We asked:

• How would you rate the issue of nature strips in Wyndham (scale of 1= not a big issue to 5= a really big issue) and why?
• How do you feel about the current regulation of nature strips?
• Do you support the proposed provisions for nature strip maintenance?

You said:

In response to rating the issue:

• The majority of respondents agree that overgrown nature strips is a big to really big problem in Wyndham - over 50% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.

Themes that emerged from comments:

• Overgrown nature strips are unsightly and can be unsafe - 48 related comments
• I don't think this is an issue, or it's only an issue is some areas - 23 related comments

In response to rating the current regulation:

• the majority of respondents feel that the current Local Law is not strong enough regarding nature strip maintenance and support the proposed provisions - 55% of respondents feel that there should be stronger local laws.

Themes that emerged around whether community supports the proposed provisions:

• 50% of respondents support the proposed provisions
• Council should help people who can't mow their nature strip - 20 related comments
• Nature strips are Council Land and Council should be responsible for mowing it - 17 related comments
• It is reasonable for Council to enforce the mowing of nature strips - 14 related comments

We did:

No existing clause in current Community Amenity Local Law 2015. Clause included in Draft Community Amenity Local Law 2023

Added Clause:

CA2023: An owner or occupier of land that is not in a Rural Zone or Council land, must ensure that any nature strip between the land and any abutting road does not contain grass or weeds over 30 centimetres in height.

An owner or occupier of land must not alter, or allow to be altered or remain altered, any nature strip between the land and any abutting road except in accordance with Council’s Nature Strip Beautification Policy.

Reason for change and expected benefit to community:

Overgrown nature strips have a significant impact on the visual appearance of the municipality. Nature strips are owned by Council and house utilities and infrastructure.

The majority of people in the municipality do maintain their nature strips, but this clause will allow Council to take enforcement action where nature strip grass exceeds 30cms and residents do not comply with requests to mow the nature strip.

You can view the full Community Engagement Summary Report here.

We asked:

• How would you rate the issue of shopping trolleys in Wyndham (scale of 1= not a big issue to 5= a really big issue) and why?
• How do you feel about the current regulation of shopping trolleys?
• Do you support the proposed provisions for abandoned shopping trolleys?

You said:

In response to rating the issue:

• The majority of respondents agree that abandoned shopping trolleys are a moderate to very big issue in Wyndham - over 47% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.

Themes that emerged from comments:

• I see a lot of abandoned shopping trolleys - 54 related comments
• I don't think abandoned shopping trolleys are a big issue - 32 related comments

In response to rating the current regulation:

• The majority of respondents feel that the current Local Law is not strong enough regarding shopping trolleys and support the proposed provisions - Over 56% of respondents feel that there should be stronger local laws.

Themes that emerged around whether community supports the proposed provisions:

• Over 60% of respondents support the proposed provisions
• More needs to be done to prevent trolleys from being dumped - 15 related comments
• council should punish the person that dumps the trolley, not the retailer- 7 related comments
• Coin return systems do not work - 6 related comments

We did:

Existing clause in current Community Amenity Local Law 2015. Clause amended in Draft Community Amenity Local Law 2023

Existing Clauses 2015:

CA 2015: Subject to clause 118, a retailer must not make available for use or allow to be used a shopping trolley which does not have a fully functioning coin deposit and release mechanism attached to it; or is not secured to the retailer’s premises by a perimeter constraint system approved by Council. Clause 117 does not apply when a retailer makes available for use, or allows to be used, 25 shopping trolleys or less; or to a retailer who has committed to a 12 month renewable management plan approved by Council for the effective control and recovery of shopping trolleys.

CA 2015: An authorised officer or a person engaged by Council for this purpose may, on behalf of Council, seize and impound any shopping trolley which is being made available for use or is being used or has been left on a road or on Council land in contravention of this Local Law.

CA 2015: On the first business day of each month or as soon possible thereafter, a list of shopping trolleys that have been impounded by Council will be forwarded to each retailer stating the period within which the shopping trolley must be claimed; that unclaimed shopping trolleys may be disposed of by Council after the period; and that it is an offence for a retailer to not claim an impounded shopping trolley.

CA: 2015: A retailer must claim the impounded shopping trolley within the period stated by Council in the list of impounded shopping trolleys forwarded to that retailer.

Amended Clauses 2023:

CA 2023: A retailer who makes available more than 15 shopping trolleys must ensure that all shopping trolleys have a fully functioning coin deposit and release mechanism, or a perimeter locking system, or another system approved by Council that prevents the removal of shopping trolleys from the retailer’s premises.

CA 2023: Any trolley made available by a retailer must be clearly identified with the retailer’s name and contact details.

CA 2023: Where a retailer has been notified that a shopping trolley belonging to the retailer has been abandoned on Council Land, the retailer must collect or arrange for the collection of the shopping trolley within 3 business days of the report being made.

CA 2023: Where a retailer has been notified of an abandoned trolley and has failed to collect the trolley, Council may impound and dispose of the trolley without further notice.

Reason for change and expected benefit to community:

Clauses regulating shopping trolleys exist in the current Local Law. The proposed changes remove the option of lodging a trolley management plan instead of having physical controls, require retailers to clearly label trolleys with retailer details, and make it an offence for a retailer to fail to collect a trolley that has been reported as abandoned within three business days.

These clauses are designed to reduce the amount of trolleys that leave retailer premises, and to reduce the burden and cost on Council of impounding and holding abandoned trolleys.

You can view the full Community Engagement Summary Report here.

We asked:

• How would you rate the issue of short stay accommodation Wyndham (scale of 1= not a big issue to 5= a really big issue) and why?
• How do you feel about the regulations of short stay accommodation?
• Do you support the proposed provisions for short stay accommodation?

You said:

In response to rating the issue:

• The majority of respondents felt that short stay accommodation is no issue or a small issue in Wyndham - Over 63% of respondents rated either a 1 or 2.

Themes that emerged from comments:

• I haven't had or observed any issues caused by short stay accommodation - 52 related comments
• Short Stay Accommodation causes amenity issues for neighbours and is a problem that will only get bigger- 23 related comments
• Short Stay Accommodation benefits the tourism and accessibility of the area and should be encouraged - 8 related comments

In response to rating the regulation:

• Just under half of respondents supported the proposed Local Law regarding short-stay accommodation, with 33% somewhat supporting it.

Themes that emerged around whether community supports the proposed provisions:

• Over 50% of respondents did not support or only somewhat supported the proposed provisions for short stay accommodation
• Out of control parties happen at short stay accommodation - 7 related comments
• the issue with short stay accommodation is not big enough to justify the extra administrative costs - 5 related comments
• I don't like different people staying at the short stay accommodation all the time - 4 related comments

We did:

No existing clause in current Community Amenity Local Law 2015.

Outcome:

Clause added in Draft Community Amenity Local Law 2023.

CA 2023: 97. An owner of land must not advertise, use, or allow to be used, the land for Short Stay Rental Accommodation without a permit.

Reason for change and expected benefit to community

Short-stay accommodation (e.g. entire homes available for holiday rental on AirBnb, Stayz, and other like sites) can cause amenity issues that are difficult to address. As an example, a property may have guests parking illegally resulting in complaints from surrounding properties. Council officers can go out an enforce regularly, but since the vehicles always belong to new and different guests, surrounding residents never see an improvement.

The proposed clause requires owners to apply for a permit to operate short stay accommodation and comply with permit conditions.

You can view the full Community Engagement Summary Report here.

We asked:

• How would you rate the issue of tree canopy loss in Wyndham (scale of 1= not a big issue to 5= a really big issue) and why?
• How do you feel about the current regulation of tree removal on private property?
• Do you support the proposed provisions for tree removal on private property?

You said:

In response to rating the issue:

• Respondents were varied in their view of tree canopy loss - The most common response being that tree canopy loss is not an issue included 23.7% of responses followed by 21% of respondents saying that tree canopy loss is a big issue in Wyndham.

Themes that emerged from comments:

• Loss of tree canopy is an issue, but more canopy is lost on Council and developer land than on residential properties - 26 related comments
• The loss of shade and biodiversity is an issue- 25 related comments
• I don't think it's an issue - 19 related comments

In response to rating the current regulation:

• Just under one third (29.9%) of respondents agree that there should be stronger laws around tree protection, but more than half of the respondents do not support the provisions as proposed in the Issues paper.

Themes that emerged around whether community supports the proposed provisions:

• Over 53% of respondents did not support the proposed provisions for tree removal on private property
• Council should not require an expensive permit to do what I want on my own property - 40 related comments
• Requiring permits for tree removal is an appropriate way to lessen tree canopy loss - 14 related comments
• The proposed law will deter people from planting trees and worsen tree canopy loss - 12 related comments

We did:

No existing clause in current Community Amenity Local Law 2015.

Outcome:

Tree protection laws will not be included in the Draft Local Law, however we will be doing more work in policy around tree canopy loss and engagement and education of residents, and a tree protection local law may be something that is considered again in the future.

You can view the full Community Engagement Summary Report here.

We asked:

• How would you rate the issue of food trucks on private property in Wyndham (scale of 1= not a big issue to 5= a really big issue) and why?
• How do you feel about the regulations of food trucks on private property ?
• Do you support the proposed provisions for food trucks on private property?

You said:

In response to rating the issue:

• The majority of respondents feel that food trucks on private property are not an issue in Wyndham with over 64% rating this issue a 1 or 2.

Themes that emerged from comments:

• food trucks are good fro the area and should be encouraged - 35 related comments
• I have not had or observed any issues with food trucks- 26 related comments
• food trucks on vacant land cause amenity issues and are unfair to brick and mortar shops- 15 related comments

In response to rating the current regulation:

• Over 42% of respondents feel that current Local Laws are appropriate.

Themes that emerged around whether community supports the proposed provisions:

• Over 42% of respondents did not support the proposed provisions for food trucks on private property.
• Food trucks shoul dhave designated areas to operate - 6 related comments
• Issues like traffic problems, litter and noise should be dealt with at the problem business instead of making everyone get a permit - 4 related comments

We did:

Existing clause in current Community Amenity Local Law 2015. Clause amended in Draft Community Amenity Local Law 2023

Existing Clause 2015:

CA 2015: Unless permitted to do so under a Planning Scheme applicable to the land, a person must not, without a permit erect or use on any land a temporary structure or building for the sale of goods, or sell goods from a tent or a temporary structure or building erected in contravention of clause 150.1.

Amended clause Draft Community Amenity Local Law 2023:

CA 2023: If directed to do so by an Authorised Officer, the owner or operator of a business operating out of a temporary structure on private land in accordance with the relevant Planning Scheme, or an owner of land where such a business operates, must prepare an Amenity Protection Plan for approval by an Authorised Officer; and not operate or allow the business to operate except in accordance with the approved Amenity Protection Plan.

CA 2023: An authorised officer may only direct a person or business to prepare and comply with an Amenity Protection Plan in accordance with the above clauses if:

The clause in the current Local Law only applies where the Planning Scheme does not allow the use of the land for that purpose. This is somewhat redundant, because if the use of the land for sale of goods was not permitted, it could be enforced under the Planning Scheme.

Council Officers have identified that there are food trucks operating on private land that are not breaching the Planning Scheme (because the use of the land for retail or takeaway food is permitted under the Planning Scheme) but there are occasions where these food trucks negatively impact the surrounding area.

You can view the full Community Engagement Summary Report here.