Australia Pesticide Ban Trial Results 2011 To 2014 TS Reports - TS24.14 To TS28.14 - 25 February

Technical Services Reports
Committee Consideration 11 February 2014 Council Resolution 25 February 2014
Table of Contents Item No. TS01.14 Findings from Chemical Free Park Trial Masons Gardens.............................................................. .....2 TS02.14 TS03.14 TS04.14 Adoption of Draft Dinghy Storage Management Plan ..... .....10 Rochdale Road Nature Strip Parking .............................. .....15 Melvista Reserve Road Naming ..................................... .....22 Page No.
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14
TS01.14
Committee Council Applicant Officer Director Director Signature File Reference Previous Item
Findings from Chemical Free Park Trial Masons Gardens

11 February 2014 25 February 2014 City of Nedlands Andrew Dickson Manager Parks Services Mark Goodlet Director Technical Services
CRS/073, PRS/135, M13/36837 Item 14.1 Council Minutes 27 September 2011
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to present to Council the findings from the twenty four month Chemical Free park trial at Masons Gardens that concluded on 31 December 2013.
Recommendation to Committee
Council 1. receives the findings from the Chemical Free park trial conducted by Administration; 2. regards Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) registered products as an acceptable, cost effective and efficient method of pest control within public open spaces when: minimised to the extent practicable within an integrated pest management plan for public open space; implemented in appropriate programs developed by suitably qualified and competent persons; the product is suitably selected for the intended purpose, efficacy and risk profile; used in accordance with product labels; and stored, handled and applied in accordance with Federal and State regulations, codes of practice and guidelines.
3. approves the use of APVMA registered pesticide products for pest control activities in maintenance programs for the Citys public open spaces;
C14/7
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 4. commits to the control of weeds and pests in the Citys parklands and reserves in order to enhance and protect public amenity and fulfill its obligations in regard to control of environmental pests; and 5. considers the findings from the trial in the future development of policies for the use of pesticides in public places within the City of Nedlands.
Strategic Plan
KFA: Natural and Built Environment KFA: Community Development KFA: Governance and Civic Leadership
Background
In September 2011 Council carried a motion asking Administration to nominate a park to undergo a 24 month trial as a Chemical Free park. Administration nominated Masons Gardens as the location for the trial. One primary reason for nominating this location was to ensure wide public exposure to the trial by choosing a well frequented City park that was not used for structured sports. The trial commenced during December 2011 with notification of surrounding residents by letter drop. Details of the trial were also posted on the Citys website and included in the Nedlands News section of the local print media. At the end of December 2013 the trial had been in place for 24 months. Key Relevant Previous Council Decisions: Item 14.1 Council Minutes 27 September 2011 Council Resolution: 1. Council directs Administration to nominate a park in the City to undergo a 24 month trial as a "Chemical Free" park, where no herbicides or insecticides will be used; 2. Before the trial proceeds on the nominated park,
(a) (b)
a letter drop to surrounding residents informing them of Council's Resolution and Intent is carried out; an advertisement or article of the same is placed in the local papers so that the general public is informed; and
3. The test results of the trial (including costs, park usage and community feedback during and at the end of the two (2) year period) be brought back to Council for further consideration and possible implementation into the City of Nedlands' "Policy on The Use of Pesticides and Herbicides", especially in our parks.
Consultation
C14/7
3
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 Required by legislation: Required by City of Nedlands policy: Yes Yes No No
At the commencement of the trial in December 2011 the City conducted a letter drop to approximately three hundred surrounding residents. The letter drop informed residents of the trial and requested feedback with respect to any concerns during the period of the trial. This consultation resulted in limited feedback with only two (2) responses from the community. The responses are tabled in Attachment 1. In July 2012, after six (6) months elapsing from the commencement of the trial, the City conducted another letter drop to a smaller group of approximately one hundred and twenty surrounding residents. The letter drop included a Community feedback form encouraging comments and feedback on residents experiences and observations in relation to the trial. This consultation resulted in one response representing a return rate of less than one percent (1%). The response is tabled in Attachment 1. A sample of the feedback form is provided as Attachment 2. In December 2013, at the conclusion of the trial, the City conducted a further letter drop to the same one hundred and twenty residents. The letter drop included a similar Community feedback form to the letter drop in 2012. Again ther e was limited feedback from the community with six (6) responses representing a return rate of five percent (5%). The responses are included in Attachment 1. Over the twenty four month duration the City received in total sixteen (16) items of correspondence in direct relation to the trial. These included responses to the community letter drops and a number of unsolicited responses. Unsolicited community correspondence is included in Attachment 1.
Legislation / Policy
Local Government Act 1995 Health Act 1911 Health (Pesticide) Regulations 2011 Use of Pesticides and Herbicides policy
Budget/Financial Implications
Within current approved budget: Requires further budget consideration: Yes Yes No No
The trial has demonstrated that if Council were to adopt the Chemical Free model, and extend this to other locations, it would result in significant maintenance cost increases for its parks and reserves. Alternative practices to the chemical control of pests were assessed as being less cost effective and less efficient. The associated cost in implementing alternative weed and pest control methods to chemical control significantly outweighed the savings in not carrying out any pesticide application activities.
4
C14/7
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14
Risk Management
The primary risks highlighted by the trial were in the areas of financial, service delivery and reputational risk. The main risk relates to potential financial and budgetary implications if Council were to adopt the Chemical Free model for broader implementation. Without making increased funds available for implementing alternative pest control, the associated cost increase would have the potential to result in inferior levels of parks maintenance service delivery. In addition, increased maintenance expenditure may have the potential to negatively impact Councils ability to fulfil its commitment to the capital renewal of community assets within parks and reserves as described in the Community Strategic Plan. The community consultation process highlighted a risk to reputation. The risk, whilst low, related to concerns from the community with the usability of Masons Gardens for certain activities due to the proliferation of Bindii/Jo-Jo prickles (Soliva pterosperma). It was apparent there was a perception held by some in the community of poor management and/or judgement in not controlling these weeds in turf areas.
Discussion
The federal regulatory authority for pesticides, the APVMA, has published a fact sheet on the registration process for pesticides in Australia. The fact sheet contains information relating to the registering of chemical products in Australia and the risks involved in using registered products. The fact sheet is attached for reference as Attachment 3. There were two (2) issues of significance arising from the trial that are important in the context of the debate on pesticide use in public places and Councils decision making: 1. The lack of engagement by the community in response to the trial which was evident through the Citys consultation processes. Neither strong support nor opposition to the use of pesticides for pest control in public places was evident during the trial. Of the sixteen items of correspondence received, fifteen indicated support of for use of chemicals to control weeds whilst one (1) indicated support of the prohibiting of pesticide use at Masons Gardens to control weeds. 2. The budgetary implications if the Chemical Free model were to be broadly implemented across the Citys parks and reserves maintenance operations.
C14/7
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 The increased costs in implementing alternative weed and pest control methods were principally attributable to increased labour requirements. Manual removal of weeds and pests has been demonstrated as being labour intensive, time consuming and cost prohibitive in comparison to appropriate chemical control methods. Apart from manual removal, other alternative pest control methods (e.g. thermal weed control in garden beds and around trees) were observed as being labour intensive and time consuming. In addition alternative pest control methods were observed to be generally less effective in most landscape situations when compared to chemical control methods. In the case of thermal/steam control, this method was observed to be less effective for controlling perennial grasses and woody weeds (e.g. fleabane and common dandelion) in addition to being more constrained in relation to the situations and locations it could be employed. In the case of turf mowing regimes and practices it was observed as completely ineffective in controlling some weed species (e.g. Bindii/Jo-Jo and clover). In the case of manual weed removal, this was observed as less effective for kikuyu grass, couch grass and other perennial rhizomatous weeds removal from garden beds (e.g. creeping oxalis), most notably amongst rockeries that did not allow access to remove underground rhizomes (below surface runners).
During 2011/12 the City conducted a trial of thermal/steam control of grass around the base of trees and park furniture in Masons Gardens to evaluate its effectiveness. Thermal/steam control application costs were evaluated as higher per application than glyphosate application. When used for the perennial grass control around park trees and infrastructure, glyphosate based products were observed to provide between eight (8) to twelve weeks grass control. Glyphosate effectively eradicated the grass where applied as articulated on the product label. In comparison, thermal/steam control was observed to provide four (4) to six (6) weeks control. This method of control only provided a suppression effect where applied and did not eradicate the grass. Suppressing the grass allowed it to recover more quickly and rapidly re-establish where treated. During the trial thermal/steam application was observed to be less effective and evaluated as more costly in controlling perennial grass growth in these situations in comparison to chemical control methods. Photographic validation of this trial was recorded.
C14/7
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 The increased cost for manual removal and thermal control of weeds is demonstrated below. Table 1 below indicates the overall annual maintenance budgets for the last five (5) years at Masons Gardens. The table includes the figures for actual annual expenditure for the sub-activities of pest control and landscape maintenance. Focusing on garden bed maintenance, Table 1 highlights the increased cost for maintaining garden bed areas free from weeds when unable to utilise herbicides. Whilst the increased cost may not appear substantial, the garden bed areas at Masons Gardens comprise approximately six hundred square metres representing less than two percent (2%) of the total maintained area within the park. Table 1: Financial Year 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Masons Gardens Annual Budget Figures Approved Pesticide Application Operational Budget Expenditure $47,340 $1,271 $72,000 $67,697 $68,200 $67,000 $135 $0 $0 $0^
Landscape Expenditure $832 $1,262 $1,732 $4,232 $1,544^
Council directive not to treat broadleaf weeds in turf areas this financial year Chemical Free park trial in operation for six (6) months Chemical Free park trial in operation for twelve (12) months ^ Expenditure to 22 January 2014. The expenditure figures for pest control in 2009/10 include the cost of contract broadleaf weed control in turf areas in addition to garden bed weed control. The figure of $135 for pesticide expenditure in 2010/11 reflects the true cost to control weeds in garden beds at Masons Gardens for that year. During the 2010//11 financial year the City did not treat weeds in the turf areas at Masons Gardens, due to a resolution passed by Council not to engage the recommended contractor for broadleaf weed control. There were no other pest control activities during the year other than weed control in garden bed areas. In the financial years 2011/12 onwards, the increased cost for garden maintenance is directly attributable to the increased labour required to remove weeds manually from garden bed areas during each service. Table 2 below shows a further breakdown of maintenance cost analysis undertaken during the trial. The table shows the first and second half budget and
7
C14/7
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 expenditure figures for the respective financial years and actual annual man hours attended. Table 2 highlights the increase in man hours and expenditure for maintaining garden beds by manual weed removal in comparison to chemical control. Each of the annual budgeted figures is based on an allowance of forty eight (48) man hours of labour for garden maintenance annually at Masons Gardens. During the calendar years 2012 to 2013, coinciding with the increase in expenditure for garden maintenance, the overall presentation of the park was assessed as inferior. Turf and garden bed areas were not presented to previous standards due to the inability to effectively control weed infestations. The proliferation of broadleaf weeds in turf areas and kikuyu grass in garden beds as a result of no chemical control activities, or effective alternative control methods, detracted from the overall presentation and usability of the park. Table 2: Financial Year Garden Maintenance Costs Analysis First Figures - 1 July to Second Figures - 1 31 December January to 30 June Budgeted Actual Budgeted Actual Costs Costs Costs Costs = $749 = $779 = $830 = $865 = $900 = $384 = $893 = $545 = $1,661 = $1,159 = $749 = $779 = $830 = $865 = $900 = $708 = $368 = $1,188 = $2,571 = $384^
Annual Actual Man Hours 32 33.5 46 86.5 34.5^
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
Chemical Free park trial in operation for six (6) months Chemical Free park trial in operation for twelve (12) months ^ Expenditure and man hours to 22 January 2014. The net result of evaluating cost implications demonstrated an increase in maintenance expenditure, combined with less effective weed control and subsequently an inferior outcome in presentation and usability of the park. A set of photographic reference points were established for the duration of the trial to track weed infestation. A photographic log of a number of turf locations and one garden bed were recorded monthly. At the time of implementation of the trial in December 2011, only minor weed infestations within turf and garden bed areas within Masons Gardens were observed. The majority of weed pests that occur within turf are annual weeds that actively grow during the cooler months between April and October. The photographic log illustrated an increased infestation of broadleaf weeds in turf areas during the C14/7
8
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 months April to October in 2012 and again in 2013. As a result of no chemical control activity in the turf areas during the trial, and with no other practicable control options able to be employed (other than increased mowing frequency), the weed population increased significantly. Photographs tracking the weed population changes are attached in Attachment 4.
Conclusion
Adoption and implementation of appropriate and effective pest control measures for the provision of public open space is fundamental to the enhancement and protection of local amenity, the environment and the expectations of the community. Drawing on the information publicised by the APVMA, and with there being no evidence that current pest control practices employed by the City cause harm to its community or the environment when appropriately implemented, Administration envisages little benefits and large risks in the prohibiting of appropriate pesticide use from its maintenance programs. In support of the continued enhancement and protection of its public places Administration does not support the comprehensive prohibiting of pesticide use from its maintenance programs for public open space where appropriate. Administration does however advocate the minimising of pesticide use in public open space to the extent possible and actively implements integrated pest management controls within its operations where practicable.
Attachments
1. Community Feedback Results for Chemical Free Park Trial - Masons Gardens 2. Sample Community Feedback Form 3. APVMA Fact Sheet - The Registration Process 4. Photographic Log of Weed Infestation - Chemical Free Park Trial Masons Gardens
C14/7
Attachment 1 - Community Feedback Results for Chemical Free Park Trial - Masons Gardens
Responses to Initial Information Letter Mail Out and Advertising of Trial - 13 December 2011
Respondent Location D11/28157 Kathryn Crescent, Dalkeith TRIM Ref Comments Regarding the trial of not using pesticides in Masons Gardens, I am a great believer in reducing pesticides but Masons Gardens does have waterways and we all suffer from mosquitoes in the summer. I have lived at ** Kathryn Crescent (currently living at No **) for over 30 years and the insect problem has steadily got worse. Years ago we had no mosquitoes - I will watch with interest! I am writing to you with direct feedback on the trial of non chemical based treatment of mosquitoes at Masons Gardens. In short it is absolutely the worst we have seen mosquitoes in the district. I know that we are not the only one suffering the constant mosquito attacks, which are so bad that we can not sit outside at night. We respectfully request that you reconsider this trial and treat the problem in the manner that has worked in the past as a matter of urgency. I look forward to your timely response.
D12/1647
Riley Road, Dalkeith
Responses to 6 Month Letter Mail Out and Community Feedback Form - 16 July 2012
Respondent Location D12/17180 Melvista Avenue, Nedlands TRIM Ref Comments We have lived opposite Masons Gardens for 29 years and much enjoy the park. 1. Would you kindly let us know what chemicals were used in previous years and for what purposes. 2. We consider that there should be spraying for prickles these are a hazard for people (particularly children) in bare feet and for dogs (paws and fur), and also spread to private lawns. 3. Would you kindly let us know whether there was spraying for prickles in City of Nedlands parks last season, as we did not observe any spraying for prickles and both Masons Gardens and College Park appeared to be infested with prickles. 4. There appears to be a current infestation of various broadleaved weeds in Masons Gardens. We look forward to your response.
Responses to 24 Month Letter Mail Out and Community Feedback Form - 6 December 2013
Respondent Location D13/27755 Garland Road, Dalkeith D13/27845 Kathryn Crescent, Dalkeith TRIM Ref Comments My only comment is the growth of bindii (Jo-jo or onehunga) in Mason's Gardens During springtime bindis growth and prickly seeds are significant, covering a large area from roadside to pathway around pond area. Children unable to walk bare foot. Small dogs cannot walk across due to significant discomfort caused by bindi grass uncontrolled. We are unable to walk across with our dog during these months. Very unpleasant. I think it is great that we dont use chemicals in the park. It is safer for children and pets. The park looks good less weeds and I feel more comfortable to be in the chemical free park. It should be chemical free permanently. I also think that all parks should be chemical free. In the past when you used chemicals to control weeds you killed a lot of nice plants as well. The strong weeds still survived and it spreads much more and worse. My dog had sharp arrow head grass seed in her ear, we spent a fortune at the vets. I dont think chemical is good for environment at all. Thank you for having allowed us to comment. From our perspective this trial has been a disaster for the following reasons: So many burrs and grass seeds meaning trips to vet to extract grass seeds from dogs paws, we have to do a paw check every time we walk the dog. Extra weeds growing on our front lawn, obviously blown/carried across from the park. You cannot walk barefoot in the park, we hear of numerous parents complaining. Please bring back the spraying. I live opposite the gardens. Bindi weed is rampant I have observed children and adults trying to walk over the grass. The ponds area is neglected and run down and dirty. The big tree logs xxx have ruined the water and appearance. The turtle population is nonexistent. The bush area a fire hazard and dangerous. Big trees dying xxx It is very sad to see the neglect. Large amount of prickles. Pond Overgrown with algae. Where has all the turtles gone?
D13/27847 Goldsmith Road, Dalkeith
D13/28043 Hotchin Street, Dalkeith
D13/28594 Adelma Road, Dalkeith
D14/171
Garland Road, Dalkeith
Unsolicited Responses
TRIM Ref D13/4602 Name Milson Street, South Perth Comments I understand that the City of Nedlands has been trialling steam as a method for weed control in some areas. Can you advise whether the use of steam to control weeds appears to be a suitable alternative to herbicides and whether it is cost effective? Also, does the City have its own equipment or does it use contractors? If contractors are used, can you advise which ones? I am keen to find a contractor that uses steam for weed control, as most just seem to want to use herbicides. Many thanks We have noticed significant bindi in the grass around the park, our dog is extremely reluctant to walk across the grass due to the prickly bindi. Grateful if you can investigate and eliminate the bindi. I have been informed by another resident who is a user of Masons Gardens, that the Council will not be spraying the weeds eg. Bindieye prickles, at Masons Gardens. I strongly urge you to reconsider this decision as I find the prickles especially, a hazard to my dog paws and to the young children who play barefoot at this park. S**** reporting that the Bindi is really bad. Advised that Council made it a chemcial free zone so we can't treat it but that expires in Dec so we will be putting in a request to start treating. If she wants to write in we can include that in the request to Council. D***** ****** has called to report that despite the no spraying trial in Mason Gardens the park is full of prickles and the kids have to keep their shoes on I would like to advise the Council that the chemical free trial at Masons Gardens has not been a success. We live opposite Masons Gardens at ** Kathryn Crescent, Dalkeith. Our 3 children play in the park every day and we also walk our dog in the park regularly. The park is now full of prickles and the children cannot play in the park without wearing shoes. We have had visitors to our house, whose young children have ended up in tears as a result of having two feet full of prickles. Our dog suffers as she also ends up with prickles in her paws. I know that various groups of parents and children regularly meet at the park after school each week, and these groups have stopped coming as the prickles are such a nuisance. I appeal to the Council to reinstate the broadleaf weed control program at Masons Gardens once the trial period ends on 31 December 2013. I live near mason gardens and have 4 young children and regularly walk my dog there. It is a fantastic park that my children love and spend much time there however the problems with prickles has become significant and is negatively impacting on our time spent there. I urge the council to reconsider its current management of this problem
D13/21951 Kathryn Crescent, Dalkeith
D13/22260 Address not supplied
D13/25031 Address not (phone supplied call) D13/25659 Kathryn Crescent, (phone Dalkeith call) D13/27065 Kathryn Crescent, Dalkeith
D13/27245 Hotchin Street, Dalkeith
| Community feedback form

Technical Services
My comments on the 24 month chemical free park trial at Masons Gardens, Dalkeith are as follows:
My contact details are as follows: Name _______________________ Address ___________________________________________ Email ________________________________ Once you have completed this form please return it to the City of Nedlands, using any of the methods listed below, by 4 pm Friday 20 December, 2013.
Email
Scan and email to: council@nedlands.wa.gov.au Fax to: 08 9273 3670 Post to: City of Nedlands PO Box 9 NEDLANDS WA 6909 Visit the Administration Centre at: 71 Stirling Hwy NEDLANDS WA 6009
Fax
Mail
In person
Thank you for taking the time to complete and return this form. Your feedback will be used to consider future chemical free classification to parks and reserves in the City of Nedlands.
THE REGIStrAtION PrOCESS

Before an agricultural and veterinary chemical product can be legally supplied, sold, or used in Australia it must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). For farmers, food producers, the chemical industry and the general public, registration means that the product is safe and will work when used according to the label. Chemicals the APVMA Registers
The APVMA assesses and registers agricultural and veterinary chemical products. Agricultural chemicals include herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and some pest traps and barriers for pest control. Veterinary chemicals include vaccines, antibiotics, anthelmintics, and ectoparasiticides, and some vitamins and minerals. In addition, any major variation to the ingredients or use patterns of a registered product must also be assessed and approved by the APVMA. The APVMAs role is that of an industry regulator. It is not involved in identifying opportunities in the marketplace and promoting registration of a product to meet a market purpose. It is up to chemical companies and individuals to identify a need and develop a suitable product. Alternatively, farmer associations may identify a market for a new product and request chemical companies to develop and register a product that meets this identified need.
In cases where a product claims to control a particular condition or have beneficial effects, registration is required. To find out if a biological or natural product does require registration contact the Application Management & Enquires section of the APVMA.
The Registration Process

Each chemical product submitted to the AVPMA for registration undergoes rigorous scientific assessment before it can be approved. In evaluating products the AVPMA takes full account of the nature of the product, the scientific quality of the data and comments from consultation with manufacturers, Commonwealth advisory agencies, state and territory departments and other stakeholders, including the public.
Information Required to Register a Product

When an application for registration is submitted to the APVMA, the product registrant must supply enough information to establish that the product meets criteria of: product quality human and animal health and safety efficacy - that the product works environmental safety; and that it will not affect international trade.
Screening
Each application is given an initial check (known as screening) to determine that it contains the required supporting data and information. Applicants are advised of any deficiencies.
Evaluation
Specialist staff in the APVMA examine the product and its ingredients. The APVMA also assesses the chemistry of the product, how it was manufactured and any residues it leaves behind after its use. The APVMA commonly seeks specialist advice from a number of Commonwealth agencies and where appropriate consults with the states and territory Departments of Agriculture and other specialist external organisations.
Biological and Natural Products

Biological or natural products are sometimes used for the treatment or protection from pests and diseases.
The Registration Process (Contd)
These include: The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA); Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA); Foods Standard Australia New Zealand (FSANZ); The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR); The National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC); and The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS).
Possible outcomes of a review include: continued registration, changes to how the chemical can be used, suspension of chemical use or the product being withdrawn from the market.
The APVMA Permit Scheme

The APVMA has a Permits Scheme that allows for the legal use of chemicals in ways that are different to the uses set out on the product label or, in certain circumstances, the limited use of an unregistered chemical. To obtain a permit, the applicant needs to satisfy the same criteria as for registration. However, because the extent of the chemicals use may be quite small and the related risks much lower, the supporting data requirements and evaluation processes may be simpler.
Label Directions
As part of the assessment the APVMA also approves the product label. The APVMA examines how the chemical will be used, the application rate, method of application and concentration levels to ensure the products maximum efficacy. Preparation, storage and first aid instructions are also carefully assessed to safeguard human and environmental health and safety.
The Benefits of Using Registered Products

By purchasing registered chemical products, you know: they have been assessed as suitable for use under Australian conditions you are complying with the law; and when used according to the label, they will not have any negative effects on you, your family, your crops and animals or the environment.
Public Consultation
To inform the public that a new product with a new active constituent is being considered for registration, the APVMA places a notice in the APVMAs Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Gazette, (available from the APVMA website) and sends a summary to interested members of the public and relevant industry bodies seeking comment. All comments are considered before the final decision on whether to register the product is made. Where a change to a label may have impact on trade the APVMA seeks advice on this aspect from relevant industry bodies and the public.
The Label
By following the label on the products registered by the APVMA you know that you are: using the right product the right way minimising waste and cost; and getting the right advice on safety, preparation, application and storage.
Registration Timeframe
Assessments of a product application can take between 3 and 15 months. This allows time for screening of an application, evaluation of the data submitted, specialist consultation (where necessary) and public consultation. Therefore the time required to register a product varies, and is dependent on the level of evaluation and assessment required.
CONtACtING tHE APVMA

Want more information?
If you would like to know more about the APVMA or any of its services please contact us.
Product Review
Chemicals are not registered forever. The APVMA has a chemical review program that reconsiders whether older registered agricultural and veterinary chemicals meet todays standards for safety and efficacy. The program also looks at newer chemicals where there are concerns for public health and safety.
Postal address:
PO Box 6182 KINGSTON ACT 2604 AUSTRALIA T: F: W: +61 2 6210 4700 +61 2 6210 4813 www.apvma.gov.au
SEPTEMBER 2008
Attachment 4 - Photographic Log - Chemical Free Park Trial

Figure 1: Photographic reference points for Chemical Free park trial Masons Gardens
Figure 2:
Reference point A - 26 July 2012
Figure 3:
Reference point B - 26 July 2012
Figure 4:
Reference point C - 26 July 2012
Figure 5:
Reference point A - 28 September 2012
Figure 6:
Reference point B - 28 September 2012
Figure 7:
Reference point C - 28 September 2012
Figure 8:
Reference point A - 29 July 2013
Figure 9:
Reference point B - 29 July 2013
Figure 10:
Reference point C - 29 July 2013
Figure 11:
Reference point A - 25 September 2013
Figure 12:
Reference point B - 25 September 2013
Figure 13:
Reference point C - 25 September 2013
Reports TS24.14 27.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14
TS02.14
Adoption of Draft Management Plan
Dinghy
Storage
11 February 2014 25 February 2014 City of Nedlands Andrew Dickson Manager Parks Services Mark Goodlet Director Technical Services
PRS/115, M14/1899 Item 12.5 - Council Minutes - 25 September 2012
Executive Summary
In September 2012, Council adopted the Dinghy Storage on River Foreshore Reserve policy. The purpose of this report is to seek Councils endorsement and adoption of the Citys draft Dinghy Storage Management Plan to enable implementation of the policy.
Council: 1. Adopts the Dinghy Storage Management Plan; 2. Approves submission of a Form 7 - Permit Application to the Swan River Trust to obtain the necessary approvals to establish the proposed storage facilities; 3. Lists the inclusion of $6,000 in the Parks Services for consideration in the draft capital budget for the 2014/15 financial year for establishment of the two (2) proposed facilities; and 4. Notes the inclusion of an annual licence fee in the Citys 2014/15 fees and charges schedule for users of the storage facilities.
Strategic Plan
KFA: Natural and Built Environment KFA: Community Development KFA: Governance and Civic Leadership
10
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14
Background
The Citys foreshore reserves sit within the Swan River Trust (SRT) Development Control Area which includes the waters of the Swan and Canning rivers and all adjoining parks and public recreation reserves. The SRT administers all development and significant activity with foreshore reserves whilst the City is vested the day to day management and care of the reserves. In 2010 the SRT adopted policy SRT/26 - Dinghy Management along the Swan Canning Riverpark Shoreline to enable enforcement of the Swan and Canning Rivers Management Regulations 2007 (the Regulations). SRT policy sets out the circumstances in which the practice of dinghy storage on the river foreshore will no longer be allowed and in which it may continue in the future. The SRT advised the City they are intending to commence active enforcement of this policy and the Regulations in the near future. This would result in the removal of private dinghies from the Citys foreshore reserve areas unless they are placed in storage facilities managed by the City and approved by the SRT. In response, in September 2012, Council adopted the Dinghy Storage on River Foreshore Reserves policy resolving to allow dinghy storage on foreshore reserves. Council policy sets out to limit the amount and circumstances in which this practice can occur. The draft Dinghy Storage Management Plan has been developed to enable implementation of Councils policy. Key Relevant Previous Council Decisions: Item 14.1 Report CP41.12 Council Minutes 25 September 2012 Council adopted the Dingy Storage on River Foreshore Reserve policy.
Consultation
Required by legislation: Required by City of Nedlands policy: Yes Yes No No
Development of the management plan required consultation with the SRT, the Town of Claremont, the Department of Transport, private mooring owners and the Citys community. The Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006 requires all development in the SRT Development Control Area be approved by the Trust. SRT policy requires consultation with relevant stakeholders be undertaken as part of all development proposals and the associated approvals process.
C14/7
11
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 The City conducted consultation with owners of private moorings adjacent to the Citys foreshore areas. This consultation was undertaken with the assistance of the Department of Transport and involved sending letters to mooring owners requesting feedback on the Citys draft plan. The consultation was targeted to engage owners of dinghies servicing moorings on the river who currently, or may be intending to, store a dinghy on the Citys foreshore areas. The City also conducted consultation with its community in close proximity to the proposed storage facilities. This was accomplished through a letter drop and advertising of the draft plan on its website. The City provided a community feedback form requesting feedback and comment on the Citys draft plan. The results of the feedback received are tabled in Attachment 1.
Local Government Act 1995 Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006 Shipping and Pilotage Act 1967 (Mooring Regulations 1998) Dinghy Storage on River Foreshore Reserves policy Reserves, Foreshores and Beaches Local Law
Administration will be seeking approval for the allocation of $6,000 in the 2014/15 financial year budget to enable the establishment of the two (2) proposed facilities. In addition, as the storage areas are to be user pays facilities, Administration will be seeking approval to establish an annual licence fee (amount to be determined) for the use of the facilities. The licence fee is to be included in the Citys fees and charges schedule to allow cost recovery of expenditure for establishment and ongoing maintenance of the facilities.
Risk Management
The primary risks in relation to the management of dinghies on foreshore reserves are reputational risk, environmental risk and regulatory risk. These risks are all rated as low. Councils decision making carries a low level of reputational risk and this has been addressed through the process of consultation with relevant stakeholders. Environmental risk has been addressed by consultation with the SRT and their C14/7
12
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 input in relation to appropriate low impact storage facility design and positioning of the facilities. Regulatory risk has been addressed by developing a management plan for dinghy storage in response to SRT policy and seeking relevant approvals for storage facilities.
Discussion
The storing of private dinghies on foreshore reserves adjacent to the Swan and Canning Rivers is a practice that has historically been tolerated by relevant authorities. The practice has been in place for decades and has been a fundamental part of the river foreshore fabric in some locations along the river system. The Regulations came into operation in 2007, and the SRT developed policies to enable enforcement of provisions within the Regulations. With the SRT adopting policy SRT/26, the long tolerated practice of storing of private dinghies on the river foreshore will now be actively regulated. The draft Dinghy Management Plan has been prepared with reference to the City of Nedlands Local Laws, Council policy and the provisions conferred by the Regulations. The Plan sets out how the City of Nedlands will manage the storage of private dinghies within public places under its care and control along the river foreshore. The objective of the Plan is to meet the expectations of the Swan River Trust (SRT) for protection of the Swan and Canning rivers and adjacent reserve lands. It also takes into account consideration of the communitys expectation to preserve public amenity and access to foreshore reserves under the care of the City of Nedlands. The plan seeks to address all relevant requirements of the Regulations and SRT policy with the key focus of maintaining equitable access to ensure public enjoyment of foreshore reserves and the river environment across a broad range of activities. The plan outlines the management controls to be implemented to ensure that the storage of dinghies within river foreshore reserves is managed in a safe, responsible manner, minimising harm to the environment and meeting the expectations of the various users of the river foreshore reserves. The draft plan is attached as Attachment 2.
Conclusion
Administration is seeking adoption of the draft Dinghy Storage Managements Plan to enable implementation of Councils policy, Dinghy Storage on River Foreshore Reserves. C14/7
13
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 Adoption and implementation of the plan will provide approved and controlled facilities for private dinghy storage on the river foreshore that meets the requirements of the SRT, the boating community and other users of the foreshore reserves. The storage facilities will be managed in accordance with a user pays system based on cost recovery for establishment, management and maintenance of the facilities.
Attachments
1. Confidential Community Feedback Results for Dinghy Storage Management Plan (not to be published) 2. Draft Dinghy Storage Management Plan
C14/7
14
Dinghy Storage Management Plan

Technical Services
V.019 August 2013 TS02.14 Attachment 2 Draft Dinghy Storage Management Plan
| Dinghy storage management plan
Contents
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 2. Public places covered by this plan ........................................................................................... 4 3. River foreshore usage ............................................................................................................. 4 4. Stakeholder consultation ......................................................................................................... 7 5. Storage of dinghies and watercraft on foreshore reserves ...................................................... 8 6. Special arrangements for managed facilities ........................................................................... 8 6.1 Terms .................................................................................................................................. 8 6.2 Licensing arrangements .................................................................................................... 10 6.3 Location of storage facilities .............................................................................................. 10 6.4 Design and capacity of storage facilities ............................................................................ 11 7. How stakeholders will be informed of this plan ...................................................................... 13 8. Future reviews of the plan ..................................................................................................... 15
1. Introduction
This Management Plan has been prepared with reference to the City of Nedlands Local Laws, Council policy and the provisions conferred by the Swan and Canning Rivers Management Regulations 2007 (the Regulations). The Plan sets out how the City of Nedlands will manage the storage of private dinghies, tenders and other watercraft within public places under its care and control along the river foreshore. The objective of this Plan is to meet the expectations of the Swan River Trust (SRT) for protection of the Swan and Canning rivers and adjacent reserve lands with consideration of the communitys expectation to preserve public amenity and access to foreshore reserves under the care of the City of Nedlands. It is the intention of the plan to address all relevant requirements of the Regulations and SRT policy. Equitable access is a key focus ensuring public enjoyment of foreshore reserves and the river environment across a broad range of activities. The Citys foreshore reserves sit within the SRT Development Control Area which includes the waters of the Swan and Canning rivers and all adjoining parks and recreation reservations. The SRT have adopted a policy which allows for dinghy storage within the Development Control Area only in approved facilities that are managed by the Local Government Authority. Council has previously resolved to allow dinghy storage in managed facilities having considered and adopted the policy Dinghy Storage on River Foreshore Reserves. This plan outlines the management controls to be implemented to ensure that the storage of dinghies within river foreshore reserves is managed in a safe, responsible manner, minimising harm to the environment and meeting the expectations of the various users of the river foreshore reserves. The plan describes: Which public places are covered by the plan. Who regularly uses these public places and an estimate on the level of use. How the City will consult with stakeholders and provide information to the community about the management of dinghy storage on the foreshore. How the storage of dinghies will be managed through the implementation of managed facilities. How the community can access this plan and get more information about the Citys management arrangements. How future reviews of the plan will be conducted.
2. Public places covered by this plan

This Plan encompasses all foreshore reserve areas within the City of Nedlands Local Government area under its care and control and defined by its boundaries with the City of Subiaco and the Town of Claremont; the only exception being the leased premises of the Nedlands Yacht Club and the Perth Flying Squadron Yacht Club. The foreshore reserves under the care and control of the City are depicted in Figure 1 (highlighted in green).
3. River foreshore usage

The regular user groups and an estimate of the level of community use of foreshore reserves along with the number of registered boat owners in the City is summarised in Tables 1, 2 and 3. Table 1: Regular user groups and the estimated level of use of foreshore reserves. Regular User Groups General land based recreational users (e.g. walking, wading, sightseeing, picnicking, fishing) General water and land based recreational users (e.g. swimming, crabbing, prawning, kayaking / canoeing) Maintained passive and active reserves General land based recreational users (e.g. walking, wading, sightseeing, picnicking, fishing, playgrounds) General water and land based recreational users (e.g. swimming, crabbing, prawning, kayaking / canoeing) General water based recreational users (e.g. yacht clubs patrons, launching of tenders to moorings, canoeing / kayaking) Level of use of Foreshore Low infrequent usage by multiple users, with short to medium stays
Foreshore Reserve Type Foreshore conservation areas
Low infrequent usage by multiple users, with short to medium stays
Medium frequent usage by multiple users, with short to medium length stays.
Informal sports recreational users (social sports games, jogging, bike riding, skate boarding) Formal sports recreational users (Rugby, soccer, sailing, triathlons, kite surfing) Community / private facilities Tawarri Yacht Clubs Jo Jos Nedlands Rugby Clubhouse
Medium frequent usage by multiple users, with short to medium length stays.
High frequent usage by multiple users, with medium to long length stays.
High frequent usage by multiple users, with medium to long length stays.
Table 2 shows the number and percentage of recreational boats registered in the City of Nedlands Local Government area with reference to the overall Perth Metropolitan region total. Table 2: Boat Registration in the City of Nedlands (Department of Transport - December 2007). Boat Size 0.01 - 7.50m > 7.50m Total Registration Numbers 794 264 1,058 Percentage of Metropolitan Area 1.8% 5.2% 2.2%
Table 3 shows the location and number of swing moorings adjacent to the river foreshore in the City of Nedlands Local Government area. Table 3: Boat moorings in the Swan River adjacent to the City of Nedlands (Department of Transport - April 2013). Location Adjacent to Nedlands Yacht Club Between Perth Flying Squadron and Nedlands Yacht Clubs Freshwater Bay Area Total Moorings 29 64 133 Private Formal Swing Moorings (DPI) Yacht Club Formal Swing Moorings 40
Figure 1:
City of Nedlands river foreshore reserve areas.
Proposed dinghy storage site
Proposed dinghy storage site
4. Stakeholder consultation
The City has prepared a Community Engagement Plan specific to this Management Plan, describing how and when the City of Nedlands will consult with relevant stakeholders in developing and publicising this plan. Consultation arrangements are based on identifying the appropriate level of engagement for stakeholder groups and the degree to which decisions within the plan are able to be influenced. The central decision within the plan requiring consultation with stakeholders relates to the location, design and capacity of dinghy storage facilities. The City has indentified the key stakeholders in Table 4 and intends to engage at the various levels as indicated. Table 4: Key stakeholders and level of engagement Level of Engagement Involve Involve Involve Involve Consult Consult Consult Inform Inform
Internal Stakeholders Council Executive Technical Services Communications Planning and Development Services Environmental Conservation Coordinator Rangers Records Customer Service Officers External Stakeholders Swan River Trust Department of Transport Department of Indigenous Affairs Town of Claremont City of Subiaco Nedlands Yacht Club Perth Flying Squadron Yacht Club Registered river mooring owners Community (includes foreshore users, owners of private moorings and property abutting foreshore) Local Media
Involve Consult Consult Consult Consult Consult Consult Consult Consult Inform
5. Storage of dinghies and watercraft on foreshore reserves

The SRT has implemented its River Protection Strategy which encompasses the Development Control Area, the Swan and Canning Rivers riverpark and in turn the Citys foreshore reserves. One of the objectives of the River Protection Strategy is to limit the impact associated with access to moorings from the land side, on the environmental values and amenity of adjacent foreshore areas. To facilitate the objectives of the River Protection Strategy the SRT has developed a set of policies. Policy SRT/D26 - Dinghy Management along the Swan Canning Riverpark Shoreline sets out the SRTs approach to minimising damage to the foreshore caused by dinghy storage, without affecting the rivers recreational opportunities. SRT/D26 states the following: Dinghy storage in the Swan Canning Riverpark may be considered in circumstances where: there are limited opportunities to provide alternate systems such as dinghy launching facilities; they are in an approved storage system managed by land owners; they are identified in a manner consistent with the Navigable Waters Regulations Part VA; they do not cause environmental damage; they are not the predominant use on the shoreline; and they do not limit access between the river reserve and public open space.
The City already has in place the Local Law which prohibits the storage and launching of watercraft on foreshore reserve land other than in approved areas. The City intends to actively enforce this provision within the Local Law, in support of SRT policy, once this management plan has been implemented and approved storage facilities are in place. The exception to this arrangement is the two lease areas of the Perth Flying Squadron and Nedlands Yacht Clubs where storage of dinghies is allowed under the lease arrangements. The lease areas of both Yacht Clubs are depicted in Figures 2 and 3.
6. Special arrangements for managed facilities

The City will make available managed facilities for the storage of licensed dinghies and/or tenders to larger vessels moored on the Swan River on a user pays basis . The use of the facilities will be restricted specifically to tenders used for ship to shore transport to adjacent licensed river moorings.
6.1 Terms
The special arrangements made for storage of tenders in a City managed facility will require owners accept and comply with the following terms:
8
The capacity of the facilities will be limited to a manageable number as determined by the City and application to store a dinghy / tender will be based on a first in basis. The City will maintain a waiting list and offering spots in the facility as they become available; Only tenders / dinghies directly connected to a nearby licensed mooring will be accepted in a managed storage facility; It will be a requirement of the licence to use the storage facility that all dinghies / tenders have its parent vessel's number displayed on each side of the boat, forward of the transom; Owners use the facility on agreement that they accept liability for loss or damage to tenders / dinghies stored on foreshore reserves; Owners pay the annual storage facility licence fee as determined by Council and keep current and up to date the annual licence; All tenders / dinghies are to display the licence tag provided at all times when stored in a managed facility; Accept any and all terms imposed by Council as may be changed from time to time; and Accept that the area is under the jurisdiction of the Swan River Trust and is subject to the provisions of the Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006 (as amended), and that nothing in the agreement with the City of Nedlands allowing for storage of a tender / dinghy on the river foreshore permits any owner of a tender / dinghy to undertake any activity in the foreshore reserve in contravention of the Act. Perth Flying Squadron Yacht Club lease area
Figure 2:
6.2 Licensing arrangements

Users of the managed facilities will be required to pay the annual licence fee as determined by Council. Upon receipt of the annual licence fee, owners will be supplied with a dinghy licence tag to be displayed in a prominent location on the tender / dinghy. Any tender / dinghy found in a storage facility not displaying the current licence tag may be subject to impoundment. Figure 3: Nedlands Yacht Club lease area
6.3 Location of storage facilities

The City will establish two dinghy / tender storage facilities on the foreshore; one being adjacent to the moorings in Freshwater Bay and the other on the Nedlands foreshore area adjacent to the moorings between the Perth Flying Squadron and Nedlands Yacht Clubs. The location of the storage facility adjacent to the river moorings in Freshwater Bay has been chosen for its proximity to the river moorings, to nearby parking facilities in Watkins Road and Mrs Herberts Park (Town of Claremont), accessibility to and from the river (including a trafficable ramp leading to the foreshore from Watkins Road) and ability to limit visual impact. The location adjacent to the river moorings between the Perth Flying Squadron and Nedlands Yacht Clubs has been chosen for its proximity to the river moorings, to nearby parking facilities on Esplanade, accessibility to and from the river and ability to limit visual impact from users of the foreshore by locating it abutting the Nedlands Yacht Club.
10
In addition, both these locations have been previously developed from their natural state, being managed as grassed parkland, and as such will prevent the need to disturb natural foreshore environments in other adjacent foreshore areas. The locations are depicted in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4: Tender storage facility location - Freshwater Bay
6.4 Design and capacity of storage facilities

The SRT policy SRT/D26 sets out the broad preferences for the design of approved storage facilities. The policy states: The design, size and location of storage systems should respond to demand while balancing other shoreline user needs. To minimise visual and environmental impacts, the size of infrastructure installed to secure dinghies should be kept as small as possible. Storage racks will only be supported in limited circumstances where there is already significant development such as at a yacht club and where it will not cause significant loss of amenity. Assessment of the SRTs design preferences indicates a low level storage facility is most favoured. Research of existing facilities has indicated that there is an approved SRT dinghy storage facility located on the foreshore of Freshwater Bay adjacent to The Esplanade, Peppermint Grove. The Shire of Peppermint Grove has established and manages this facility with a very basic approach to infrastructure. Similarly; the City will be providing basic infrastructure consisting of in-ground bollards with a mechanism attached allowing attachment of
11
a chain to secure tenders / dinghies. Refer to Figure 9 for an illustration of the facilities to be provided. Figure 5: Photograph of proposed site
Figure 6:
Photograph of proposed site
12
Figure 7:
Tender storage facility location adjacent to Nedlands Yacht Club
The demand for tender storage at present in the City of Nedlands is not considerable. This is illustrated by the number of unlawfully stored dinghies present on the foreshore adjacent to Watkins Road in Dalkeith. At present there are approximately 14 dinghies in this location, however the exact number that are used as tenders is difficult to ascertain. It is proposed that the initial capacity of both facilities be capped to fifteen dinghies / tenders.
7. How stakeholders will be informed of this plan

The City will advise stakeholders of this plan and its contents by: Making a copy of the plan available on request for public viewing free of charge in Citys Administration Centre at 71 Stirling Highway Nedlands during office hours. Placing a copy of the plan in the Citys libraries. Placing a copy of the plan on the City website at www.nedlands.wa.gov.au Placing a notice in local Newspapers. Directly advising and providing a copy to the SRT and Department of Transport. General location for proposed Nedlands dinghy storage
Figure 8:
13
Figure 9:
Illustration of proposed infrastructure to be provided to secure dinghies
14
8. Future reviews of the plan

The Dinghy Storage Management Plan will be reviewed every three (3) years from adoption. The review will consider any changes in legislation and/or the Regulations and the effect this may have on the current arrangements.
15
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14
TS03.14
Rochdale Road Nature Strip Parking

11 February 2014 25 February 2014 City of Nedlands Mark Goodlet Director Technical Services Mark Goodlet Director Technical Services
RO3 Council decision 26 November 2013, item 14.2.
Executive Summary
This report responds to a Council resolution of November 2013 requiring administration to investigate and report back to Council regarding any possible parking, traffic and safety issues on Rochdale Road, Mount Claremont.
Council notes that nature strip parking provides a valuable amenity for the residents of Rochdale Road and determines that it will be permitted to continue.
Strategic Plan
KFA: Transport This report aligns with the parking and traffic management component of the transport key focus area. Car accessibility and safe transport are important to the City. This report assesses the potentially conflicting values of convenient parking adjacent to housing on Rochdale Road versus road safety.
Background
Road Hierarchy Rochdale Road is a district distributor B and a blue road under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, giving it some importance as a transport route. Accident data Accident data collected shows five accidents in Rochdale road within the 5 years to 2012 of which only one reported manoeuvring accident possibly relates to an accident involving vehicles entering or leaving a property (Attachment 1).
C14/7
15
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 Manoeuvring accidents relate to the type of accident that may be associated with vehicles leaving or entering property, and one accident of this nature is noted but described as other. However, it should be noted that crash information specifically identifies parking and driveway accidents and there are no accidents of this type reported. For the purposes of the risk assessment however the one reported accident has been used as it is described as a manoeuvring other type accident and as such there is a possibility that it relates this report. Traffic Speeds The average speed of vehicles is 54 kph, 4 kph above the posted speed limit. The 85th % speed (design speed where 85% go this speed or less, 15% go more) of vehicles is 61kph, which is 11 kph more than the speed limit. Traffic Volume The average maximum week day peak hour traffic volume is 662 vehicles per hour in both directions total. The annual average daily traffic is approximately 6000 vehicles total in both directions. Specific Road Use Rochdale Road has not been identified as a bike route. The No. 27 bus uses Rochdale Road between Alfred Road and Asquith Street.
Bus Route on Rochdale Rd
Figure 1. Bus Routes on Rochdale Road
C14/7
16
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 Complaints The City has received ongoing complaints from a resident in Rochdale Road in relation to vehicles parking on the nature strip in front of the complainants residence and on the nature strip of the adjacent residence. The complainant indicated to the City that both situations were considered unsafe by the complainant. In relation to the vehicle parking on the nature strip in front of the complainants residence it was determined that under the Citys Parking and Parking Facilities local law because the lot shares two houses the residents of both houses are permitted to park on the nature strip. In relation to the vehicles parking on the nature strip of the adjacent residence, the site is under construction and as such the owner has permitted the builder to allow the trade vehicles to park on the nature strip, as allowed under the Citys local law. Several issues were dealt with however in terms of signage and temporary fencing that were protruding into the nature strip and the builder was required to remove these items to improve sight lines for the complainant. It is expected that the current high requirement for nature strip parking in this specific location mainly relates to the construction works and the level of parking will reduce once construction is complete. Nevertheless the complainant has requested consideration of a ban on nature strip parking due to the safety issues associated with entering and leaving the property on a relatively busy road. Nature Strip Parking Assessment Counts of the vehicles using the nature strips for parking on each side of Rochdale Road have been undertaken on four (4) occasions. There are 72 houses within the City of Nedlands with Rochdale Road frontages. Nature Strip Parking East Side Parking West Side Parking 1 9 2 7 1 11 2 9
Assessment Date and Time 23/10/13 at 3:45pm 29/11/13 at 1:15pm 16/12/13 at 2pm 20/12/13 at 1:30pm
This would indicate a clear demand for occasional nature strip parking by the residents of Rochdale Road.
Key Relevant Previous Council Decisions

Council decision 26 November 2013, item 14.2. Notice of Motion by Councillor Horley. That administration investigate and report back to Council regarding any possible parking, traffic and safety issues on Rochdale Road Mount Claremont. C14/7
17
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14
Consultation
Required by legislation: Required by City of Nedlands Policy: Yes Yes No No
Consultation has not taken place with the residents of Rochdale Road, excepting for the complainant. Given the recommendation consultation is not required but should an alternative position be adopted by Council, then consultation may be required.
Road Traffic Code 2000 The Road Traffic Code 2000 doesnt allow parking on the nature strip unless a parking control sign or a local law permits this to happen. 165. Stopping on path, dividing strip, nature strip or painted island The driver of a vehicle (other than a bicycle, an EPT or an animal) shall not stop so that any portion of the vehicle is on a path, dividing strip, painted island, or a nature strip adjacent to a length of carriageway in a built-up area, unless (a) the driver stops in an area, to which a parking control sign applies and the driver is permitted to stop at that place under these regulations; or (b) the driver is permitted to do so under a local law. City of Nedlands Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law The City of Nedlands Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2013 (section 5.14) allows parking on the nature strip in three circumstances. 1. A bicycle is parking; 2. The vehicle is that of the owner or occupier of the adjacent premise or authorised by them; or 3. It is a commercial vehicle being reasonably loaded or unloaded City of Nedlands Nature Strip Development Policy Nature Strip/Verge parking should be minimised wherever alternatives exist. Rochdale Road is governed by a detailed area plan which allows a minimum 6m front setback to the properties except for car ports.
No action is proposed and there are no budget/financial implications.
C14/7
18
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14
Discussion
The Residential Design Code states that on-street parking is a valuable community resource that serves a variety of social and economic needs including residential uses. Decision-makers need to consider how to achieve a balance between different uses in areas with high and/or competing needs. While no one particular use should be favoured, satisfaction of some of the demand for residential parking, especially visitor and service/delivery parking, is a reasonable use for on-street parking. Austroads provides the applicable standard for assessing parking. In the Guide To Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design (2008, p. 27), it states that competing demands for kerbside space should be prioritised as follows: 1. safety of all road users should be given highest priority at all times 2. bus stops, taxi zones, loading zones and parking for people with disabilities 3. in residential areas, preference may be given for resident parking in accordance with the State regulations and local guidelines for resident parking permit schemes Austroads however does not deal directly with nature strip parking but provides general principles regarding on-street parking (parallel parking on the side of the roadway carriageway) from which an assessment of the issue can be made as the most closely related parking type. In the Guide to Road Design Part 3 - consideration is advised for: intersections and driveways pedestrian access protection of through traffic It details unsafe parking locations as: on the inside of sharp curves within a T-junction on islands and reservations including the central island of a roundabout Pedestrian footways are provided in some sections of Rochdale Road. As parking is not permitted to obstruct a footway this is not impacted by the nature strip parking. Austroads (Part 5 Road Management, 2008, p.25) discusses on-street and offstreet parking for urban arterials roads and comments on parallel on-road or indented parking. The treatment recommendation when traffic volumes increase and access onto the road becomes problematic, is to create a parking lane that then operates as a clearway during peak traffic demand periods. This is suggested where the peak veh/hr is 800 in a lane. While an on-street parallel lane is not identical to the off carriageway nature strip scenario, it has the same issues with respect to sight distances for vehicles leaving private properties and with respect to traffic volumes.
C14/7
19
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 Rochdale Road is a straight and relatively flat roadway within the City, and as such does not have issues arising from through traffic that would impact on the provision of nature strip parking. It does not qualify as an unsafe parking location. The fact that this parking is not located on the roadway, but on the nature strip, further reduces the risks arising from the parked vehicles. Rochdale Roads average maximum week day peak hour traffic volume is 662 vehicles per hour in both directions total. Per lane this is 331 vehicles and less than half the recommended 800 vehicles per lane per hour at which clearway conditions would be considered. Nature strip parking in Rochdale Road is therefore well under the number in which parking prohibitions would be considered. The outstanding consideration is intersections and driveways and specifically the requirement for adequate sight distance. For the risk arising from parked cars this consideration has therefore been assessed against roadside hazard management principles. Refer to the Risk Management section of this report. Austroads (Part 9: Roadside Hazard Management, section 2.2.6) acknowledges that it is important that adequate sight distance is provided whenever possible to allow drivers and other road users to safely negotiate the road. Sight distance is related to design speed for the road and can be affected by roadside objects (such as trees and signs).
Risk Management
Austroads is the applicable standard for roads and parking and it prescribes a risk management approach to assessing and mitigating roadside hazards based on the frequency and severity of accidents (Guide to Road Design Part 6: Roadside Design, Safety and Barriers). The hazard risk assessment approach based on the one accident that may have been related to nature strip parking (although this is not confirmed the alternative is zero accidents in five years) determines a total annual crash risks cost of $830. In comparison the benefit of the available 72 nature strip parking bays, assuming conservatively that there is only one bay per lot, each valued at $1,650, equates to a total of $118,800 annually in benefits. The benefit cost ratio is therefore 143, with any number above one (1) indicating a positive outcome. The risk approach clearly demonstrates that the benefits of the nature strip parking far outweigh the accident costs based on a history of actual crashed on Rochdale Road.
Conclusion
The counts done show that on average 17% of properties are benefitting from the use of nature strip parking at any one time. Nature strip parking, as with on-street parking, is a valuable community resource that provides extra utility to the resident who in reality maintains this portion of the road reserve. There is an unwritten C14/7
20
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 code of practice in Australia by which the resident maintains the nature strip and in return derives benefit in terms of the amenity and use of this portion of land. Therefore any decision to disallow nature strip parking should be weighed up against the benefit that is provided in doing so. The safety concerns associated with nature strip parking on Rochdale Road have been identified through a review of standards, however, the accident history is minimal. Based on a risk assessment the evidence is that the benefits far outweigh the risks in the case of Rochdale Road. For these reasons it is proposed to retain nature strip parking along Rochdale Road.
Attachments
1. Accident History for Rochdale Road
C14/7
21
TS03.14 Attachment 1 - Accident History for Rochdale Road
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14
TS04.14
Melvista Reserve Road Naming

11 February 2014 25 February 2014 City of Nedlands Pollyanne Fisher Technical Services Administration Officer Mark Goodlet Director Technical Services
PRS/047-02 Nil
Executive Summary
This report seeks to agree a name for a road within the Melvista Reserve that is currently un-named.
Council agrees to the submission of a proposal to Landgate to name the road within the Melvista Reserve Leisure Lane.
Strategic Plan
KFA: Transport The naming of a road allows the City to better manage its infrastructure, assets, and supply of services.
Background
There is a short road leading into the Melvista Park Reserve that doesnt currently have a name, as shown in Figure 1 and 2. This road is found on Melvista Avenue and leads into a car park area that services the park and several clubs, including a Croquet Club and a Bridge Club. There is signage for these at the entrance to the road from Melvista Avenue, but the road itself does not currently have a name or any other signage, as shown in Figure 3.
C14/7
22
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14
Figure 1. Location of the road Satellite image
Figure 2. Location of the road Drawing
C14/7
23
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14
Figure 3. Entrance to the road from Melvista Avenue The City has a current Naming of Parks, Streets, Public Facilities, Buildings and Signs on Reserves Policy (Attachment 1) which relates to the naming of roads such as the one shown in Figures 1 and 2. Section 8 of the Landgate Geographic Names Committee Policy (Attachment 2) states that; In Western Australia the following road naming policies shall be applied: - all roads shall be named, including private roads which are generally open to the public access or for services. As such the City is required to provide this street with a name and register this with Landgate, in accordance with both policies.
Key Relevant Previous Council Decisions:

Nil
Discussion
City Policy advises that Council will be guided mainly by the policies of the Geographic Names Committee of Landgate when naming streets. Members of the Clubs that the road services in the Melvista Reserve were consulted with to identify any preference for naming of the road. As a result two (2) names were proposed by members of the Nedlands Croquet Club: Leisure Lane Suggested as occupying the area are croquet, bridge and tennis clubs, with a nearby sports ground, golf course and childrens play area; and
24
C14/7
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 Ketterer Lane - To commemorate Victor Ambrose Ketterer MC, whom is reported to be a documented war hero with post war dedication to the welfare of ex-servicemen and war widows, who resided in the City of Nedlands for the latter part of his life until 1936. Refer to Attachment 3.
Further research would be required to validate the information provided for Victor Ambrose Ketterer for naming the road in commemoration, and Council would firstly need to obtain the written permission of any living relatives. The length of time that Victor Ambrose Ketterer actually resided in Nedlands for would also need to be validated and comply with Landgate Policy, and the City would need to engage in wider public consultation regarding the proposal. The process for naming a road after a person will only be considered by the Geographic Names Committee if the following criteria are met: such application is in the public interest; there is evidence of broad community support for the proposal; the person has been deceased for at least two (2) years; where the applicant requesting the new name is not an immediate relative, written permission of the family is obtained; the person being honoured by the naming has had either some direct and long-term association twenty (20) or more years, with the feature or has made a significant contribution to the area in which it is located; and the proposal commemorating an individual with an outstanding national or international reputation has had a direct association with the area in which it is located. If the person has not been directly associated with the area the name shall not be considered.
Leisure Lane meets the applicable policies and guidelines for road naming. There are no roads currently in Western Australia with the same name. There is one other road in the Perth Metropolitan area with a similar name to Leisure Lane. Leisure Way is located 80km and at least one (1) hours drive south of the Melvista Reserve in the City, so is sufficiently distanced to meet the naming criteria guidelines stipulated by the Geographic Names Committee. No further public consultation or validation of information would be required to submit a request, that the naming of the road in the Melvista Reserve be Leisure Lane.
Consultation
Required by legislation: Required by City of Nedlands Policy: Yes Yes No No
Land Administration Act 1977
C14/7
25
Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14 Council Policy Naming of Parks, Streets, Public Facilities, Buildings and Signs on Reserves Landgate Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia
Risk Management
There is a risk here that continuing to not have a name in place for the road identified in the Melvista Reserve, will impact on the Citys abilities to manage services in the area, and will impact on the public effectively finding services located in the vicinity.
Conclusion
It is recommended that Council approve the proposal to name the road Leisure Lane. This name is confirmed to be appropriate for its surroundings, was suggested by a member of the community that the road services, has no conflicts with other named roads in the Metropolitan area, and meets all of the Citys, and Landgates, specifications.
Attachments
1. Excerpt from Council Policy Manual 2. Excerpt from Landgate Policy for Geographical Naming of roads in Western Australia 3. Victor Ambrose Ketterer background information
C14/7
26
TS04.14 Attachment 1 - Excerpt from Council Policy Manual
Naming of Parks, Streets, Public Facilities, Buildings and Signs on Reserves

KFA Status Responsible Division Objective KFA 4 Community Wellbeing Council Technical Services To provide clear guidelines for the naming of parks, streets, buildings and signs on reserves within the City of Nedlands.
Context When naming parks, streets, public facilities/buildings and signs on reserves, Council will be guided mainly by the policies of the Geographic Names Committee of Landgate and priority given to naming after a person has contributed to the local community. Statement Naming of Parks: Names that commemorate or may be construed to commemorate living persons will not be considered for parks or reserves over 1 ha. For personal names, the person being honored by the naming should have either had a direct long-term association with the area or have made a significant contribution to the area of the proposed park. Association or contribution can include: Early pioneers or early settlers. Persons who have performed considerable and outstanding community service to the local community. Two or more terms of office on a local government council.
Only in exceptional circumstances and with substantial community support, will a proposal to rename a park or reserve be considered. The above will apply when considering names for parks and reserves under 1 hectare except that the names of living persons are acceptable providing that they are not a holder of any public office. Components of reserves (i.e. ovals, pavilions, gardens, footpaths, walk trails etc) may be named to recognise any individual (including those still living) who has contributed to their establishment or to the local community in general.
117
Naming of streets, public facilities and buildings: All naming of streets, public facilities and buildings shall also be in accordance with the Geographic Names Committee guidelines. Suggested names that meet the above criteria may be recorded for use on a future names register compiled in accordance with the procedure associated with this policy. Signs on reserves: Council will consider applications to erect signs on any land or premises owned or controlled by the City of Nedlands if the proposed sign provides information about a community event or service. Any sign must conform to the standards outlined in the Local Law Relating to Signs, Hoardings and Bill Posting and Town Planning Scheme No. 2. Related documentation Memorial Park Furniture Related Local Law / Legislation Local Laws Relating To Signs, Hoardings and Bill Posting Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Related delegation Nil Issued 27 November 2001 (Report T53.01) Amendments 26 November 2002 (Report T37.02) 23 Novmeber 2004 (Report T37.02) 13 December 2005 (Report CP36.05) 26 July 2011 (Report CM05.11)
118
TS04.14 Attachment 2 - Excerpt from Landgate policy for Geographical Naming in Western Australia
8: Road Names and Extents

8.1 Road naming
Within Western Australia, road naming is standardised to facilitate the application of correct address information and to ensure that a consistent approach is undertaken to benefit emergency services, transport and goods delivery. If established policies for road naming were not applied, the provisions of emergency services, utilities and postal deliveries would be compromised. In Western Australia the following road naming policies shall be applied: all roads shall be named, including private roads which are generally open to public access or for services. This includes but is not limited to: highways, motorways and freeways; roads within complexes such as universities, hospitals and retirement villages; roads within conservation reserves, State forests, water reserves and any other government administered land; and pedestrian-only roads such as malls or steps. all road naming proposals shall be submitted to Landgate for approval. The naming of major state roads shall conform to these naming policies and standards, and shall be referred to the Minister for Lands for approval. The process for the selection of names shall include consultation with relevant State and local government agencies and should include consultation with the wider community. Any proposal to name, rename or extend a road shall clearly indicate the full extent of the road to which the name will apply. The extent of a road is considered to be its start and end points. This includes bends, divided carriageway sections and curves which are included between these two points. A road name shall not be applied in a way that is ambiguous or could cause confusion for road users. The road name should be applied to a single, unobscured and unobstructed roadway that leads from point A to point B, in a clear and logical manner. Roads are not suitable for dual naming and approval will not be given to such proposals. Each road name proposal shall include the following information: the reason for the proposal or name change; origin of each road name and its source; a location by local government, locality and estate name if known; identification on a map clearly indicating extent and precise start and end points; photographs or sketches; and any other supporting information such as historic articles, reference materials, publications etc. 8.1.1 Public roads A public road is any road that is opened, dedicated or declared to be a public road, whether under the Land Administration Act 1977, Part 2 General administration, Division 3 - General or any other Act.
48
Geographic Names Committee
As a prerequisite to lodgement, all survey documents creating, extending or showing abuttals to roads must show the correct approved road names. If no approved name exists, the new road names must be formally approved by Landgate before the survey can be lodged. To help expedite this process, the developer or their agent should be prompt in lodging a concept plan and a proposal for road names with the relevant local government. Local governments shall then propose the names to Landgate for approval. 8.1.2 Private roads A private road is any road that is not a public road which is open to public access or for use by other services. The delivery of emergency and other services are often impeded for residents and businesses when private road names are not officially recorded. In order to minimise confusion, standardise address allocations and support emergency services, all road naming policies and addressing standards shall be applied. They will be processed as a regular naming application and shall be submitted to Landgate for approval. Private roads include but are not limited to: some roads or driveways to battleaxe blocks; roads indicated on community subdivision plans; roads in various cluster developments; roads on private property, for example, roads in caravan parks; and other forms of rights of way; Naming a road on private land does not mean that Landgate, the Secretariat, the GNC or the Minister for Lands is accepting responsibility for that road other than of ensuring its name meets the required naming policies for Western Australia. 8.1.3 Reserved road names Local governments may request that eligible road names be reserved for use within their boundaries for five years from the date of approval. If the name is not used within five years from the date of approval, the approval and reservation of those road names is null and void. Extensions of time maybe granted upon request but if such extensions do not occur, the names will be made available to other local governments for use upon request. All requests for names to be placed on the reserve register shall be in writing and must list the correct spelling and origins of the proposed names before they will be reviewed against the current naming processes for suitability. Upon completion of the review, Landgate will provide the local government with a list of the eligible road names which have been formally approved as reserved in the road name database. 8.1.4 Naming Malls and Pedestrian access ways Malls and pedestrian access ways shall be named according to the current road naming policies and standards. The names shall be recorded as private road names and may be used for the allocation of street addresses if required.
49
Geographic Names Committee
Victor Ambrose Ketterer [1883-1936]

The service road that comes off Melvista Ave and serves the need of the Nedlands Croquet Club and the Bridge Club is sorely in need of an official name to allow the two clubs to be better identified by location. Nedlands City Council has sought naming proposals.
The name Ketterer Lane is proposed.

The name is chosen to commemorate Victor Ambrose Ketterer MC, a documented war hero, long term resident of Nedlands with post war dedication to the welfare of ex-servicemen and war widows.
Victor Ambrose Ketterer was born in Victoria in 1883; he trained as an engineer and settled in Kalgoorlie around 1908. With the outbreak of war in 1914 he made three unsuccessful attempts to join the AIF but was rejected because of his diminutive stature. On the fourth attempt he was enrolled and assigned to the Second Reinforcements of the 16th Battalion with the regimental number of 1490. He departed Australia on 22 Feb 1915 and landed in Egypt for further training. Private Ketterer went ashore on 25 Apr 1915 at Anzac Cove. The reinforcements were actually landed ahead of the main body of the Battalion and worked as beach labourers (under fire). During the campaign on the Gallipoli peninsula Victor Ketterer was promoted to Corporal and later to Sergeant and was mentioned-in-despatches. The 16th Battalion had two short rest periods away from Gallipoli and on 12 Dec 1915 he was medically evacuated with illness just 7 days short of the final evacuation. In 1916 the Battalion was moved to the Western Front through the Port of Marseilles. The AIF battalions participated in all the great battles along the Western Front held by the British Expeditionary Forces 1916-1918. Victor Ketterer was promoted to Warrant Officer rank in August 1916 and mentioned-in-despatches for a second time. On 08 Feb 1917 he was commissioned in the field as a Second Lieutenant and on 31 Oct 1917 promoted to Lieutenant. For gallantry on 29 Sep1918 Lt Ketterer was awarded the Military Cross for capturing an enemy machine gun post in the advance to Le Verguier, France. This was the last day that the 16th Battalion fought in the Great War. Lt Ketterer was next appointed, by General Monash, to serve with the 27th Infantry Division of the United States Army as they took over the line from the British Forces. He returned to the AIF before the Armistice on 11 Nov 1918. After the War he returned to Australia and was discharged from the AIF on 28 Mar 1919. On 05 Nov 1921 he married Elsie Foster, widow of 3079 Sgt R S Foster of 48 Battalion who had been killed in action in 1916. They settled at 28 Cooper St, Nedlands. In the post war period Victor Ketterer did not return to engineering but worked for the Repatriation Commission (now Veterans Affairs) servicing the needs of ex-servicemen. He was exceedingly active in the RSL and was an office bearer of the Nedlands sub-branch for TS04.14 Attachment 3 - Victor Ambrose Ketterer background information
many years. His wife served on the RSL Auxiliary and was president of the War Widows Guild for many years. Victor Ketterer died at his home in 1936 from Pulmonary Tuberculosis. He was buried in Karrakatta Cemetery and a tombstone was erected by the Repatriation Commission. In summary, Victor Ambrose Ketterer was a unique soldier in that he landed on Gallipoli on Anzac Day 1915 and was still serving on the last day that his Battalion fought on the Western Front in 1918. He rose from Private soldier in 1914 to Lieutenant in 1918 and was decorated with the Military Cross and was twice mentioned-in-despatches. In the post war period he and his wife devoted themselves to the welfare of ex-servicemen and war widows. He resided in Cooper St Nedlands until his untimely death in 1936. The year 2014 marks the centenary of the raising of the AIF and 2015 marks the centenary of the Landing at Anzac. It would be appropriate for the Nedlands City Council to apply the name of a man involved in both those events to a service road in Nedlands.
I commend to you the name Ketterer Lane as a suitable commemoration of a great Australian soldier and Nedlands resident who has not been recognized in any other location.
G M (Mike) Galvin Nedlands Croquet Club Inc PO Box 470 Nedlands WA 6909
21 Nov 2013
TS04.14 Attachment 3 - Victor Ambrose Ketterer background information

Australia Pesticide Ban Trial Results 2011 To 2014 TS Reports - TS24.14 To TS28.14 - 25 February

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Australia Pesticide Ban Trial Results 2011 To 2014 TS Reports - TS24.14 To TS28.14 - 25 February

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Technical Services Reports

Committee Consideration 11 February 2014 Council Resolution 25 February 2014

Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14

Findings from Chemical Free Park Trial Masons Gardens

CRS/073, PRS/135, M13/36837 Item 14.1 Council Minutes 27 September 2011

Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14

Landscape Expenditure $832 $1,262 $1,732 $4,232 $1,544^

Annual Actual Man Hours 32 33.5 46 86.5 34.5^

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Riley Road, Dalkeith

D13/27847 Goldsmith Road, Dalkeith

D13/28043 Hotchin Street, Dalkeith

D13/28594 Adelma Road, Dalkeith

Garland Road, Dalkeith

D13/21951 Kathryn Crescent, Dalkeith

D13/22260 Address not supplied

D13/27245 Hotchin Street, Dalkeith

| Community feedback form

THE REGIStrAtION PrOCESS

The Registration Process

Information Required to Register a Product

Biological and Natural Products

The Registration Process (Contd)

The APVMA Permit Scheme

The Benefits of Using Registered Products

CONtACtING tHE APVMA

Attachment 4 - Photographic Log - Chemical Free Park Trial

Reference point A - 26 July 2012

Reference point B - 26 July 2012

Reference point C - 26 July 2012

Reference point A - 28 September 2012

Reference point B - 28 September 2012

Reference point C - 28 September 2012

Reference point A - 29 July 2013

Reference point B - 29 July 2013

Reference point C - 29 July 2013

Reference point A - 25 September 2013

Reference point B - 25 September 2013

Reference point C - 25 September 2013

Reports TS24.14 27.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14

Adoption of Draft Management Plan

PRS/115, M14/1899 Item 12.5 - Council Minutes - 25 September 2012

Report TS01.14 to TS04.14 11.2.14 to 25.2.14

Dinghy Storage Management Plan

| Dinghy storage management plan

| Dinghy storage management plan

| Dinghy storage management plan

2. Public places covered by this plan

3. River foreshore usage

Foreshore Reserve Type Foreshore conservation areas

Low infrequent usage by multiple users, with short to medium stays

Low infrequent usage by multiple users, with short to medium stays

Low infrequent usage by multiple users, with short to medium stays

| Dinghy storage management plan

| Dinghy storage management plan

City of Nedlands river foreshore reserve areas.

Proposed dinghy storage site

Proposed dinghy storage site

| Dinghy storage management plan

| Dinghy storage management plan

5. Storage of dinghies and watercraft on foreshore reserves

6. Special arrangements for managed facilities