCUSSION
The existing deposited plan of the foreshore, the high-water mark, and the boundaries between
reserve R24523 and R48325 require resurveying for several reasons, the most important being:
• To delineate the areas better and more clearly under the management of the DBCA and the
Town of Claremont,
• To include the extents of areas reclaimed from the river such as the Claremont Yacht Club car
park, and
• To provide the power to lease to the Town, allowing the Town to formalise some existing
arrangements.
The DPLH have advised they will facilitate the process once the survey has been completed and
have provided a draft scope of the works required – attached.
PAST RESOLUTIONS
Foreshore Advisory Committee, Recommendation 0008/21 25 August 2021
That:
1. The Committee notes the progress of the various program activities relating to the foreshore;
2. The Committee endorses the Sand Management Plan and that the recommendations therein
be adopted; and
3. The Town provide a report to Council that the Foreshore be surveyed as a joint exercise with
DBCA.
Item 12.1.1 Page 9
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
CARRIED
FINANCIAL AND STAFF IMPLICATIONS
The cost of the work is estimated to be approximately $50,000, which would be shared between the
Town and the DBCA as the two managing authorities. The Town will also seek contribution from the
Claremont Yacht Club (CYC) for the portion of foreshore where the car park has been constructed,
reclaiming land from the river, as this is one of the key drivers for this work being required. The
amount being sought from the CYC would be 5% of the total fee being the approximate proportion
of the foreshore occupied by the Club.
The DBCA will advertise the Request for Quote following standard government procurement
procedures and will organise for the work to be undertaken. They are seeking Council approval for
the Town to joint fund the works prior to proceeding.
As this work has evolved post budget adoption there is not a dedicated line item for this project. It
is therefore recommended that the Town’s 50% share of the cost for the land survey is drawn from
account 1201/27790 ‘Other Consultants/Infrastructure’, and that this budget is reviewed at midyear
budget review to assess how it is tracking against future requirements.
POLICY AND STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS
Land Administration Act 1997
COMMUNICATION / CONSULTATION
N/A
STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN
Environmental Sustainability
We are a leader in responsibly managing the built and natural environment for the enjoyment of the
community and continue to demonstrate diligent environmental practices.
• Take a leadership in the community in environmental sustainability.
• Protect and conserve the natural flora and fauna of Lake Claremont and the Foreshore.
URGENCY
The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions can proceed with the project upon
receipt of a Council Resolution.
VOTING REQUIREMENTS
Simple Majority decision of Council (More than half the Elected Members present are required to
vote in favour).
RESOLUTION 115/21
Moved: Cr Kate Main
Seconded: Cr Peter Edwards
That Council supports the undertaking of a land survey for Claremont Foreshore and
endorses the budget of $25,000 from this year’s annual budget to undertake the works.
For: Mayor Jill Goetze, Cr Peter Browne OAM, JP, Cr Sara Franklyn, Cr Peter
Edwards, Cr Bruce Haynes, Cr Kate Main
Against: Nil
CARRIED 6/0
Item 12.1.1 Page 10Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 11
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 12
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 13
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 14
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
13 REPORTS OF THE CEO
13.2 PEOPLE
13.2.1 CSRFF APPLICATION LED LIGHTING - CLAREMONT OVAL
File Number: PRK/00117, D-21-29957
Author: Liz Ledger, Chief Executive Officer
Bree Websdale, Director Governance and People
Authoriser: Liz Ledger, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: 1. Claremont Football Club LED Lighting Application CSRFF ⇩
PURPOSE
For Council to consider an application from the Claremont Football Club (CFC) for financial
assistance from the Town towards LED lighting towers for Claremont Oval as part of a Community
Sport and Recreational Facilities Funding (CSRFF) grant application.
BACKGROUND
The Claremont Oval is subject to Management Order M498564 dated 21 November 2013 and the
Claremont Oval Management Agreement between the Town of Claremont and the CFC dated 17
August 2012.
Pursuant to the Management Order and Agreement, CFC and the Town are jointly appointed the
management body in respect to the Claremont Oval to ensure the “care, control and management”
of the Oval and surrounding land.
The Management Order provides that Claremont Oval is “to be used for the designated purpose of
recreation”.
The Agreement relevantly provides “The Town and the Club acknowledge that there shall be
unrestricted public access to the Land other than on the dates and at times agreed in writing between
the Town and the Club when the Club shall have the exclusive right to use the Land for the purpose
of Football training, Football matches, Undertaking parking for events and Community events as
approved by the Town” (Clause 4.1).
The Agreement continues until the revocation of the Management Order.
Claremont Oval is also used frequently by the public and was in November 2020 designated a dog
off lead area pursuant to LV133 - Dogs in Public Places policy.
The CFC is seeking a 1/3 financial contribution from the Town towards LED lighting towers for
Claremont Oval should they be successful in obtaining a CSRFF grant.
The CFC has prepared a detailed CSRFF grant application. Please refer to Attachment 1: Claremont
Football Club CSRFF Application.
DISCUSSION
The WA Football Commission have minimum standards for sports lighting and the current lighting
does not meet those standards.
Claremont Oval is home to the CFC who in addition to their junior teams, compete in the West
Australian Football League (League/Reserves/Colts) and the West Australian Women’s Football
League (League/Reserves). In addition to hosting games during the winter season, the ground is
also used for pre and in season training and providing football clinics during term and school
holidays.
Item 13.2.1 Page 15Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
The current lighting at the Claremont Oval has been in place for the past over two decades and is
only ~50-70Lux. It is considered inadequate for any more than a basic training drill, is insufficient to
support the growth of the Club and other uses of the Oval at night.
CFC have investigated upgrading the current lighting (non LED) but the cost of:
• replacement of the globes to ones with more ‘luminous intensity’ was considered to be
excessive. Increasing the luminous intensity would also impact on surrounding residents; and
• the physical energy costs were also prohibitive.
The installation of new LED lighting to the existing lighting towers provides the following benefits and
advantages:
1. Increases the frequency of training and participation for 500+ CFC members (male and female
aged 14 to 35). CFC has advised they have over:
• 120+ male players between the age 18-33;
• 90+ female players between the ages of 16-35; and
• an additional 180+ youth age players between the ages of 14-17 who utilise the oval for
training between 4-5 nights a week from mid-November to the end of September the
following year annually.
In 2021 over 95% of the CFC playing list is drawn from the local district.
CFC have 6 teams running concurrently and don’t have the capacity to run more than 3
matches on the same day and host games on a Saturday evening.
In particular CFC would like to grow female access to the game. Both of which would be
captured by improved lighting to allow more games at night.
2. Provide new options for the use of the oval post sunset and for other users.
CFC have suggested they would free up Friday evening to allow the 12 x JFCs in our
community to play under lights at the Claremont Oval.
Further they would extend invitations to the local PSA schools to play their Alcock Cup games
under lights as none of their school venues currently have this capacity.
Better lighting would provide the capacity to run social football and other sporting competitions
on weekday evenings.
3. Improved lighting will enhance the engagement of spectators also, increasing activation of the
precinct, and supporting the restaurants, cafes and small businesses in the local vicinity.
4. The Claremont Oval could also be used by the Town and other groups for community events
at night.
5. LED lasts longer and consume a quarter of the energy to produce the same output
(https://www.energyrating.gov.au/document/fact-sheet-led).
6. LED lighting is the most cost effective/environmentally friendly solution in the long term. CFC
have advice that the running costs will be less than existing costs.
7. LED lighting effectively directs the lighting to the oval proper (i.e. LEDs give the capability to
‘direct’ the lights far more effectively than non LEDs (no diffused lighting)).
PAST RESOLUTIONS
At its Council meeting on 7 July 2020, Council resolved:
1. that the CSRFF Small Grant funding application as proposed to be submitted by the
Claremont Tennis Club in August 2020 is priority 1 of 1 applications received.
Item 13.2.1 Page 16Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
2. to contribute $29,171 (ex GST) towards this application on the basis of funding from the
other parties to this project as follows;
Claremont Tennis Club (cash) $31,145
Claremont Tennis Club (non cash) $ 2,500
Town of Claremont $29,171
CSRFF Fund $29,171
3. funds this contribution of $29,171 (ex GST) from GL Account 1105/38250, Donations,
Contribution and Subsidies within the 2020/21 financial year.
At its Council meeting on 3 November 2020, Council resolved to:
1. Determine Claremont Oval as a dog exercise area (dog off lead) as a means to supporting
social connection and community development for the new residents of apartments in
Claremont on the Park to be reviewed by Council at the end of 12 months.
2. Authorise the following amendment to LV133- Dogs in Public Places policy:
“1. i) Reserve 8002, Claremont Oval”
3. Authorises a budget amendment of $15,000 to the 2020-2021 Annual Budget to reflect
estimated increased expenditure to the Law Order and Public Safety account (if required).
FINANCIAL AND STAFF IMPLICATIONS
The grant application has been based on one third of the total cost of the project funding from the
sporting club, one third from the local government and the remaining third from the state government.
Claremont Football Club has secured financial support from the WAFC and the AFL of $30,000.
CFC’s contribution to the overall project will be in excess of $100,000 (inclusive of the initial pole
upgrade).
The Town’s financial contribution would be $69,000 and would be required in the 2022/23 budget.
A simple majority decision of Council is required as this does not require Council to authorise
expenditure within the current adopted budget (Section 6.8(1) of the Local Government Act 1995).
POLICY AND STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS
The principle of supporting this application is in line with Council’s policy PE404: Sustainable
Claremont – Community Support Program.
COMMUNICATION / CONSULTATION
The Claremont Football Club has undertaken consultation with the industry and the Town.
STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN
Liveability
We are an accessible community with well-maintained and managed assets. Our heritage is
preserved for the enjoyment of the community.
• Develop the public realm as gathering spaces for participation, prosperity and enjoyment.
People
We live in an accessible and safe community that welcomes diversity, enjoys being active and has
a strong sense of belonging.
• Promote and encourage an active lifestyle through supporting local community clubs, groups
and recreation and leisure facilities.
Item 13.2.1 Page 17Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
URGENCY
Urgent. CFC are required to lodge the grant application by 30 September 2021.
VOTING REQUIREMENTS
Simple majority decision of Council required. (More than half the elected members present are
required to vote in favour).
RESOLUTION 116/21
Moved: Cr Peter Browne OAM, JP
Seconded: Cr Sara Franklyn
That Council:
1. Resolves that the CSRFF Grant funding application by the Claremont Football Club is
supported by the Town and is a priority 1 of 1 application received.
2. Considers including a third of the project funding of $69,000 (ex GST) towards this
application in the 2022/23 Draft Annual Budget and provided to the CFC on the basis of
funding from the other parties listed below.
• Claremont Football Club $69,000
• CSRFF Fund $69,000
For: Mayor Jill Goetze, Cr Peter Browne OAM, JP, Cr Sara Franklyn, Cr Peter
Edwards, Cr Bruce Haynes, Cr Kate Main
Against: Nil
CARRIED 6/0
Item 13.2.1 Page 18Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 19
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 20
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 21
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 22
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 23
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 24
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 25
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 26
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 27
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 28
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 29
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 30
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 31
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 32
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 33
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 34
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21 September 2021 Attachment 1 Page 35
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
13.1 LIVEABILITY
13.1.1 FOOTPATH OPTIONS AT MRS HERBERTS PARK
File Number: COP/00173, D-21-32636
Author: Kathleen Breuer, Acting Director Infrastructure
Liz Ledger, Chief Executive Officer
Authoriser: Liz Ledger, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: Nil
PURPOSE
To present Council with options for footpath connectivity at Mrs Herberts Park along with
endorsement of a budget allocation.
BACKGROUND
As part of the upgrades to the community facilities at Mrs Herberts Park, Council resolved at its
Ordinary Council Meeting on 4 May 2021 to approve an alternative plan for the public toilets.
Image 1: Plan detailing facilities and infrastructure at Mrs Herberts Park
Item 13.1.1 Page 36Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
In summary, the new plan increased the size of the footprint for the public toilets and included an
accessible roof top viewing platform.
The existing footpath that extends from the car park to the boat shed along the west of the toilets is
not as per Australian Standard (not to grade for disabled access, although it can be used by
wheelchairs and prams). The smaller ramp built more recently, leading from the toilet block to the
boat shed, is however constructed to the Australian Standard.
DISCUSSION
The original scope of the works at Mrs Herberts Park did not include redoing the existing footpath
infrastructure as they were not associated with any of the works. However, as the project has
evolved, and the public toilet block has been modified (removing the gap between the upper level
and the toilet block and adding in a viewing platform) this has led to the Town’s officers needing to
review the footpath to and around the toilet block.
It has become evident that works must be done to ensure the new path that will connect with the
existing path south of the public toilets is compliant with Australian Standards. As an unforeseen
and therefore unbudgeted item, officers have been looking at a variety of options to present to
Council.
Three options have been prepared with cost estimates and basic illustrative sketches. The final
decision made by Council will then be drafted and accurately costed, however given the impending
timing with the construction of the toilet block concrete pad, a decision from Council is required
urgently.
Option 1 – Addition of a new staircase
The first option proposed is the simplest and subsequently cheapest option which does not
include a change of the existing (non-compliant) western footpath. A new stair will continue
next to the toilet block down to the boat shed (red line). Please refer to Sketch 2 Option 1 –
Addition of a new staircase.
A design will be developed and a site survey will be undertaken to create a new staircase
leading from the landing on the western side of the toilet block onto the existing ramp. The
existing limestone wall in front of the toilet block will be modified (taking off one layer of
limestone to reduce height) and the handrail will be removed. This will include a 1.5m wide
stair with handrail for a short walk from the toilet to the playground. A drinking fountain and
dog bowl (blue dot) will be installed in the area where the ramp and stair meet.
The pros of this option are:
• The direct footpath from the carpark to the boat shed is compliant.
• The dog bowl and fountain can be located on the connection point and therefore
useable from visitors using the stair and the ramp.
• The shower area will be private on the eastern side off the toilet block.
• The existing landscape and turf will be kept in place and no further planting is required.
• An estimated budget figure for this design is the cheapest at $20,000.
The cons of this option are:
• The existing (non-compliant) western footpath from the carpark to the toilet block
remains.
• Pram users and visitors in a wheelchair will need to pass though the new toilet block
(between the ablutions and the hand basins) to continue the way down to the boat shed
(green line).
• It leaves the western non-compliant footpath.
Item 13.1.1 Page 37Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021 Image 2: Sketch detailing Option 1 Addition of new staircase Option 2 – Reshape path south of the toilet block The second option the Town is proposing does not include a change of the existing (non-compliant) western footpath from the carpark to the toilet block. A new footpath will be installed in front of the toilet block and butt into the existing ramp just before the boat shed. A design will be developed, and a site survey will be undertaken to create a footpath, leading from the landing on the western side of the toilet block onto the existing ramp. The existing limestone wall Item 13.1.1 Page 38
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
in front of the toilet block will be removed, and a new limestone wall rebuilt which will allow path
widening. There will be a new concrete ramp, new turf and new handrails. The drinking fountain and
dog bowl will get installed on the eastern side of the toilet block.
The pros of this option are:
• Pram users and visitors in a wheelchair will not need to pass though the new toilet block to
continue the way down to the boat shed.
• The direct footpath from the toilet to the boat shed is compliant.
• The existing landscape and turf will be kept in place and no further planting is required.
The cons of this option are
• The existing (non-compliant) western footpath from the carpark to the toilet block remains.
• A rough budget figure for this design will be $40,000.
Sketch 3: Option 2 Reshape path south of the toilet block
Item 13.1.1 Page 39Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
Option 3 – Completely new compliant footpath
The third version the Town is proposing includes a change of the complete footpath from the carpark
down to the boat shed. This will include to demolish the existing foot path, remove the turf, demolish
the handrails and take out the existing limestone walls. Please refer to the basic illustration below.
The red lines indicate the layout for the proposed new disability access footpath and allow for the
opportunity to add complementary landscaping in an (otherwise unusable) space. Please note the
yellow lines indicating retaining walls and green indicating plants.
A design will be developed, and a site survey will be undertaken to create a new footpath leading
from the carpark to the boat shed according to the most recent building codes. This will include a
1.5m wide footpath with landings for an easy access with pram and wheelchair. On the sites of the
proposed walkway the Town proposes to install either limestone walls or gabion baskets filled with
stones and timber benches on top to repeat the idea of the landscape design. The landscape design
includes a “Community gathering circle’ with the same materials. This could also reflect a history
walk from the entrance of the museum to the boatshed.
The pros of this option are:
• A fully compliant, disabled access footpath at Mrs Herberts Park.
• The connection and interaction with the nature and continuity of the landscape design in the
complete park. It allows visitors to take a stroll along the refurbished and new building or a
quick walk down the stairs to the playground area.
• The shower area will be private on the eastern side off the toilet block.
• The dog bowl and fountain can be located on the connection point and therefore useable
from visitors using the stair and the ramp.
• All renewal works are completed during the Museum closure.
The cons of this option are:
• An excessive reformation of the western area of the toilet block
• Cost increase of the original design.
• An estimated budget figure for this design is $60,000. This may increase depending upon
the plant design selected.
Item 13.1.1 Page 40Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
Sketch 4: Option 3 – Completely new compliant footpath
PAST RESOLUTIONS
Ordinary Council Meeting 15 June 2021, Resolution 081/21
That Council
1. Accepts, subject to the execution of relevant contract documentation, the tender as submitted
by Western Projects for the reconstruction of Mrs Herberts Park Toilets for the Town of
Claremont in accordance with RFT 03-2021.
Against: Nil
Item 13.1.1 Page 41Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
CARRIED 9/0
Ordinary Council Meeting 4 May 2021, Resolution 052/21
That Council
1. Subject to design amendments as deemed required, including ensuring disability access to
the roof top viewing platform, approves the preliminary design of the new public toilets at Mrs
Herberts Park;
2. Approve the allocation of $150,000 from Building Reserve to add to the $200,000 already
provided in the 2020/21 Capital Works budget, to fund the construction of the new public toilets
at Mrs Herberts Park.
CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 8/0
FINANCIAL AND STAFF IMPLICATIONS
The Town’s officers are recommending Option 3 at an estimated cost of $60,000, to be sourced from
the Town’s Future Fund.
As per the Local Government Regulations 17, the purpose of the Future Fund is:
“To provide for the future planning and undertaking of capital and infrastructure works in the
Town. The actual opening balance of the Future Fund”.
The opening balance of the Future Fund as of 1 July 2021/22 was $7,155,326. There has been no
other Council reports this financial year for transfers from this reserve account.
If Council supports the officer’s recommendation of Option 3, the Future Fund will be reduced to
$7,095,326.
POLICY AND STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS
Local Government Act 1995 (Act) and associated Regulations (Regulations) relating to Reserves
Australian Standards
Disability Standards 2010
Town of Claremont Disability Access and Inclusion Plan
COMMUNICATION / CONSULTATION
NA
STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN
Liveability
We are an accessible community with well-maintained and managed assets. Our heritage is
preserved for the enjoyment of the community.
• Maintain and upgrade the Town's assets for seamless day to day usage.
• Develop the public realm as gathering spaces for participation, prosperity and enjoyment.
People
We live in an accessible and safe community that welcomes diversity, enjoys being active and has
a strong sense of belonging.
• We live in an accessible and safe community that welcomes diversity, enjoys being active and
has a strong sense of belonging.
Item 13.1.1 Page 42Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
• Effectively manage and enhance the Town's community facilities in response to a growing
community.
URGENCY
As mentioned under the heading ‘Discussion’, there is urgency in obtaining a decision on this
proposal due to the fact that the builders are close to laying the concrete pad for the toilet block.
This will impact on the footpath chosen.
VOTING REQUIREMENTS
Absolute Majority decision of Council (6 Elected Members are required to vote in favour).
RESOLUTION 117/21
Moved: Cr Kate Main
Seconded:Cr Sara Franklyn
That Council
1. Subject to the CEO approving the final design, approves Option 3 of a completely new
compliant footpath and landscaping for Mrs Herberts Park;
2. Approves the allocation of $60,000 from Future Fund Reserve to fund the construction
of Option 3.
For: Mayor Jill Goetze, Cr Peter Browne OAM, JP, Cr Sara Franklyn, Cr Peter
Edwards, Cr Bruce Haynes, Cr Kate Main
Against: Nil
CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 6/0
Item 13.1.1 Page 43Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
13.1.2 STRATA LOT 1, LOT 23, (8) PARK LANE, CLAREMONT - PROPOSED CARPORT TO
HERITAGE DWELLING
File Number: 02PEA/21/5305, D-21-31995
Attachments: 1. Location and Submission Map ⇩
2. Photograph ⇩
3. Plans - Confidential
4. Submissions - Confidential
Author: John Williamson, Planning Officer
Authoriser: Liz Ledger, Chief Executive Officer
Proposed Meeting Date: 21 September 2021
Date Prepared: 10 September 2021
DA No.: 2021.00096
60/90 Days Due Date: 8 November 2021
Property Owner: Rosemary Milner
Applicant: Kellett Design Group
Lot No.: 23
Area of Lot: 338m2
Zoning: Residential R20
Enabling Legislation: Local Planning Scheme No. 3 (LPS3)
Local Planning Policy 124 – Retention of Heritage Property and
Assets (LPP124)
SUMMARY
• Application for Development Approval received for the construction of a carport to a Heritage
Listed property.
• The Development Application proposes variations to the following:
o Clause 36 of Local Planning Scheme No. 3 (LPS3) in relation to carport setbacks, and
o Local Planning Policy 124 – Retention of Heritage Property and Assets (LPP124) in
relation to the setback of the carport from the heritage dwelling.
• It is noted that the proposed carport was subject of a previous Development Application
(DA2021.00066) that included compliant works to the rear of the dwelling, Delegated Reports
20 August 2021 refers.
• As part of the previous Development Application, the carport variations were advertised in
accordance with Council Policy LG525 – Advertising of Development Applications. Five
neighbours were consulted, and two submissions were received, one in support and one in
objection.
• Noting the objection, the applicant deleted the carport addition from the previous application
and has resubmitted the carport addition as a separate application to be determined by Council
accordingly.
• The submission objecting to the carport addition raised a number of concerns including visual
impact on the streetscape, detraction from the heritage property and the establishment of a
precedent for further carports to be constructed in Park Lane.
Item 13.1.2 Page 44Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
• Application is recommended for approval, subject to relevant conditions.
PURPOSE
The application proposes the construction of a new carport on the subject site.
The application requires the Council’s determination due to a neighbour objection which could not
be resolved through the delegation process.
BACKGROUND
The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal:
Date Item/Outcome
25 June 2021 Initial Application for Development Approval (DA2021.00066)
received by Council.
14 July 2021 Initial application advertising commenced.
29 July 2021 Advertising closed.
26 August 2021 Development Approval issued (excluding carport addition).
9 September 2021 Current Application for Development Approval received by
Council.
10 September 2021 Report prepared for Council.
PAST RESOLUTIONS
There are no past Council resolutions relevant to this application, although it is noted below that the
subject carport was previously withdrawn from a prior application which was approved by Council
under delegation following receipt of an objection.
Heritage
The property is included on the Town's Heritage List and the Town’s Heritage Officer offers following
comments:
The following Local Planning Policy – Retention of Heritage Property and Assets (LPP124)
provisions relate to carport additions to a Heritage Listed property:
• Carports or garages should not visually dominate the original building or obscure the original
front door or main entrance as viewed from the street.
• Garages or carports may be constructed to match the style of the existing building or in a
style that is compatible with the original. Simple contemporary designs will be encouraged.
• Where there is no viable alternative, carports without garage doors may be constructed within
the front setback but extreme care must be taken to ensure that the design of the structure
is sympathetic to the building and is not visually dominant.
Due to the positioning of the Heritage Listed dwelling on the subject property, a carport cannot be
located to the side or behind the building. In such circumstances, LPP124 allows for the
consideration of an open carport in front of a heritage dwelling. The proposed carport has a simple
roof design and a proposed width of 5m and, consistent with LPP 124, will not visually dominant the
building.
COMMUNICATION/CONSULTATION
The application was advertised in accordance with Council Policy LG525 Advertising of Development
Applications.
Five neighbours were consulted, and two comments were received. A summary of the submissions
is provided as follows:
Item 13.1.2 Page 45Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
Submissions Received
Address: 6A Park Lane, Claremont
Submission Applicant Comment Officer Comment
I object to the proposed carport There is no other option for Clause 36(2)(a) of LPS3,
and alteration to the heritage locating a carport at 8 Park Lane. provides that a street setback of
dwelling at 8 Park Lane. The entire back of the property less than 4.5m to a carport can
is occupied by a new house with be considered where there is no
This small street has no other its own garage which opens onto adverse impact on the
carports fronting onto the street the back lane. There is no streetscape. In this instance, the
so this is going to look very out of space at the side of the house. proposed carport will be
place especially as it is unable to completely screened by
be set back the required 4.5m vegetation (street trees and
distance. significant tree in front of 10 Park
Lane to the west) when travelling
east along Park Lane, and
substantially screened by an over
height solid front wall and
hedging to the eastern
neighbour’s property when
travelling west. The proposed
carport is a modest, open
structure and will have little to no
impact on the prevailing
streetscape.
This property has already been The carport will occupy the same The proposed development is
subdivided and built on at the space as the existing patch of fully compliant with the site cover
back, so the land to building painted red concrete in the front requirements of the RDC (41%).
footprint is already yard. The intention is to retain the Notwithstanding, the proposed
disproportional. existing lawn and greatly improve carport will cover an existing
A carport at the front is going to the garden, so the street will not hardstand, thus having no impact
make the property look extremely be losing green space, but rather on existing garden space within
congested and further reduce the getting more and better. the subject lot.
garden space that has already
been sacrificed at the back of the
property.
There is the potential if this is There are many examples of Clause 36(6) of LPS3 stipulates
approved that a precedent is similar carports built in front of that a car parking area will not be
establish and other properties historic properties around permitted from the Primary Street
might also want to put garaging Claremont; most have blended where a practical alternative
that similarly don’t meet the well with time and landscaping. vehicle access exists.
requirements. Some examples: No. 5 & no. 23
Freshwater Parade 11 Pennell The subject property was
Road, 12 Agett Road, 6, 14, 16, subdivided in 2008 to create two
18 Langsford Street, and 12 and strata lots, one fronting Park
14 Bay Road. Lane (the subject property) and
one fronting the rear Right of
Way (ROW). Accordingly, there
is no practical alternate access
available.
It is noted that the prevailing lot
and development pattern in Park
Lane allows alternative vehicle
access for most of the properties
within Park Lane. Consequently,
the current application would not
set a precedent within Park Lane
as other lots in this section of
road with rear ROW access will
Item 13.1.2 Page 46Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
be required to continue to use the
rear ROW for access.
The pleasant open aspects | understand concerns about the The application proposes a
offered by not having garaging general appearance of a carport modest, open style carport which
fronting houses makes Park Lane in front of a historic cottage. We is considered to have minimal
an attractive welcoming have done our best to minimise impact on the streetscape.
streetscape. the impact by placing the
structure to one side and
designing its height in such a way
that the general view of the
house is not obstructed. The roof
shape and materials of the
carport reflect those of the house.
Building a carport in front of a LPP124 stipulates that where a
heritage dwelling spoils the visual carport is to be constructed in
aspect of the heritage home and front of a heritage property, the
belittles the point of preserving carport is to be sympathetic to
the character and inherent beauty the building and not visually
that this historic home offers. dominant.
In this instance, the proposed
carport is of a modest, open style
design, that will be largely
screened by walls on
neighbouring properties and
existing vegetation. Accordingly,
it will not be visually dominant.
I hope the Council will give due The proposed carport will not in
consideration to these matters as itself create any greater level of
residents cherish the quality of congestion in the street as it will
their living environment versus cover two existing hard standing
over developed disproportional car bays.
spaces.
Once congestion is created there
is no going back!
Submissions Received
Address: 9 Park Lane, Claremont
We have no objection Noted.
whatsoever; in fact, we are fully
supportive of the proposal and
wish the owners every success
with their renovation plans.
A full copy of the submission is attached to this report.
DISCUSSION
Description
The Town received an Application for Development Approval for a carport and alterations to the
property at 8 Park Lane on 25 June 2021. The application required a variation to the carport setbacks
which was subsequently advertised and one objection was received. Acknowledging that the
objection could not be resolved, the applicant deleted the carport addition from this previous
application. The applicant has now submitted a separate application for the carport addition and
requested Council’s determination.
Item 13.1.2 Page 47Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
The subject lot was created as part of a survey-strata subdivision approved by the WAPC in 2008,
which resulted in one lot (the subject lot) fronting Park Lane and one lot fronting the rear ROW (with
a pedestrian access leg to Park Lane). As a result of this subdivision, vehicle access to the subject
lot was restricted to Park Lane.
The application seeks approval for a two car carport to be accessed from Park Lane. The carport is
of a modest open style design, to a maximum wall height of 2.1m. The proposed style and finish of
the carport roof is consistent with and in keeping with the existing heritage dwelling.
Compliance
The development proposes variations to the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 3 (LPS3) and
LPP124. Where an LPS3 provision is not satisfied, discretion may only be applied where a variation
is provided for under LPS3 provisions. Where a development does not meet a LPP requirement,
the deemed provisions of the LPS Regs through LPS3 provides discretion and a variation to the LPP
may be considered by having regard to the relevant LPP requirements. It is noted that any decision
of Council taking into account discretionary matters may be subject to an application for review by
the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).
The development complies with the LPS3, and LPP provisions other than the following:
1. The proposed carport is set back 1m from the front lot boundary in lieu of 4.5m required
under cl.36 of LPS3.
2. The proposed carport is not set back 1.2m behind the main façade of the dwelling as
required under LPP24.
LPS3 cl.36 – Setback of Carports
The proposed carport is a modest, open structure supported by narrow piers to a height of 2.1m,
with a simple pitched roof design. In addition, two mature street trees and a mature tree within the
adjoining property to the west will almost completely screen the proposed carport to the street when
travelling east along Park Lane, and the solid over height front wall and hedging to the eastern
neighbour’s property will provide substantial screening when travelling west. Notwithstanding, the
Town’s Heritage Officer has advised that the carport has a simple form and roof, will not detract from
the heritage character, and given the location is not considered to impact on the streetscape, the
proposed setback can be supported.
LPP124 – Separation of Carport from Dwelling
The purpose of LPP124 is (in part) to ensure that where additions to Heritage Listed property are
proposed they do not reduce the heritage values and are designed to avoid having an overpowering
impact on neighbours, the streetscape or the original form and fabric of the building. As referenced
above in the Heritage Officer’s comments, the proposal is considered to suitably address the
requirements of LPP124, specifically the following extracts:
• Carports or garages should not visually dominate the original building or obscure the original
front door or main entrance as viewed from the street.
• Garages or carports may be constructed to match the style of the existing building or in a
style that is compatible with the original. Simple contemporary designs will be encouraged.
• Where there is no viable alternative, carports without garage doors may be constructed within
the front setback but extreme care must be taken to ensure that the design of the structure
is sympathetic to the building and is not visually dominant.
Noting that the top of the roof ridge of the proposed carport is designed to sit below the eaves of the
existing dwelling, the location of the carport will not have an undue impact on the aesthetic cultural
values of the place as viewed from the street or on its contribution to the street.
The simplistic open nature of the structure and the roofline of the carport presents a minimalist design
approach which will be visually unobtrusive in the streetscape and retain the focus of the attention
on the Heritage Listed dwelling behind.
Notwithstanding, it is noted that visibility of the Heritage Listed dwelling is significantly restricted by
Item 13.1.2 Page 48Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 21 September 2021
the existing vegetation on both the verge and adjoining properties, and the prominent two-storey
dwelling and solid front wall/hedging to the east.
In view of this, and as the proposal satisfies the requirements of LPP124 relating to heritage impacts
(as detailed above in the Heritage Officer’s comments), the proposal is supported in this instance.
FINANCIAL AND STAFF IMPLICATIONS
There may be cost implications relative to a SAT review if Council refuses the application or applies
conditions which the applicant does not support.
POLICY AND STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS
There may be policy and statutory implications relative to a SAT review to ensure both decisions are
consistent.
STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN
Liveability
We are an accessible community with well-maintained and managed assets. Our heritage is
preserved for the enjoyment of the community.
• Provide clean, usable, attractive and accessible streetscapes and public spaces.
• Balance the Town's historical character with complementary, well designed development.
URGENCY
Given all outstanding LPS3 and Policy compliance matters are now addressed it is necessary to
refer the application to Council for determination.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above, it is recommended that approval be granted subject to the conditions in the
Officer’s recommendation.
VOTING REQUIREMENTS
Simple Majority decision of Council (More than half the Elected Members present are required to
vote in favour).
RESOLUTION 118/21
Moved: Cr Peter Browne OAM, JP
Seconded: Cr Peter Edwards
THAT Council grant Development Approval for a proposed carport at 8 Park Lane (Lot 23),
Claremont, subject to the following conditions and advice notes:
1. All development shall occur in accordance with the plans approved 21 September 2021
(Development Application DA2021.00096), as amended by these conditions.
2. The external materials and colour finishes of the development are to be to a standard
such that it complies with the requirements of Clauses 76 and 77 of the Town of
Claremont Local Planning Scheme No. 3, to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.
3. All storm water is to be retained on the site. Details are to be provided on the
application for Building Permit to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.
4. All construction materials are to be contained on site during the construction
period. No goods, supplies or materials are to block the road or footpath during the
construction, unless otherwise approved by the Town of Claremont.
Advice Notes:
Item 13.1.2 Page 49You can also read
