Please note:  These minutes are yet to be confirmed as a true record of proceedings

CITY OF BUSSELTON

MINUTES FOR THE Council  MEETING HELD ON 24 September 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors. 3

2....... Attendance. 3

3....... Prayer. 3

4....... Public Question Time. 4

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice. 4

Public Question Time. 4

5....... Announcements Without Discussion.. 4

Announcements by the Presiding Member. 4

Announcements by other Members at the invitation of the Presiding Member. 4

6....... Application for Leave of Absence. 4

7....... Petitions and Presentations. 4

8....... Disclosure Of Interests. 4

9....... Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes. 4

Previous Council Meetings. 4

9.1          Minutes of the Council  held on 27 August 2014. 4

Committee Meetings. 5

9.2          Minutes of a meeting of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee held on 12 August 2014. 5

9.3          Minutes of a meeting of the Policy and Legislation Committee held on 21 August 2014. 5

9.4          Minutes of a meeting of the Finance Committee held on 4 September 2014. 5

9.5          Minutes of a meeting of the Airport Advisory Committee held on 1 September 2014. 6

Items Brought Forward and Adoption by Exception Resolution.. 6

Items Brought Forward For Discussion. 6

En Bloc Motion. 7

10..... Reports of Committee. 8

10.1        Meelup Regional Park Management Committee - 12/08/2014 - APPOINTMENT OF REPLACEMENT MEMBERS - MEELUP REGIONAL PARK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE. 8

10.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 21/08/2014 - THOROUGHFARES AND TRADING IN PUBLIC PLACES LOCAL LAW... 10

10.3        Policy and Legislation Committee - 21/08/2014 - REVIEW OF DELEGATIONS TO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OTHER OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES. 17

10.4        Finance Committee - 4/09/2014 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY – INVESTMENTS (218). 25

10.5        Finance Committee - 4/09/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 JULY 2014. 33

10.6        Finance Committee - 4/09/2014 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – JULY 2014. 38

10.7        Finance Committee - 4/09/2014 - PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE BUDGET – RAILS-TO-TRAILS (WADANDI TRACK). 40

10.8        Airport Advisory Committee - 1/09/2014 - BUSSELTON REGIONAL AIRPORT - PROPOSAL FOR HELICOPTER PARKING AREA.. 44

10.9        Airport Advisory Committee - 1/09/2014 - WATER CORPORATION LAND EXCHANGE AND SALE CONTRACT - RUNWAY EXTENSION BUSSELTON REGIONAL AIRPORT. 48

11..... Planning and Development Services Report. 54

11.1        RESERVE 22965 GEOGRAPHE BAY ROAD, DUNSBOROUGH – PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE PURPOSE OF THE RESERVE FROM ‘CAMPING AND RECREATION’ TO ‘RECREATION AND FORESHORE MANAGEMENT’ 54

11.2        MANAGEMENT OF DOGS IN PUBLIC PLACES, INCLUDING BEACHES. 57

12..... Engineering and Work Services Report. 76

12.1        PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY (PAW) BETWEEN ANTHONY ROAD AND DAVID DRIVE, GEOGRAPHE. 76

12.2        AWARD OF RFT 11/14 PROVISION OF CLEANING SERVICES OF CITY OWNED BUILDINGS. 85

12.3        AWARD OF TENDER RFT10/14 – BARNARD PARK OVAL REDEVELOPMENT – SUPPLY & INSTALLATION OF SPORTS OVAL LIGHTING.. 92

13..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 97

13.1        COMMUNITY SPORT & RECREATION FACILITIES FUND – ANNUAL AND FORWARD GRANT ROUND APPLICATIONS – 2015/16 – 2017/18 TRIENNIUM... 97

13.2        RETAIL TRADING HOURS REVIEW... 104

14..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 121

14.1        LOCKE ESTATE - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. 121

15..... Chief Executive Officer's Report. 125

15.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 125

16..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 128

Nil

17..... Confidential Reports. 128

Nil

18..... Public Question Time. 128

19..... Next Meeting Date. 128

20..... Closure. 128

 


Council                                                                                      3                                                           24 September 2014

MINUTES

 

MINUTES OF A Meeting of the Busselton City Council HELD IN the Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 24 September 2014 AT 5.30pm.

 

1.               Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors

 

The Presiding Member open the meeting at 5.30pm.

2.               Attendance

Presiding Member:

Members:

 

Cr Ian Stubbs           Mayor

Cr Grant Henley

Cr John McCallum

Cr Tom Tuffin

Cr Gordon Bleechmore

Cr Rob Bennett

Cr Coralie Tarbotton

Cr Jenny Green

Cr Terry Best

 

Officers:

 

Mr Mike Archer, Chief Executive Officer

Mr Oliver Darby, Director, Engineering and Works Services

Mr Paul Needham, Director, Planning and Development Services

Mrs Naomi Searle, Director, Community and Commercial Services

Mr Matthew Smith, Director, Finance and Corporate Services

Miss Lynley Rich, Manager, Governance Services

Mrs Katie Banks, Administration Officer, Governance

 

Apologies

 

Nil

 

Approved Leave of Absence

 

Nil

 

Media:

 

“Busselton-Dunsborough Times”

“Busselton-Dunsborough Mail”

 

Public:

 

Nil

3.               Prayer

 

The prayer was delivered by

4.               Public Question Time

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice 

Public Question Time

 

Nil

5.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member 

Announcements by other Members at the invitation of the Presiding Member

 

Nil

6.               Application for Leave of Absence

 

Nil

7.               Petitions and Presentations

 

Nil 

8.               Disclosure Of Interests

 

Nil

 

The Mayor noted that a declaration of impartiality interest had been received from:

 

·         Cr <Firstname Surname> in relation to Agenda Item <Item No. & Title>.

 

The Mayor advised that in accordance with the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 this declaration would be read out immediately before Item <Item No.> was discussed.

9.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes 

Previous Council Meetings

9.1             Minutes of the Council  held on 27 August 2014

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Council  Meeting held 27 August 2014 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

Committee Meetings

9.2             Minutes of a meeting of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee held on 12 August 2014

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)         That the minutes of a meeting of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee      held on 12 August 2014 be received.

2)         That the Council notes the outcomes of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee meeting held on 12 August 2014 being:

a)            The Committee agreed to monitor the Gourmet Beach BBQ 2014 event, pre,        during and post event and will prepare a report to be forwarded to the                          Council. The Committee also recommended a number of specific conditions   to impose on the event organisers and expressed their reservations about            the event again being held at Castle Bay beach.  The Committee also wanted Council to be advised that recommendations relating to the use of Castle Bay beach were made without reference to the Committee and without advice of the Committee’s strong reservations and other matters.  The Committee recommended some bond and contribution requirements.

b)           The Appointment of Replacement Members - Meelup Regional Park Management Committee Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.1 of this agenda.

c)            The Committee noted the Environment Officer’s report.

 

 

 

 

9.3             Minutes of a meeting of the Policy and Legislation Committee held on 21 August 2014

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)         That the minutes of a meeting of the Policy and Legislation Committee held on 21             August 2014 be received.

2)         That the Council notes the outcomes of the Policy and Legislation Committee      meeting held  on 21 August 2014 being:

             a)            The Thoroughfares and Trading in Public Places Local Law Item is                                            presented for Council consideration at Item 10.2 of this agenda.

             b)            The Review of Delegations to Chief Executive Officer, Other                                                       Officers and Committees Item is presented for Council consideration at Item                        10.3 of this agenda.

 

 

 

9.4             Minutes of a meeting of the Finance Committee held on 4 September 2014

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)    That the minutes of a meeting of the Finance Committee held on 4 September 2014 be received.

2)    That the Council notes the outcomes of the Finance Committee meeting held on 4 September 2014 being:

a)            The Committee requested that the CEO or staff reflect in the review of the            Long Term Financial Plan a gradual approximate $100K shift from the FAGS Grant to be directed to roads and noted the Finance Committee Information      Bulletin for the month of July 2014.

b)            The Review Of Council Policy – Investments (218) item is presented for Council consideration at item 10.4 of this agenda.

c)            The Financial Activity Statements – Period Ending 31 July 2014 item is presented for Council consideration at item 10.5 of this agenda.

d)            The List of Payments Made – July 2014 item is presented for Council consideration at item 10.6 of this agenda.

e)            The Proposal To Amend The Budget – Rails-To-Trails (Wadandi Track) item is presented for Council consideration at item 10.7 of this agenda.

 

 

 

9.5             Minutes of a meeting of the Airport Advisory Committee held on 1 September 2014

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)         That the minutes of a meeting of the Airport Advisory Committee held on 1 September 2014 be received.

2)         That the Council notes the outcomes of the Airport Advisory Committee meeting held on 1 September 2014 being:

             a)            The Busselton Regional Airport - Proposal for Helicopter Parking Area item is        presented for Council consideration at item 10.8 of this agenda.

b)            The Water Corporation Land Exchange and Sale Contract - Runway Extension       Busselton Regional Airport item is presented for Council consideration at                               item 10.9 of this agenda.

 

 

 

 

Items Brought Forward and Adoption by Exception Resolution

 

At this juncture the Mayor advised the meeting that with the exception of the items identified to be withdrawn for discussion, that the remaining reports, including the Committee and Officer Recommendations, will be adopted en bloc.

Items Brought Forward For Discussion

9.2          Minutes of a meeting of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee held on 12 August 2014

9.3          Minutes of a meeting of the Policy and Legislation Committee held on 21 August 2014

9.4          Minutes of a meeting of the Finance Committee held on 4 September 2014

9.5          Minutes of a meeting of the Airport Advisory Committee held on 1 September 2014

10.1        Meelup Regional Park Management Committee - 12/08/2014 - APPOINTMENT OF REPLACEMENT MEMBERS - MEELUP REGIONAL PARK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

10.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 21/08/2014 - THOROUGHFARES AND TRADING IN PUBLIC PLACES LOCAL LAW

10.3        Policy and Legislation Committee - 21/08/2014 - REVIEW OF DELEGATIONS TO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OTHER OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES

10.4        Finance Committee - 4/09/2014 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY – INVESTMENTS (218)

10.5        Finance Committee - 4/09/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 JULY 2014

10.6        Finance Committee - 4/09/2014 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – JULY 2014

10.7        Finance Committee - 4/09/2014 - PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE BUDGET – RAILS-TO-TRAILS (WADANDI TRACK)

10.8        Airport Advisory Committee - 1/09/2014 - BUSSELTON REGIONAL AIRPORT - PROPOSAL FOR HELICOPTER PARKING AREA

10.9        Airport Advisory Committee - 1/09/2014 - WATER CORPORATION LAND EXCHANGE AND SALE CONTRACT - RUNWAY EXTENSION BUSSELTON REGIONAL AIRPORT

11.1        RESERVE 22965 GEOGRAPHE BAY ROAD, DUNSBOROUGH – PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE PURPOSE OF THE RESERVE FROM ‘CAMPING AND RECREATION’ TO ‘RECREATION AND FORESHORE MANAGEMENT’

11.2        MANAGEMENT OF DOGS IN PUBLIC PLACES, INCLUDING BEACHES

12.1        PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY (PAW) BETWEEN ANTHONY ROAD AND DAVID DRIVE, GEOGRAPHE

12.2        AWARD OF RFT 11/14 PROVISION OF CLEANING SERVICES OF CITY OWNED BUILDINGS

12.3        AWARD OF TENDER RFT10/14 – BARNARD PARK OVAL REDEVELOPMENT – SUPPLY & INSTALLATION OF SPORTS OVAL LIGHTING

13.1        COMMUNITY SPORT & RECREATION FACILITIES FUND – ANNUAL AND FORWARD GRANT ROUND APPLICATIONS – 2015/16 – 2017/18 TRIENNIUM

13.2        RETAIL TRADING HOURS REVIEW

14.1        LOCKE ESTATE - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

15.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

En Bloc Motion

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Committee and Officer Recommendations in relation to the following agenda items be carried en bloc:

 


Council                                                                                      9                                                           24 September 2014

10.             Reports of Committee

10.1           Meelup Regional Park Management Committee - 12/08/2014 - APPOINTMENT OF REPLACEMENT MEMBERS - MEELUP REGIONAL PARK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

SUBJECT INDEX:

Committee Meetings

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A Council that engages broadly and proactively with the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Environmental Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Meelup Regional Park

REPORTING OFFICER:

Acting Director, Planning and Development Services - Greg Simpson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Meelup Regional Park Management Committee – Terms of Reference  

 

This item was considered by the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee at its meeting on 12 August 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report recommends the appointment of one new member to fill a community member vacancy and the appointment of two additional deputy members for the Meelup Regional Park Committee.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

On 9 October 2013, Council resolved (resolution C1310/267) as part of the review process for Council appointed committee’s to re-establish the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee in accordance with the terms of reference, a copy of which is included as Attachment 1.

 

On 21st October 2013, Council resolved to appoint the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee. This Committee operates with nine members. Two of the members are Councillors, one City of Busselton officer and six community members. Deputy members may be appointed as required.

 

At the February 2014, committee meeting the Presiding Member acknowledged the resignation of Mr Andrew Cohen and the minutes from this meeting were received by Council (resolution C1403/046) at its Ordinary Meeting 12 March 2014.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The membership and deputy membership of Committees of Council must be determined by the Council in accordance with Section 5.10 and 5.11A of the Local Government Act 1995. In this regard, an Absolute Majority decision of the Council is required to appoint a person as a member or deputy member of a Committee.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

N/A

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

NIL

 

 

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter is considered relevant to Key Goal Area 6 - Open and collaborative leadership and Strategic Objective 6.1 ‐ A Council that engages broadly and proactively with its community. A Council that engages with its community through Committees with specific areas of interest that assist the Council to undertake its role.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implication of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment sought to identify ‘downside’ risks only rather than ‘upside’ risks and where the risk, following implementation of controls has been identified, is medium or greater. No such risks were identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The Committee positions were advertised under the authority of the Management Committee in March 2013. The Committee considered the applications that were received and recommended the appointment of two members and four deputy members. Mr Matt Slocomb was recommended for appointment as one of the Committees deputy members.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

A nomination has been received for the appointment of Mr Matt Slocomb as a community member on the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee.  Mr Slocomb is currently appointed as a deputy community member.  Ms Jasmine Campbell and Mr Robert Ginbey have been nominated for appointment as additional Deputy Members.

 

CONCLUSION

 

In order to continue the valuable contribution to the City made by the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee, it is considered that the Committee should be returned to its full capacity and provided with deputies.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Committee may choose to review the applications and recommend to Council, different members for appointment to the Committee.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The Officer recommendation will be implemented by 30 August 2014.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

That the Council:

 

1.    Appoints Mr Matt Slocomb as a member of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee.

 

2.    Appoints Ms Jasmine Campbell and Mr Robert Ginbey as deputy members of the Meelup Regional Park Committee.

 


Council                                                                                      15                                                         24 September 2014

10.2           Policy and Legislation Committee - 21/08/2014 - THOROUGHFARES AND TRADING IN PUBLIC PLACES LOCAL LAW

SUBJECT INDEX:

Local Laws

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Governance systems that deliver responsible, ethical and accountable decision-making.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Legal Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Legal Officer - Briony McGinty

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2014  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 21 August 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

Under the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) local governments are required to carry out periodic reviews of their local laws to determine whether they should be repealed or amended. As part of the City’s ongoing review of its local laws, the need for an updated local law dealing specifically with thoroughfares and trading in public places has been identified. It is recommended that Council repeal several current local laws dealing with a variety of subject matter and adopt the new, comprehensive Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2014 (proposed local law).

 

The proposed local law has been prepared for consideration by Council to initiate the law-making process under the Act.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The City currently implements a number of local laws covering various activities that take place on thoroughfares and in public places. The following local laws will be repealed by the proposed local law:

 

a)         Bylaws relating to the Depositing and Removal of Refuse, Rubbish, Litter and Disused  Materials 1978

b)        Bylaw relating to Street Lawns and Gardens 1994

c)         Bylaw relating to Removal and Disposal of Obstructing Animals or Vehicles 1977

d)        Building By-laws – Numbering of Houses 1955

e)        Bylaws relating to Trading in Public Places 1992

f)         Bylaw relating to Eating Areas in Streets and other Public Places 1994

g)         Local Law Relating to Signs and other Advertising Devices 2004 (current local laws).

 

The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) provides assistance to local governments in the implementation of local laws by creating “model” local laws. These model local laws provide a starting point in which to develop local laws suitable to the locality of the local government whilst ensuring that local laws across the state are generally similar when dealing with a particular subject matter. A number of current local laws are outdated in that they are inconsistent with the WALGA model.

 

For instance, some of the current local laws provide for fees and charges to be determined under the local law which in effect means these fees and charges can only be adjusted by way of an amendment to the local law. The current practice is for fees and charges rather to be imposed and determined under sections 6.16-6.19 of the Act, which enables the Council to review these fees and charges annually as part of the budget process.  Many of the current local laws also provide inadequate penalties.

 

Some current local laws also cover subject matter which has been superseded by State legislation or use terminology which is inconsistent with current legislation (for example, reference is made to “Town Planning Schemes” rather than “local planning schemes”, the “Health Act 1911” rather than the “Food Act 2008”, and “Shire Clerk” rather than “CEO”).

 

The proposed local law is based on the WALGA “Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading” model local law which has been successfully implemented across most districts throughout the State.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 3.5 of the Act provides the heads of power for the Council to make the proposed local law:

 

“A local government may make Local Laws under this Act prescribing all matters that are required or permitted to be prescribed by a local law, or are necessary or convenient to be so prescribed, for it to perform any of its functions under this Act”.

 

The procedure for making local laws is set out in section 3.12 of the Act and regulation 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.The person presiding at a council meeting is to give notice of the purpose and effect of a proposed local law by ensuring that —

(a)              the purpose and effect of the proposed local law is included in the agenda for that meeting; and

(b)             the minutes of the meeting of the council include the purpose and effect of the proposed local law.

 

The purpose and effect of the proposed local law is as follows:

 

Purpose: To consolidate and make one law relating to activities in thoroughfares and trading in thoroughfares and public places.

 

Effect: Some activities are prohibited and some activities are permitted only under permit on thoroughfares and public places.

 

As part of the statutory consultation process, the proposed local law is advertised in accordance with section 3.12(3) of the Act, by giving state wide public notice of the local law and allowing at least six weeks for the public to make submissions.  A copy of the local law is also provided to the Minister for Local Government.

 

Following this process, the proposed local law will then be referred back to the Council for consideration of any submissions received in relation to the local law and for the Council to resolve whether or not to make the local law by absolute majority decision.

 

Joint Standing Committee

 

Section 42 of the Interpretation Act 1984 allows the WA State Parliament to disallow a local law, which is a mechanism to guard against the making of subsidiary legislation that is not authorised or contemplated by the empowering enactment, has an adverse effect on existing rights or ousts or modifies the rules of fairness. Parliament has appointed the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (JSC), to undertake an overseeing role on its behalf, which includes the power to scrutinise and recommend the disallowance of local laws to the Parliament. The JSC may potentially have concerns with the proposed local law but, as a result of its terms of reference, cannot consider local laws prior to their publication in the Government Gazette.

 

National Competition Policy

 

Since the early 1990’s State, Territory and Commonwealth Heads of Government through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) initiated a commitment to achieving a nationally consistent approach to competition policy in Australia. This resulted in the adoption of the National Competition Policy (NCP) which requires, among other things, that local governments ensure that all new local laws which restrict competition are consistent with the following requirements:

 

·          The benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs; and

·          The objectives of the local laws can only be achieved by restricting competition.

 

However in accordance with the National Competition Local Law Review Guidelines local governments are not required to do an assessment against the NCP of a local law based on a WALGA model local law and adopted by Council without substantial change. As the proposed local law is based on the WALGA model Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law an assessment against the NCP is therefore not required.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The proposed local law is considered to be consistent with the following Council policies:

 

Markets Policy requiring licensing under the Trading in Public Places local law (will need amendment to refer to the proposed local law);

 

Trading in Public Places- Standard Conditions of Approval detailing standard conditions applicable to permits to conduct trading in public places (will need amendment to refer to the proposed local law). Modifications currently being proposed to the policy would also fit within the permit framework of the proposed local law;

 

Nature Verges for Urban Areas whereby the City will provide a WA native street tree provided the owner submits an approved landscaping plan showing the planting of other low-growing waterwise WA native shrubs within the urban “nature verge”;

 

Crossovers specifying a minimum width and referring to the technical specifications for crossover standards;

 

The proposed local law may necessitate some slight amendments to the following:

 

Technical Specifications will need to be amended to provide for a maximum width for a crossover as this is the standard as per the local law. 7m is the proposed maximum width (unless with Council approval);

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Costs associated with the advertising and gazettal of the local law will come from the legal budget. These costs are unlikely to exceed $2,000 and there are sufficient funds in the legal budget for this purpose.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The proposal aligns with the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan 2013 as follows:

6.1 Governance systems that deliver responsible, ethical and accountable decision making.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The proposed local law does not involve major departures from current practices and is therefore considered low risk.

 

CONSULTATION

 

If the Council resolves to initiate the local law-making procedure, the City is required by the Act to place notices in The West Australian newspaper, locally circulating newspapers and on City notice boards, containing details of the proposed local law and an invitation to the public to make submissions in relation to it.

 

The submission period must run for a minimum period of six weeks after which, the Council having considered any submissions received, may resolve to adopt the proposed local law or a law which is not significantly different.

 

The proposed local law has also been referred to the Policy and Legislation Committee for consideration.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The proposed local law is broadly based on the WALGA model Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law but has been modified and amplified to provide for matters specific to the locality of Busselton. For example, additions provisions dealing with “drag out” (being material such as sand deposited on a road by a vehicle in an inappropriate manner) have been included in the local law. The sections dealing with permissible verge treatments have also been amended to relate only to verges adjacent to land zoned residential, given the rural nature of most of the district. Provisions dealing with the removal of trees and gardens on thoroughfares have been amended based on modifications to the model local law done by other local governments which are considered to be more appropriate to the locality.

 

The following is an outline of the proposed local law and the content of each part.

 

Part 1 – Preliminary

This part provides for administrative matters concerning the local law – such as application, commencement, definition and repeal of obsolete local laws.

 

Part 2 – Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places

Division 1 of Part 2 of the proposed local law covers the general provisions relating to thoroughfares. It includes prohibitions on obstructing thoroughfares and activities which may interfere with traffic or pedestrian movement.

 

Division 1 also prohibits the clearing or planting of plants on verges throughout the district. A permit must be obtained prior to the removal of a tree on a verge abutting a landowner’s property. A person can only interfere with a garden (except a tree) provided it abuts their lot, the garden was not planted by the City, and the interference is done pursuant to the installation of a “permissible verge treatment”.

 

Division 3 of Part 2 clarifies the position in respect of permissible verge treatments on verges adjacent to land zoned Residential under the scheme. These provisions allow a landowner to install a combination of lawn, garden or other hard material on verge adjacent to their lot without a permit in various circumstances. It replaces the Bylaw relating to Street Lawns and Gardens 1994 where currently a permit is required for the installation of any verge treatment (other than lawn). This is not readily complied with, seen as an administrative burden, and not in keeping with the processes in the rest of the state. However, under the proposed local law, a landowner can install a verge treatment provided it is lawn, garden or a combination of lawn, garden and “acceptable material” - being brick or block-paving, concrete, asphalt or bitumen seal in order to create an appropriate “crossover”. Departure from this standard is permissible provided a permit has been obtained.

 

Part 3 – Signs

Part 3 deals with signs on thoroughfares. The current Local Law Relating to Signs and other Advertising Devices 2004 will be repealed by the proposed local law. Signs on private property will continue to be dealt with under the Scheme as per previous reports to the Council. Signs on City owned or managed land will be dealt with under the Local Government Property Local Law and signs on thoroughfares will be dealt with under the proposed local law. The provisions relating to signs contained in the Local Government Property Local Law are essentially replicated under the proposed local law to ensure consistency within the district.

 

Small portable direction signs which are placed on thoroughfares for the duration of a home open or a garage sale do not require a permit. Other signs on thoroughfares require a permit and are subject to specific conditions depending on their nature, as determined by the City.

 

Part 4 – Obstructing Animals, Vehicles and Shopping Trolleys

This part creates offences for leaving vehicles, animals and shopping trolleys on thoroughfares and replaces the Bylaw relating to Removal and Disposal of Obstructing Animals or Vehicles 1977.

 

Part 6 – Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places

This part replaces the current Bylaws relating to Trading in Public Places 1992 and Bylaw relating to Eating Areas in Streets and other Public Places 1994. Division 1 deals with stallholders and traders and provides for circumstances in which a permit is required to trade and the conditions attaching to such activities. Division 2 deals with street entertainers and Division 3 deals with outdoor eating.

 

This part does not propose any radical changes from how applications for permits are currently assessed as these are more matters of policy dealt with under the various applicable policies. However, the local law will create consistency in the way the City deals with applications for permits on a variety of matters, increase penalties to reflect practices across the State and confirm the setting of fees through the fees and charges budgeting process.

 

Part 7 - Permits

Administrative matters pertaining to permits are contained in this section and aim to be as consistent as possible with the permit system under the Local Government Property Local Law 2010.

 

Parts 8, 9 and 10 – Objections and Appeals, Miscellaneous Notices and Enforcement

These parts establish provisions for ensuring rights of appeal and objection as well as enforcement of the local law by the City through notices, creation of offences and infringement penalties.

 

Repealed Local Laws

The current Bylaws relating to the Depositing and Removal of Refuse, Rubbish, Litter and Disused Materials  1978 and Building By-laws – Numbering of Houses 1955 are also repealed as they are obsolete and covered by various provisions in other written laws.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed local law will provide a modern approach to the treatment of activities in thoroughfares and trading in public places consistent with the rest of the State. It will also update the penalties applicable to breaches of the local law and confirm the ability to regulate fees through the fees and charges process. For these reasons it is recommended that the Council commence the law-making process.

 

OPTIONS

 

In addition to the Officer’s recommendations (as per Officer Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 below), Council has the following alternative options regarding the regulation of thoroughfares and trading:

 

Option 1

                                              

Not to proceed with the local law process and rely on the current local laws to regulate activities within the district. However, given the statutory requirement to review local laws every 8 years, and the somewhat outdated nature of the current local laws, it is recommended that the Council initiate a review of the current local laws.

 

Option 2

 

Council could choose to vary the provisions of the proposed local law in any number of ways. This is, however, the form of local law recommended at this stage for the reasons stated in the report. There will be further opportunity for making changes to the proposed local law following advertising and consultation, provided the changes are not significantly different from what is currently proposed. If any changes are of a significant nature the amended proposed local law would need to be re-advertised.

      

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION

 

Within two weeks of the Council decision to commence the law-making process, the proposed local law will be advertised for public comment. The statutory consultation period is a minimum of six weeks and following the close of the advertising period a report will be submitted to the Council for further consideration which, depending on the number and nature of submissions received, could be within three months.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

 (1)      That the Council commences the law-making process, for the City of Busselton Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2014, the purpose and effect of the local law being as follows:

 

Purpose: To consolidate and make one law relating to activities in thoroughfares and trading in thoroughfares and public places.

 

Effect: Some activities are prohibited and some activities are permitted only under permit on thoroughfares and public places.

 

(2)       That Council authorises the CEO to carry out the law-making procedure under section 3.12(3) of the Local Government Act, by -

(i)        giving Statewide public notice and local public notice of the proposed local law; and

(ii)       giving a copy of the proposed local law and public notice to the Minister for Local Government.

 

(3)       That the CEO, after the close of the public consultation period, submits a report to the Council on any submissions received on the proposed local law to enable the Council to consider the submissions made and to determine whether to make the local law in accordance with section 3.12(4) of the Act.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      23                                                         24 September 2014

10.3           Policy and Legislation Committee - 21/08/2014 - REVIEW OF DELEGATIONS TO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OTHER OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES

SUBJECT INDEX:

Development Services and Policy

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Governance systems that deliver responsible, ethical and accountable decision-making.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Services and Policy

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Development Services - Anthony Rowe

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Existing Delegations

Attachment b    Replacement Delegations

Attachment c    Report Schedule  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 21 August 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

Endorsement of the recommendation of this report will amend or replace various delegations presently applicable to the City’s administration of its development planning and building control responsibilities, to align with and be empowered by the City’s new Local (Town) Planning Scheme 21.

 

This report also establishes a new reporting framework to provide Councillors oversight over the delegated authority and the performance of the City in terms of customer service and the attainment of strategic objectives as provided by the City’s Development Services and Policy functions.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Current delegations under Local (Town) Planning Scheme 20, will no longer be valid upon the commencement of the City’s new Local (Town) Planning Scheme 21.

 

The City has not undertaken a comprehensive review of its delegations, affecting its Development Services and Policy functions, since the introduction of its District Town Planning Scheme No 20, Gazetted 7 September 1999.  It has nonetheless made many minor refinements most notably to align with the introduction of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and recently the Building Act 2011.

 

The intended outcome of this review is to maintain the current delegation setting and approach, only to recast and reassign these delegations consistent with the terms of the City’s new Local (Town) Planning Scheme 21.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The following list of statutory items is not comprehensive, but reflects the most frequently encountered, and current, statutory items.

 

The following statutes identified and comments made are relevant to framing the delegations set.

 

Local Government Act 1995

 

Section 5.42 enables the Council to delegate the powers and duties conferred to local government, with the exception of the items listed in s.5.43.

 

An absolute majority of Council is required to approve the delegation of responsibility.

 

The delegation may be general or as otherwise provided in the instrument of delegation.

Section 5.42 (b) explicitly provides that Council may delegate, Planning and Development Act 2005 section 214(2), (3) and (5).  These sections (214(2), (3) and (5)) relate to planning enforcement and only to the act of issuing an interim order and the directions required for remedy of an unauthorised development.

 

Planning and Development Act 2005

 

Section 90 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 establishes a hierarchy of legislation and subordinate legislation. 

 

Section 162, Planning and Development Act 2005 provides that no development should be undertaken except with approval where described by the Scheme.

 

The Planning and Development Act 2005 delegates the approval of land divisions to the WAPC.  The WAPC is also given the power sub delegate to the local government, currently Strata assessments.

 

The Planning and Development Act 2005 also prescribes developments with a value greater than $7 million must be determined by a Development Assessment Panel. 

 

City of Busselton Local (Town) Planning Scheme 21

 

The City of Busselton Local (Town) Planning Scheme 21 at Clause 12.2, enables delegation of any powers and duties under the Scheme to the CEO, together with an expressed ability for the CEO to sub delegate to other officers.  Potentially everything, but the power to delegate to the CEO itself, can be delegated.  It also facilitates retention of powers by the City through exemptions or conditions that can be made in the delegation.

 

The new Scheme, consistent with section 5.45 and 5.46 of the Local Government Act 1995, requires that delegations have effect for the time specified or until revoked, that a register of delegations is to be kept, and that delegations are to be reviewed annually.

 

Building Act 2011

 

Section 127(1) of the Building Act 2011, provides that local government is a permit authority that may delegate all its powers to the CEO.  Section 127(6A) of the Building Act 2011 enables the CEO to sub delegate any power or duty of the City under the Act, subject to prescribed qualifications.  The Act prescribes essential qualifications of persons and only these persons are empowered to make determinations under the Act. 

 

Liquor Control Act 1988

 

Section 40 requires local government as planning authority to certify whether a premises complies with planning laws.  The authority to delegate to the CEO is in turn provided by the general application of Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995.

 

Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003

 

Section 58 of the Motor Repairers Act requires the local government as the planning authority to certify whether the proposed use of the premises will be permitted under the written laws relating to planning in its area. The authority to delegate to the CEO is in turn provided by the general application of Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

This review of delegations clarifies authorisations in the conduct of existing policies.  It does not change any City policy.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The City presently provides extensive delegation with regard to its Development Services and Policy functions.  The focus of this review is efficiency, accountability and alignment to the new Scheme 21, working within existing resources. 

 

There are no adverse financial implications that would result from the officer recommendation in this report.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Officer’s recommendation of this report reflects Community Objective 5.2 of the Strategic Community Plan 2013;

 

“Growth is managed sustainably and our environment is protected and enhanced as we develop.”

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment identifies ‘downside’ risks only, rather than ‘upside’ risks as well. Risks are only identified where the residual risk, once controls are identified, is ‘medium’ or greater.

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

Decision made under delegation inconsistent with Council or community views.

 

Ensure there is clarity and certainty of responsibility in expressed delegations and authorisation, and ensure regular and meaningful communication with the Council.

Major

 

Possible

 

 

High

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

Regard has been given to the Department of Local Government Operational Guidelines Number 17 – Delegations.

 

The author has consulted with the Department of Local Government and the West Australian Local Government Association and the West Australian Department of Planning.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The purpose of delegation is both one of efficiency and good governance as well as ensuring a high level of customer service.  Accountability is an important part of good delegation practice, aside from a minimum report requirement.  The following section is therefore divided into two parts.  Part A addresses the rationale leading to a new set of delegations for Development Services, and Part B describes a new reporting structure.

 

PART A -              Rationale for a new set of delegations for Development Services

 

Delegating Scheme 21

 

Scheme 21 will replace Scheme 20 and because of this a new set of delegations specific to Scheme 21 is required.

 

The City’s Scheme 20 described that any delegation that was made by Council was direct to individual officers, it did not provide for sub-delegation.  As a consequence the delegations listed each officer’s position to whom the Council had directly delegated its responsibility.

 

The City’s new Scheme 21 facilitates delegation of all powers and duties under the Scheme to the CEO, who may then sub-delegate to another officer, including a person and not just a position.  This is the model that applies in most town planning schemes.

 

There is now an opportunity to assign delegations broadly to the CEO, and by sub-delegation from the CEO, narrowly and dynamically to an officer commensurate with the skills and responsibility expected of their position.  This is an advantage over the arrangement of Scheme 20, as it enables greater accuracy in effective delegation and changes can be made immediately as people and positions change or as trends emerge requiring a higher sophistication of assessment.

 

Following a Separation of Powers

 

The proposed delegations for Scheme 21 have followed the concept of Separation of Powers; namely to retain the primacy of Council in the endorsement of Policy (guiding the future development of the City) or regarding significant financial decisions i.e. agreements. 

 

Decisions to be retained by Council are listed under Exemptions in TPD1.

 

The proposed approach is to assign to the CEO, broadly in the first instance, with exceptions consistent with a Separation of Powers model.  The CEO’s sub-delegation to officers can then be specific and tailored to the responsibility and position level of the delegator’s job description and overall competence.  This provides greater certainty and an ability to match and manage risk to appropriate levels of experience.

 

Importantly, the proposed delegation to the CEO retains the ability for the CEO to exercise discretion to return matters to the Council. 

 

Delegation subject to certain conditions

 

TDP 1 also includes under Conditions the parameters for certain matters to be circulated to Councillors’ providing an opportunity to “call in” for a Council decision. There are no changes proposed to those conditions.

 

General refinements

 

Aside from changes required by the implementation of Scheme 21, this also provides an opportunity to rationalise, make corrections and ensure an appropriate scope of delegation relating to other associated Acts.  These are summarised below:

 

§  Broaden the delegation to the CEO under the Building Act 2011 and by sub delegation reinstating the delegation of R-Code assessments to Building Surveyors, which addresses an inadvertent deletion with the introduction of the Building Act 2011.

§  Update terminology to reflect the Liquor Control Act 1988 and template presentation.  Replace LL1 With LCA1.

 

§  Update STRATA 1 to clarify the delegation is from the WAPC to Council, and revise presentation of Template.  Preplace STRATA 1 with STA 1.

 

§  Rationalise all delegations affecting the Planning Scheme into one delegation TDP1.  Replace TPD 2 and TPD3 with an expanded TPD1.

 

§  TPD4 addresses the clearance of subdivision conditions but this is unnecessary as it is administrative and an internal work process that is not delegated from Council.  Delete TPD4.

 

§  Make explicit Council, as the responsible planning authority, has delegated the assessment and issue of a certificate of compliance pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003.  New delegation MVA1.

 

PART 2  Accountability and Reporting

 

An advantage of delegation is that it provides the time for Council to separate itself from individual decisions and take an overview approach to formulate policy and monitor outcomes to align with its goals.  Integral to delegation, and the ability to refine policy is an effective monitoring and reporting framework.  The following arrangement is recommended to support the recommended delegations for Scheme 21.

 

Current arrangements

 

Councillors are presently informed by the fortnightly Councillor Information Bulletin about delegated decisions, and delegations are reviewed annually.  The City also receives half yearly performance reports against KPIs. In addition, generally on a monthly basis Councillors are given an informal, verbal briefing on development proposals that are considered likely to be controversial or be of significant community interest.

 

Proposed Arrangement

 

A reliable reporting framework, articulating the exercise of delegations and service performance is suggested.  Information that provides the context of the relationship between individual decisions to that of the City’s projected growth target and long term financial plan is also suggested to highlight areas where policy refinement may be required. 

 

A proposed arrangement, and its features and purpose is described as follows:

 

Monthly CIB – (No narrative)

 

*        Delegated decisions, and policy responses made (invitation and response).

 

*        Scheme Amendment status.

 

*        SAT appeal status.

 

*        (Confidential) Notices issued and legal proceedings.

 

Purpose         - to provide City accountability in the exercise of delegations and the progress of issues that had been subject of Council determination.

Output – Table.

 

Quarterly – (Performance Assessment narrative)

 

*        On time performance % Planning and % Building, approved against the statutory and City target, comparing the previous 8 quarters.

 

*        Building permits issued, percentage new dwellings, commercial and alterations, comparing the previous 8 quarters.

 

*        Subdivision status, illustrating the ratio of approved lots, against vacant lots available.

 

Purpose      - to provide accountability for the efficient administration of the Planning and Building Acts. 

 

          to provide a quarterly snap shot of progress against City rates of growth indicators for various development types.

 

Output – Graphs, DA Briefing.

 

It is also envisaged that informed briefings, generally on a monthly basis would continue.

 

Annually – (Performance Assessment narrative)

 

Additional dwellings added, compared to the previous 5 years.

 

Additional allotments added, compared to the previous 5 years.

 

Value of buildings approved, compared to the previous 5 years and CPI.

 

Median house price and median allotment price Busselton and Perth, compared to the previous 5 years.

 

Available allotment stock, Busselton and (4) key centres SW, and Perth compared to the previous 5 years. 

 

Change in property ownership, compared to the previous 5 years.

 

Prosperity Index Perth and Busselton, compared to the previous 5 years.

 

Purpose      - to provide analysis of the year against growth targets and the effectiveness of desired rate of growth policy initiatives, and implications for the long term financial plan (a continuous improvement model).

 

Output – Graphs, Report, Council Briefing.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed delegations provide an appropriate authority for delegated determination of decisions that the City needs to make under the Planning and Development Act 1995 and the Building Act 2011 and associated legislation, essentially replicating the existing approach. To ensure a continued ability to cope with sustained high levels of development activity, it is imperative that current, high levels of delegation are maintained. It takes substantially longer to make decisions through Council processes (ordinarily, at least one month needs to be added to the decision-making timeframe), and the amount of staff time and resources involved with decision-making by the Council is typically several times that involved with delegated decisions. In particular, decision-making by the Council requires the involvement of senior staff (Director in particular), and prevents those senior staff from applying their time to strategic planning, staff management and development, and operational/process improvements – all of which have much greater potential benefit for the community as a whole than does involvement in decision-making on individual development proposals.

 

OPTIONS

 

1.            Accept the Officer Recommendation.

2.            Accept the Officer Recommendation subject to amendments.

3.            Accept the Officer Recommendation subject to the inclusion in TPD1, as a conditional exemption in Determination of Applications, the listing of Transportable and Relocated Building, as a class of development to be determined either by the Council, or under delegation only once a referral procedure similar to that required for applications for reconsideration has occurred. As there is not suitable, standard definition of ‘transportable’ or ‘relocated’, those concepts would need to be appropriately defined, but the legal clarity required for those terms as a limit on delegation would be less than what would be required to properly define those terms in a town planning scheme.

4.            Reject.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The delegations contained within the Officers Recommendation are to become effective from the date of Gazettal of City of Busselton Local (Town) Planning Scheme 21.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council, effective as of the date that the City of Busselton Local (Town) Planning Scheme 21 comes into force:

 

1.         Revokes the following existing delegations

a)    BA 1

b)    STRATA 1

c)    TPD 1

d)    TPD 2

e)    TPD 3

f)     TPD 4

 

2.         Delegates to the CEO of the City of Busselton the instruments of delegation contained within Attachment B being:

2.1.     To undertake the powers of the local government pursuant to the Building Act 2011, under s.127 and to appoint authorised persons under s.96;

 

2.2.     To undertake the powers and duties of local government under cl 12.2 of the City of Busselton Local (Town) Planning Scheme 21;

 

2.3.     To issue certificates of compliance with planning laws, under Section 40 of the Liquor Control Act 1988;

 

2.4.     To issue certificates of compliance with planning laws, under Section 58(2) the Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003; and

 

2.5.     To issue a certificate of approval under s.25 of the Strata Titles Act 1985, as delegated by the WAPC.

 

3.         Amends the City Delegation Register to reflect 1 and 2.

 

4.       Adopts the report schedule as identified in Attachment C.

 

 


Council                                                                                      23                                                         24 September 2014

10.4           Finance Committee - 4/09/2014 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY – INVESTMENTS (218)

SUBJECT INDEX:

Financial Operations

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and IT Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

REPORTING OFFICER:

Financial Compliance Officer - Jeffrey Corker

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Currently adopted Investment Policy (V8)  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 4 September 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Council’s Investment Policy (218) was last reviewed in June 2012. It is proposed to make two amendments to the Policy to enhance its functionality, whilst maintaining legislative compliance. The subject amendments relate to the deletion of the three year rolling average balance requirement, and also the deletion of the reference in relation to the domiciling of the 11am ‘on-call’ account.           

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Council’s Investment Policy (218) was last before the Council in June 2012. Pursuant to an amendment to the Local Government Act (the Act) prescribing limitations on the institutions that local governments can invest with and the types of investment products that can be used by local governments, the Policy required amendment to reflect these legislative changes. The amended Policy was endorsed by the Council (C1206/154) at this time.

 

In March 2008, the Council resolved (C0803/085) to reword a section of the Policy (Section 1.8) relating to the Base Total Investment Portfolio for Percentage Calculations. This change was instigated at a time when the total balance of funds held in the portfolio was increasing significantly from year to year, and when Council had access to a more expansive range of investment options than the under current restrictive legislative regime.

 

This report proposes further amendments to Section 1.8 of the Investment Policy. 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Act states that it is the role of the Council to determine the local government’s policies.

 

Section 6.14 of the Act refers to a local government’s power to invest.

 

Regulation 19C of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations refers to authorised investments.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

This report makes recommendations in respect of an existing Council Policy.


 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Open and Collaborative Leadership’ and particularly Community Objective 6.3 - ‘An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The primary risk in investing is the loss of Council funds. Legislative requirements have established very clear restrictions as to which investment options are available to Councils, and the Council’s Investment Policy complies with these requirements. The Investment Policy further mitigates risk through the requirement to spread funds across a number of institutions. Additionally, it limits exposure to individual institutions based upon their credit rating.

 

With the above controls in existence, coupled with monthly reporting to the Finance Committee on Investment performance and compliance with the Policy, it is considered that the risk of loss is acceptable; without the need for further treatment options.  

 

CONSULTATION

 

Not Applicable.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The Council’s current Investment Policy includes the following text as Section 1.8:

 

1.8          Base Total Investment Portfolio Value for Percentage Calculations

 

The base total Investment Portfolio value for all percentage calculations shall be set six monthly as at December 31 and June 30, based upon the average of all investments held for the previous 3 years. The value of any funds held in the 11am type account held with the City’s major banker shall be excluded when verifying compliance with the policy.

 

It is proposed that Section 1.8 be amended to the following:

 

1.8          Base Total Investment Portfolio Value for Percentage Calculations

 

The value of any funds held in an 11am type account, being one that offers higher interest rates than a standard cheque account but maintains same day access to funds; shall be excluded when verifying compliance with this policy.

 

The revision will impact upon the Council’s Investment portfolio in two ways.

 

Firstly, the current clause requires that the base total Investment Portfolio value for all percentage calculations is to be set six monthly based upon an average of all investments held for the previous 3 years. This was included at a time when the total value of Councils funds available for investment was growing rapidly from year to year. This has now stabilised. As the Total value of the Council’s funds available within the year swings widely, from the highs available at the conclusion of the main rating period to the lows experienced at end of the financial year; the linking of the percentages to a three year average impedes investment functionality. The three year average may be significantly different to the value of the funds held at a point in time, and therefore may allow for a significantly different spread of investments than were the base value simply the current available funds.

 

Contrary to that time, the range of investments available to the Council under today’s legislative restrictions is very narrow, being generally restricted to term deposits of no more than 12 months or Government guaranteed bonds. Accordingly, the options available as to where to invest funds are extremely limited; unlike at the time the clause was included. Limits remain in the Policy as to the value of funds which can be invested with a bank based upon its rating; however the limit will be based upon current balances, not an historical average.

 

Secondly, the current clause requires an “11am type account held with the City’s major banker”. Looking forward, it may be favourable for the City to hold this bank account with a bank other than the bank through which we conduct our general day to day banking. Primarily, this would be due to an opportunity to access higher rates of return, while maintaining same day access to those funds. Accordingly, the reference to “held with the City’s major banker” is proposed to be deleted.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed changes to the Investment Policy will not alter the Council’s risk exposure. They will however improve the Policy’s functionality. Removing the three year rolling average requirement will remove an impediment to invest funds over the year as the balance of the portfolio undergoes normal operating fluctuations. Removing the reference to the City’s “11am style” bank account being held with the City’s general banker will allow for possible future relocation of this account should it be found to be in the Council’s favour.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Finance Committee may determine to recommend alternative revisions to the Investment Policy for the Council’s formal consideration. However, it is essential that the policy remains compliant with the requirements of the Act and associated Regulations.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The revised Policy will become effective immediately upon the Council’s determination. No changes to the prevailing investment portfolio are required as a result of this amendment.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council adopts the following Investment Policy, to the replace the existing Investment Policy:

 

218

Investment

V9

 

STATEMENT

 

The principal objective of the Council in respect of the investment of surplus credit funds is the preservation of capital. Whilst a conservative approach is to be adopted with regards to investment decisions, the maximisation of returns within the confines of the policy guidelines is also encouraged.

 

This policy details the relevant authorities for investment, the nature and type of investments that can be entered into, institution exposure limits, investment performance benchmarks and associated reporting requirements. 

 

PURPOSE

 

This policy provides specific guidelines for the Council, Chief Executive Officer and relevant employees of the City of Busselton in respect of the investment of surplus funds that are not immediately required for any other purpose.

 

Compliance with this policy will ensure prudency in the preservation of capital, whilst promoting the maximisation of investment returns within the policy guidelines.        

 

SCOPE

 

As part of its core financial operations, the City of Busselton is positioned to invest surplus funds not immediately required for any other purpose; in order to add value through increased investment returns. The nature of funds available for investment includes Reserves, other restricted funds (e.g. contributions, bonds etc) and general revenue funds in excess of immediate cash-flow requirements. Investment earnings assist in augmenting reserve balances and also supplementing other general revenue streams.

 

Whilst the revenue associated with investment earnings represents an important component of the City’s funding sources, the Council has identified the preservation of investment capital as a principal objective; and as such, investment decisions must primarily align with this objective.

 

Whilst this policy reflects the Council’s capital preservation objective, it also provides sufficient flexibility to assist in the maximisation of investment returns within the defined investment types and associated exposure limits.

 

DEFINITIONS

 

“ADI” – Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADI’s) are corporations that are authorised under the Banking Act 1959 to take deposits from customers.

 

“APRA” – Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) is the prudential regulator of the Australian financial services industry. It oversees banks, credit unions, building societies, general insurance companies and most members of the superannuation industry. 

 

“Austraclear” - The Austraclear System, which is regulated by the Reserve Bank, simplifies settlement complexities and enhances straight-through-processing (STP), office integration and cross border opportunities to facilitate the registering, bookkeeping, clearing and settlement of a broader range of derivative, security and cash asset classes.

 

“Big four” Bank – For the purposes of this policy, the Australian “Big four” banks comprise the Commonwealth Bank, the National Australia Bank, Westpac and ANZ Bank.  

 

“Counterparty” – A counterparty is both the legal and financial term that refers to the other individual or institution to an agreement or contract. 

 

“Custodian – Safe Custody” - A custodian is a brokerage or other financial institution that holds and manages securities, or other assets, on behalf of an investor.

 

“Rating Agency” – Credit rating agencies such as Standard and Poors (S & P) are professional organisations that provide opinion on the general credit worthiness of an obligor with respect to particular debt security or other financial obligations.     

 

 

POLICY CONTENT

               

1.1          Objectives

 

§ The purpose of this policy is to establish the investment risk management guidelines that the City of Busselton adopts in investing surplus funds that are not immediately required for any other purpose.

§ The principal objective of this policy is the preservation of capital (Security).

§ To take a conservative approach to investments, but with a focus to add value through prudent investment of funds (Security).

§ To achieve a high level of security by using recognised ratings criteria (Security).

§ To maintain an adequate level of diversification (Security).

§ To have ready access to funds for day-to-day requirements (Liquidity).

§ To ensure compliance with appropriate legislative requirements (Compliance).

 

1.2          Authority for Investment

 

All investments are to be made in accordance with:

§ Local Government Act 1995 – Section 6.14 and any regulations made under that Act including the following;

§ Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 – Regulation 19C

§ The Trustees Act 1962 – Part III Investments as amended by the Trustees Amendment Act 1997.

 

1.3          Delegation of Authority

 

The Chief Executive Officer is authorised to invest surplus funds in accordance with this policy.   

 

1.4          Authorised Investments

 

All investments must be denominated in Australian Dollars.  Authorised Investments are limited to those permitted by the appropriate legislation, being:

With an Authorised institution, being:

a.    An authorised deposit taking institution as defined in the Banking Act 1959 (Commonwealth) section 5; or

b.    The Western Australian Treasury Corporation established by the Western Australian Treasury Corporation Act 1986;

A Bond that is guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government, or a State or Territory Government;

 

1.5          Investment Guidelines – Credit Quality, Diversification and Term to Maturity Constraints

 

(i)            Portfolio Credit Framework

 

The portfolio credit guidelines to be adopted will be based on the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) ratings system criteria. The maximum available limits in each rating category is reflected in the below table.

 

(ii)           Counterparty/Institution Credit Framework

 

Exposure to individual counterparties/financial institutions will be restricted by their S&P rating so that single entity exposure is limited, as detailed in the below table.

 

 

 

Credit Ratings
(Standard & Poor’s or equivalent)

Individual Institution Limits

Overall Portfolio

Credit Limits

Long Term

Credit Ratings

Short Term                  Credit Ratings

 

Maximum Percentage

With One Financial

Institution

Maximum Weighting as % of Total Investment
Portfolio

AAA (All Aus. ADI)

A-1+

40%

100%

AA (Aus. "Big four" Bank)

A-2

40%

100%

AA (Other Aus. ADI)

A-2

20%

100%

A (All Aus. ADI)

A-2

15%

60%

BBB (All Aus ADI)

A-3

10%

20%

 

(iii)          Term to maturity Framework

 

Legislation restricts the term to maturity for a deposit with an ADI to a maximum term of 12 months, and a Bond to a maximum term of 3 years. The investment portfolio is to be invested with the following term to maturity constraints:

 

Overall Portfolio Term to Maturity Limits

Duration

Maximum

Portfolio % < 1Year

100%

Portfolio % > 1 Year < 3 Years

20%

 

1.6          Credit Ratings

 

If any of the City’s investments are downgraded such that they no longer fall within these investment policy guidelines, they will be divested as soon as is practicable.

 

1.7          Accounting for Premiums and Discounts

 

From time to time financial assets may be acquired at a discount or premium to their face value. Any such discount or premium is to be taken into account in line with relevant Australian Accounting Standards.  

 

1.8          Base Total Investment Portfolio Value for Percentage Calculations

 

The value of any funds held in an 11am type account, being one that offers higher interest rates than a standard cheque account but maintains same day access to funds; shall be excluded when verifying compliance with this policy.

 

1.9          Safe Custody Arrangements

 

Where necessary, investments may be held in safe custody on the City’s behalf, as long as the following criteria are met:

 

·    The City must retain beneficial ownership of all investments.

·    Adequate documentation is provided, verifying the existence of the investments.

·    The Custodian conducts regular reconciliation of records with relevant registries and/or clearing systems.

·    The Institution or Custodian recording and holding the assets will be:

Austraclear or;

An institution with an investment grade Standards and Poors or Moody’s rating or;

An institution with adequate insurance, including professional indemnity insurance and other insurances considered prudent and appropriate to cover its liabilities under any agreement.

 

1.10   General

 

The City of Busselton will not make ill-informed or unpredictable investment decisions, be engaged in overly speculative investments, or invest other than in compliance with the relevant legislation.

 

1.11        Reporting

 

(i)           A report will be provided to the Council on monthly basis as a minimum, detailing the investment portfolio in terms of performance and counterparty percentage exposure of total portfolio. The report will also detail investment income earned versus budget year to date and confirm compliance of the City’s investments within legislative and policy limits.

(ii)          For audit purposes, certificates must be obtained from the banks/fund managers/custodian confirming the amounts of investment held on the City’s behalf at 30th June each year.

 

Policy Reference No. - 218

Owner Unit – Finance

Originator – Manager, Finance and Information Technology

Policy approved by – Council

Date Approved – 27 June, 2012

Review Frequency – As required

Related Documents – Nil

Background/History –

 

History

 

Council Resolution

Date

Information

C1206/154

27 June, 2012

New regulations needed to be recognised in the policy.  The City’s existing investment portfolio was already fully compliant with the amended legislation. The portfolio currently consists totally of term deposits held with complying banks for maximum terms of nine months. Therefore, only the wording of the actual investment policy required amendment, and not where funds are held. The revised policy removes all reference to any other forms of investment other than those permitted under the revised legislation. It also regulates the term of those investments to reflect the legislative requirements. Finally, reference to the appropriate sections of the revised legislation has been inserted.

Version 8

C1111/280

14 September, 2011

Increase to the maximum allocation at any one financial institution

Version 7

C1001/021

27 January, 2010

Council resolved to review the investment policy to change its approach to investment in managed funds

Version 6

C0905/176

27 May, 2009

Council resolved to remove any reference to all references to Diversified Funds (non-credit-rated).

Version 5

C0803/085

12 March, 2008

Council resolved to reword the section of the policy relating to the Base Total Investment Portfolio for Percentage Calculations.

Version 4

 

Wording of former Clause

1.8      Base Total Investment Portfolio Value for Percentage Calculations

The base total Investment Portfolio value for all percentage calculations shall be set six monthly as at December 31 and June 30, based upon the average of all Investments held for the previous 3 years.

 

C0702/040

28 February, 2007

Former investment policy 218/1 (V2) revoked in favour of a new investment policy 218/2.

Version 3

C994/012

14 April, 1999

Update to investment strategy and policy.

Version 2

 

 

Version 1

 

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      31                                                         24 September 2014

10.5           Finance Committee - 4/09/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 JULY 2014

SUBJECT INDEX:

Budget Planning and Reporting

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Finance and Information Technology - Darren Whitby

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Financial Activity Statements – Period Ending 31 July 2014  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 4 September 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

Pursuant to Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act (‘the Act’) and Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations (‘the Regulations’), a local government is to prepare, on a monthly basis, a statement of financial activity that reports on the City’s financial performance in relation to its adopted/ amended budget.

 

This report has been compiled to fulfil the statutory reporting requirements of the Act and associated Regulations, whilst also providing the Council with an overview of the City’s financial performance on a year to date basis for the period ending 31 July 2014.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Regulations detail the form and manner in which financial activity statements are to be presented to the Council on a monthly basis; and are to include the following:

 

§   Annual budget estimates

§   Budget estimates to the end of the month in which the statement relates

§   Actual amounts of revenue and expenditure to the end of the month in which the statement relates

§   Material variances between budget estimates and actual revenue/ expenditure/ (including an explanation of any material variances)

§   The net current assets at the end of the month to which the statement relates (including an explanation of the composition of the net current position)

 

Additionally, and pursuant to Regulation 34(5) of the Regulations, a local government is required to adopt a material variance reporting threshold in each financial year. At its meeting of 30 July 2014, the Council adopted (C1407/190) the following material variance reporting threshold for the 2014/15 financial year:

 

That pursuant to Regulation 34(5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations, the Council adopts a material variance reporting threshold with respect to financial activity statement reporting for the 2014/15 financial year to comprise variances equal to or greater than 10% of the year to date budget amount as detailed in the Income Statement by Nature and Type/ Statement of Financial Activity report, however variances due to timing differences and/ or seasonal adjustments are to be reported on a quarterly basis.  

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations detail the form and manner in which a local government is to prepare financial activity statements.    

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

NA.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Any financial implications are detailed within the context of this report.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Open and Collaborative Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.3 - ‘An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community’. The achievement of the above is underpinned by the Council strategy to ‘ensure the long term financial sustainability of Council through effective financial management’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Risk assessments have been previously completed in relation to a number of ‘higher level’ financial matters, including timely and accurate financial reporting to enable the Council to make fully informed financial decisions. The completion of the monthly Financial Activity Statement report is a treatment/ control that assists in addressing this risk.   

 

CONSULTATION

 

NA.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

In order to fulfil statutory reporting requirements, and to provide the Council with a synopsis of the City’s overall financial performance on a year to date basis, the following financial reports are attached hereto:

 

§   Statement of Financial Activity

This report provides details of the City’s operating revenues and expenditures on a year to date basis, by nature and type (i.e. description). The report has been further extrapolated to include details of non-cash adjustments and capital revenues and expenditures, to identify the City’s net current position; which reconciles with that reflected in the associated Net Current Position report.

 

§   Net Current Position

This report provides details of the composition of the net current asset position on a year to date basis, and reconciles with the net current position as per the Statement of Financial Activity.

 

§   Capital Acquisition Report

This report provides year to date budget performance (by line item) in respect of the following capital expenditure activities: 

o    Land and Buildings

o    Plant and Equipment

o    Furniture and Equipment

o    Infrastructure

 

§   Reserve Movements Report

This report provides summary details of transfers to and from reserve funds, and also associated interest earnings on reserve funds, on a year to date basis. 

 

§   Reserve Transfers to Municipal Fund

This report provides specific detail in respect of expenditures being funded from reserves.  

 

Additional reports and/ or charts are also provided as required to further supplement the information comprised within the statutory financial reports.

 

COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ACTIVITY TO 31 JULY 2014

 

Historically, significant variances are evident in most revenue and expenditure categories during the early part of each financial year. With this in mind, this initial monthly report will not make any specific commentary on individual variances, which are predominantly due to timing differences. However, the report does list, for information purposes, those activities where the 10% reporting threshold has been exceeded (irrespective of timing matters).    

 

Operating Activity

 

§   Operating Revenue

 

As at 31 July 2014, there is a variance of -44% in total operating revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Rates

-98%

Nominal

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

+362%

+$122

Fees and Charges

-51%

-$549

Other Revenue

+66%

+$23

Interest Earnings

-44%

-$88

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

-55%

-$497

 

§   Operating Expenditure

 

As at 31 July 2014, there is a variance of -23% in total operating expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Materials and Contracts

-75%

-$1,201

Depreciation on Non-current Assets

+19%

+$164

Insurance Expenses

-15%

-$74

Other Expenditure

-41%

-$117

Allocations

-57%

-$95

 

 

 

 

 

Capital Activity

 

§   Capital Revenue

 

As at 31 July 2014, there is a variance of -22% in total capital revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Proceeds from the Sale of Assets

-69%

-$48

Transfers from Restricted Assets

-10%

-$28

 

§   Capital Expenditure

 

As at 31 July 2014, there is a variance of -36% in total capital expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold: 

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Land and Buildings

+87%

+$246

Plant and Equipment

-99%

-$183

Furniture and Equipment

-94%

-$33

Infrastructure

-80%

-$728

Transfers to Restricted Assets

-30%

-$26

 

The attachments to this report include detailed listings of the following capital expenditure (project) items, to assist in reviewing specific variances:

§   Land and Buildings

§   Plant and Equipment

§   Furniture and Equipment

§   Infrastructure

 

BUDGET VARIATIONS AND OTHER ‘KNOWNS’

 

Nil.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Significant variances are not unusual in the very early part of each financial year, with this primarily due to budget timing differences , coupled with an increased tendency for higher variances to occur based on ‘lesser’ year to date budget allocations. In reviewing the financial performance to the end of July, the major variances are all primarily attributable to timing differences, or in some instances, earlier than projected revenue receipts.       

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may determine not to receive the statutory financial activity statement reports.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

NA.

 

 

COMMITTEE DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council receives the statutory financial activity statement reports for the period ending 31 July 2014, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      39                                                         24 September 2014

10.6           Finance Committee - 4/09/2014 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – JULY 2014

SUBJECT INDEX:

Financial Operations

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Finance and Information Technology - Darren Whitby

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   List of Payments Made – July 2014  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 4 September 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report provides details of payments made from the City’s bank accounts for the month of July 2014, for noting by the Council and recording in the Council Minutes.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations require that when the Council has delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make payments from the City’s bank accounts, that a list of payments made is prepared each month for presentation to, and noting by, the Council.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 6.10 of the Local Government Act and more specifically, Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations; refer to the requirement for a listing of payments made each month to be presented to the Council. 

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

NA.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

NA.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Open and Collaborative Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.3 - ‘An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

NA. 

 

CONSULTATION

 

NA.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

NA.

 

CONCLUSION

 

NA.

 

OPTIONS

 

NA.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

NA.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council notes the payment of voucher numbers M109206 - M109448, EF035343 - EF035806, T007092 - T007096, and DD002233 - DD002247, together totalling $6,407,008.34.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      43                                                         24 September 2014

10.7           Finance Committee - 4/09/2014 - PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE BUDGET – RAILS-TO-TRAILS (WADANDI TRACK)

SUBJECT INDEX:

Budget planning and reporting; trails

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, leisure facilities and services.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Engineering and Facilities Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Development Control

REPORTING OFFICER:

Land and Infrastructure Officer - Andrew Scott

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Wandandi Track Interpretation elements

Attachment b    Plan of works for the Sandy Gully stage  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 4 September 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The City has been successful in securing two Lotterywest Grants for the Rails-to-Trails (Wadandi Track) project.  This report seeks the approval of the Council to accept the grants and to amend the 2014/15 Budget accordingly.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The steering committee for the Busselton to Flinders Bay Rail Trail project is progressing with the master plan for the construction of a 106km trail over the alignment of the former WA Government railway from the Busselton Jetty Precinct to the former jetty at Flinders Bay, Augusta.  The steering committee is working under the guidance of similar rails-to-trails policy as adopted by the respective Councils.

 

Reports that have been completed towards the master plan are: (a) trail development plan; (b) assessment of Aboriginal heritage; (c) environmental plans; (d) interpretation plan; (e) land report; (f) summary report; and (g) a business case.  The waterways report remains the outstanding report for the master plan and will be completed within the next few months.

 

On the recommendation of the steering committee, the respective Councils have endorsed a name for the rail trail, and it is now known as the ‘Wadandi Track’.  The Council of the City of Busselton has also endorsed the name ‘Kangaroo Gully Bridge’ for an old railway bridge located near the Busselton Bypass at a point where fauna is allowed to pass under the Bypass.  The project to reconstruct the bridge was funded by the Water Corporation, Seaport Pty Ltd (for the ‘Vasse Newtown’ subdivision) and Lotterywest; and is now complete.

 

City Officers are continuing to work with the developer of the ‘Vasse’ subdivision to progress the landscaping of the Wadandi Track section through the ‘Vasse Village Centre’.  The Vasse Village Centre is the location for a Wadandi Track trailhead; and it is at this location that a number of interpretation elements are proposed (refer to Attachment A) as per the Interpretation Plan for the Busselton to Flinders Bay Rail Trail (2013).  To progress with the detailed design of those interpretation elements, the City applied for a Lotterywest Interpretation Grant and was successful with this application.  The grant will also fund the manufacturing of the interpretation signage for the Vasse trailhead.  The design work from this stage will apply to the remainder of the Wadandi Track.

 

The City has also been successful in a Lotterywest Trails Grant application to part fund the construction of a stage of the Wadandi Track from Commerce Road to Cockerill Place, including a crossing over of Sandy Gully.  A plan of the proposed works is shown in Attachment B.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

·     Local Government Act 1995, section 6.8 ‘Expenditure from municipal fund that is not included in the annual budget’.  A resolution in advance of the expenditure is required by absolute majority.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

·     Council Policy 011 ‘Rails to Trails’

·     Long Term Financial Plan 2013/14 to 2022/23

·     Community Facilities Implementation Policy 2008, adopted 14 May 2008

·     Interpretation Plan for the Busselton to Flinders Bay Rail Trail (2013)

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Grant 1 - Lotterywest Interpretation Grant

 

This grant for $40,950 does not need to be matched by the City, thus its inclusion on 2014/15 budget will have no impact on the City’s net financial position.

 

The grant will be used for the detailed design of interpretation elements that will then be applied to the remainder of the Wadandi Track project.  It will also fund the manufacturing of interpretation signage for the Vasse trailhead.

 

Grant 2 – Lotterywest Trails Grant, Sandy Gully stage

 

The existing 2014/15 budget includes $100,000 for expenditure and $50,000 of grant revenue for the Rails to Trails project.  These amounts are consistent with the Long Term Financial Plan.

 

The City applied for a Lotterywest Trails Grant to fund 50% of the estimated total cost of $143,880 to construct the Sandy Gully stage of the Wadandi Track from Commerce Road to Cockerill Place.

 

Lotterywest approved the grant application and the City was successful in securing a grant for $71,940. To match the grant, and so the project can proceed, this report seeks the Council’s approval to access an additional $21,940 from the Community and Recreation Facilities Fund (refer below).  This will increase the City’s contribution to the project from the budgeted $50,000 to $71,940.

 

The Community and Recreation Facilities Fund

 

This report recommends drawing from Community and Recreation Facilities fund to match the additional grant revenue secured for the Sandy Gully stage of the Wadandi Track.  This fund is a Restricted Asset account made up of developer contributions for the provision of community facilities.

 

The Local Planning Policy ‘Community Facilities Implementation Policy (2008)’ document lists the community facilities to which development contributions may be directed.  The ‘Rails to Trails recreation trail’ is listed under Table 1 ‘ District Level Community Facilities’.

 

The appropriation of funds is in accordance with the Community Facilities Implementation Policy 2008 and supporting documents.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

Key goals

Community objectives

2. Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Place

2.1 A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, and leisure facilities and services.

 

2.2 A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections.

 

2.3 Infrastructure assets that are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Payment of the approved grants will be made in arrears and is subject to the grant conditions.  The City must therefore ensure that it complies with the grant conditions.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The trail development planning involved consultation with adjoining land owners and a section of the Trail Development Plan document covers the issues raised.

 

Most of the documents of the Trail Master Plan (trail development, interpretation, etc.) have been made available for public comment.   Forty four (44) submissions and a petition were received with most responses supportive of the trail development.  A more detailed analysis of the submissions and consultation will be provided in a separate report to the Council for consideration of the master plan.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Grant 1 Lotterwest Interpretation Grant

 

Referring to Attachment A, the Lotterywest Interpretation Grant will fund the detailed design of the interpretation elements for the Wadandi Track.  It will also fund the manufacturing of the trailhead entry signs, trailhead name sign and the interpretation boxes for the trailhead at Vasse.

 

Grant 2 Lotterywest Trail Construction Grant, Sandy Gully Stage

 

Referring to Attachment B, this grant will fund 50% of the construction of a stage of the Wadandi Track from Commerce Road to Cockerill Place, including a crossing over Sandy Gully.

 

CONCLUSION

 

This report recommends that the 2014/15 Budget is amended to include Lotterywest Grant funding for:

 

1.            Interpretation

2.            Trail construction for the Sandy Gully stage of the Wadandi Track between Commerce Road to Cockerill Place

 

This report recommends that additional approved grant funding is matched by the City through a transfer from the Community and Recreational Fund.

 

 

OPTIONS

 

This report recommends drawing $21,940 from the Community and Recreation Facilities Fund to match additional approved grant funding.  The Council may consider drawing the amount from a different account such as Infrastructure Development Reserve.

 

The Council may consider not proceeding with the rail-trail project but this would be inconsistent with Council Policy and long term planning objectives.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should the Council support the officer recommendation, the associated budget amendments will be processed accordingly.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council accepts the following grants and endorses the following budget amendments:

 

1.      Lotterywest Interpretation Grant  (application 421004446) for $40,950;

 

2.      Lotteryest Trails Grant  (application 421005748) for $71,940;

 

3.      Create a new cost code for the Rails-to-Trails Interpretation Grant as follows:

         Revenue $40,950 (to account string 510-C3124-1214-0000);

                Expenditure $40,950 (to account string 510-C3124-3280-0000);

 

4.      Add $21,940 to the existing $50,000 in budgeted revenue (account string 510 C3122 1214 0000);

 

5.      Add $43,880 to the existing $100,000 in budgeted expenditure (account string 510 C3122 3280 0000), including a transfer of $21,940 from the Community and Recreational Facilities fund.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      47                                                         24 September 2014

10.8           Airport Advisory Committee - 1/09/2014 - BUSSELTON REGIONAL AIRPORT - PROPOSAL FOR HELICOPTER PARKING AREA

SUBJECT INDEX:

Busselton Regional Airport

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Infrastructure assets are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Busselton Regional Airport

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Commercial Services - Jennifer May

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Proposed Helipad Site  

 

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 1 September 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report presents a proposal put forward by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services for an additional helicopter parking pad to be constructed at the Busselton Regional Airport (BRA). The proposal requests that the Council consider part funding the construction of the helipad to support the emergency services firefighting helicopters based at the Airport over the fire fighting season.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) first approached the City of Busselton in 2010 to base a single firefighting helicopter at the BRA for the 2010/11 firefighting season.  The inaugural season saw the helitac landing on a gravel area which caused issues with dust and debris (fod) caused by the downwash from the rotor blades. For the second firefighting season the City of Busselton, in support of the emergency services being located at the BRA, constructed a concrete helicopter landing site (HLS). Further to this, the City extended the asphalt surrounding the HLS, provided an airside gravel road for fuel tanker access and provided power to the HLS for a transportable to be located landside for the emergency helicopter crew.

 

The initial DFES contract for emergency services to be based at the BRA was for a three year period and in 2013 DFES re-tendered the National Aerial Firefighting Centre contract which was awarded to McDermotts Aviation for a period of three years with two, one year options. The new contractor as part of the contract has provided a second helicopter, Bell 214B and for the 2013/14 firefighting season, the two helicopters were co-located on the one HLS however this caused concerns with dust and fod downwash from the rotor blades of the helicopters as well as some minor damage to the asphalt from the helicopter skids.

 

With the 2014/15 firefighting season now approaching DFES have contacted City Officers asking if the City would consider a second helicopter parking pad to be located at the BRA. As the proposal is for a parking pad only and not a full landing site, the size of the required pad is significantly smaller hence minimising costs. An arrangement between DFES, the contractor and the City has been proposed with the City contributing a third of the total costs. 

 

City Officers have considered the proposed location of a second helipad and recommend that the pad be constructed to the north of the existing HLS. The two pads will need to be separated by a minimum distance of 40 m and there is sufficient land to the north to facilitate this. Officers have considered a position south of the existing HLS, towards the apron area, however this is likely to restrict apron expansion in the future or require the proposed new pad to be relocated sooner. Hence, in maximising the use of both the HLS and proposed pad the northern site is the preferred location (See Attachment A).

 

As part of the ongoing Stage 1 development of the BRA, an emergency precinct has been planned however this is dependent on external funding and if successful construction is not likely to start until at least 2016. Hence this proposal is considered appropriate and necessary to support the emergency services response until such time as an emergency services precinct is available.

 

The basing of the helitacs at the BRA has been fully supported by the City of Busselton in past years and seen as a long term strategic initiative to provide firefighting services to the whole of the South West Region. With the BRA being centrally located within the region, the basing of the second helitac demonstrates the importance of having the helitacs and emergency services capabilities based at the BRA to service the South West Region and not be dependent on Perth or Jandakot resources in the event of an emergency.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

This proposal requires compliance with CASA MOS139 Section 8.11 Helicopter landing Areas.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The City’s procurement policy will need to be complied with in the construction of the helipad; the Aerodrome Manual, Aerodrome Emergency Plan and Safety Management System will all need to be updated and submitted in accordance with CASA standards. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The City’s Construction Engineer has provided a quote for the supply of materials and construction of a concrete pad of six (6) metres by four (4) metres which will meet the standards of a helicopter parking area only. The total cost has been estimated at $11,500 (excl GST). This will require the City of Busselton to contribute a total of $3,833.33 which can be sourced from the Airport Operations maintenance budget, with the funds being sourced from other non-critical operational projects that had been planned. The remaining funds of $7,666.66 will be invoiced directly to DFES.

 

If supported an existing account code, C6007 Airport Helicopter Pad can be used for the project with an expenditure item of $11,500 and revenue item of $7,666.67 being created. The transfer of the City’s contribution to C6007 of $3,833.33 can be sourced from account 341-11151-3165.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Busselton Regional Airport and this project are consistent with following the City of Busselton’s strategic Objectives:

 

Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Places

 

– Infrastructure Assets that are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations.

 

– Connected City of Busselton Transport options that provide greater links within our district and increase capacity for community participation.

 


 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment sought to identify ‘downside’ risks only rather than ‘upside’ risks and where the risk, following implementation of controls, has been identified as medium or greater. No such risks were identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation with DFES, McDermotts Aviation, and Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has taken place. 

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The City of Busselton has continued to support the DFES helitac capability since the inaugural season in 2010/11. This has been both a financial and in-kind commitment to date, however the community service and emergency response achieved has outweighed the costs with the helitacs playing a critical role in the emergency response of the Busselton Fires, Margaret River and Nannup Fires, are part of the initial response of the Cape to Cape Emergency Strategy. The Busselton based helitacs can also be deployed to high areas of highest risk and as such were deployed to assist with the Perth (Parkerville) fires.    

 

There is no doubt that a second parking pad is required if DFES are to continue to base two helitacs at the BRA to ensure safe operations and to meet CASA safety standards. The proposed location for the helicopter parking pad does not restrict any future development plans for Stage 1 (or Stage 2) and with an immediate solution being required to support the coming firefighting seasons is viewed as an appropriate solution until an emergency precinct is constructed.

 

The City’s financial contribution to the proposed helicopter parking pad is $3,833.33 which can be sourced by making savings in other non-critical operational projects and hence no impact to the City’s bottom line.

   

CONCLUSION

 

City officers recommend that the Council support the proposal for a helipad parking pad to be constructed at the BRA in support of the DFES helicopter firefighting capability already based at the Airport. The proposed additional parking pad will enable the two helitacs to operate safely and reduce the risk of potential engine damage caused from rotor blade downwash.

 

OPTIONS

The Council chooses not to accept the Officers recommendation.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION

 

The DFES helitacs are planned to be based at the Busselton Airport from mid December 2014 for the start of the 2014/15 firefighting season.

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Airport Advisory Committee:

                                                                                                                                                         SIMPLE MAJORITY

 

1.      Supports the construction of an additional helicopter parking pad at the Busselton Regional Airport to the value of $11,500 , to facilitate the basing of emergency services at the Airport ;

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Airport Advisory Committee:

                                                                                         ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

2.    Creates an expenditure account of $11,500 and a revenue item of $7677.67 for C6007- Airport Helicopter Pad; and

 

3.    Transfer the City’s contributing amount of $3833.33 from account 341-11151-3165 to C6007.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      53                                                         24 September 2014

10.9           Airport Advisory Committee - 1/09/2014 - WATER CORPORATION LAND EXCHANGE AND SALE CONTRACT - RUNWAY EXTENSION BUSSELTON REGIONAL AIRPORT

SUBJECT INDEX:

Busselton Regional Airport Development

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A community that is well connected to its neighbours and the broader world.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Legal Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Legal Services Coordinator - Cobus Botha

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Area plan Lots 9001 & 1 Vasse Highway

Attachment b    Map showing Lot 55, Lindberg Road and Lot 57, Vasse Highway  

 

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 1 September 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The City of Busselton’s Busselton Regional Airport Master Plan 2011 – 2031 provides for the acquisition of land adjacent to Busselton Regional Airport for future stages of development of the airport.  The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the acquisition of a portion of land owned by Water Corporation which is required for the southern expansion of the airport’s existing runway and to exchange and transfer City owned land to Water Corporation to offset part of the City’s costs.

 

It is recommended that Council authorise the proposed land sale and exchange transaction.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

In 2011 Council adopted the Busselton Regional Airport Master Plan 2011 – 2031 (BRA Master Plan) to guide the process towards the development of Busselton Regional Airport (BRA) and preparation of a business case for State Government funding (Council resolution C1111/363).  The preferred development option under the BRA Master Plan is characterised by progressive upgrades in four distinct stages.  Under Stage 1, which is currently being implemented, provision is made for land acquisition in preparation for future stages.  Stage 2, with an indicative implementation date of 2014/15, provides, among other things, for an extension of BRA’s existing runway, lengthening it from its existing 1800m to 2300m (Runway Extension). As part of developing the City’s business case for the BRA development a southern Runway Extension was identified as an alternative to what is identified in the BRA Master Plan as it will reduce the acquisition requirements on the northern privately owned land and would contain the ownership of the land surrounding the airport on the southern end to the Vasse Highway by the City.

 

BRA is located at Lot 9001, Vasse Highway, Yalyalup (Airport Land). Due to the close proximity of the existing runway to the Airport Land’s southern boundary the Runway Extension will encroach on Lot 1, Vasse Highway owned by Water Corporation. Subsequently a triangular portion of Lot 1, approximately 11.3 hectares in extent (Water Corporation Land), is required for the Runway Extension (see Attachment A). The Water Corporation Land comprises of unimproved agricultural land currently being used for grazing and has been valued at $13,790 per hectare which is based on a valuation obtained by Water Corporation and has been confirmed to be in the range by independent valuers through the State Government’s business case process.

 

The City is the registered proprietor of Lot 55, Lindberg Road (2.1383 ha) and Lot 57, Vasse Highway (1.5783 ha)(City Land). Both these lots comprise of narrow unimproved slivers of land being used for drainage purposes as part of the Vasse River Diversion Drain system – see Attachment B.  As such the Water Corporation indicated its interest in acquiring the City Land to assist with the minimisation of costs. 

City officers entered into negotiations with Water Corporation with the view of acquiring the Water Corporation Land for purposes of the Runway Extension. Water Corporation indicated that it understands the regional significance of the proposed BRA expansion and offered to sell the Water Corporation Land to the City subject to certain conditions. Water Corporation also indicated that it would be willing to acquire the City Land at an equivalent per hectare rate to assist with minimising the City’s costs. These negotiations resulted in Water Corporation formally presenting the City with a Land Exchange and Sale Contract in terms of which it offers to sell the Water Corporation Land to the City on the following terms and conditions (note all amounts are exclusive of GST):

 

·    The Water Corporation Land is sold to the City for $155,827.00 (11.3 ha X $13,790 per hectare).

·    The City Land is sold to Water Corporation for $51,251 (2.1383 ha + 1.5783 ha X $13,790 per hectare) which is to be offset as partial payment of the amount payable to Water Corporation.

·    The final extent of the Water Corporation Land will be determined by a licensed surveyor which may result in a minor adjustment to the net purchase price.

·    The City has to pay a refundable deposit of $10,457.60 to Water Corporation within 5 days after the date of execution of the Land Exchange and Sale Contract.

·    The contract is conditional upon the Western Australian Planning Commission approving subdivision of Water Corporation’s Lot 1 (to create a separate title for the Water Corporation Land) and amalgamation of the Water Corporation Land with the Airport Land.

·    Settlement and registration of transfer of all subject land parcels to take place once subdivision approval has been obtained.

·    The balance purchase price ($104,576.00 – deposit) is payable by the City to Water Corporation in cash on the date of settlement.

·    The City at the stage when the Runway Extension progresses has to relocate at its cost an existing storm water drain (currently aligned along the Airport Land’s southern boundary) along the Water Corporation Land’s eastern boundary (New Drain). The New Drain will ultimately be located within the remaining extent of Lot 1 retained by the Water Corporation – see Attachment A.

·    The City will be granting Water Corporation a temporary drainage easement in respect of the existing drain until the New Drain has been completed.

·    The City will be responsible for payment of one half of the legal costs for the preparation, negotiation and execution of the Land Exchange and Sale Contract, all subdivision and amalgamation costs, Landgate registration fees payable in respect of the easement to be lodged and transfer of the City Land to the Water Corporation and duty payable in respect of the transfer of the Water Corporation Land to the City.  Similarly Water Corporation will be responsible for payment of all Landgate registration fees in respect of transfer of the Water Corporation Land to the City and duty payable in respect of the transfer of the City Land to the Water Corporation.

 

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the proposed land exchange and sale transaction and to resolve whether to endorse acquisition of the Water Corporation Land on the proposed terms and conditions.  

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Acquisition of the Water Corporation Land will constitute acquiring an interest in land as contemplated under section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995 (Act).  Under certain circumstances, such an acquisition will constitute a ‘major land transaction’ and therefore require preparation and advertising of a ‘business plan’ before the City could enter into a transaction of such a nature.  However, as the total value of the proposed acquisition will be less than the statutory threshold as contemplated under section 3.59 of the Act, the proposed acquisition of the Water Corporation Land will fall outside the application of section 3.59.

 

In terms of s. 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (Act), unless an exemption applies, a local government can only dispose of property to the highest bidder at public auction, by way of public tender or by following the public consultation process as provided for under Sections 3.58(3) & (4) of the Act.  However, in terms of Regulation 30(2) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 a disposition of land is an exempt disposition for purposes of Section 3.58 if the land is disposed of to an agency or instrumentality of the Crown in right of the State.  Water Corporation is established under the Water Corporations Act 1995 and therefore an “instrumentality of the Crown” as contemplated under the regulations. Consequently disposal of the City Land in terms of the proposed Land Exchange and Sale Contract is excluded from the application of s. 3.58 of the Act. 

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Acquisition of the Water Corporation Land is provided for under Stages 1B & 2 of the BRA Master Plan and the land acquisition and associated works (like construction of the New Drain) have also been included under the City’s business case for State Government funding. 

 

The proposed land acquisition is also consistent with the City’s Busselton Regional Airport – Statement of Intent, which has been recognised in preparation of the BRA Master Plan.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The costs associated with acquiring the Water Corporation Land (including legal, subdivision and land registration costs and the costs of constructing the New Drain) have been included under the City’s business case for State Government funding for development of BRA and will therefore be recovered once grant funding has been secured. However under the Land Exchange and Sale Contract:

 

·          A refundable deposit of $10,457.60 is payable within five days of execution of the contract; and

·          The balance purchase price of $94,118.40 ($104,576 – deposit of $10,457.60) is payable on date of settlement.

 

Under the City’s 2014/15 budget $100,000.00 is set aside for Miscellaneous Land Acquisitions (funded from the Infrastructure Development Reserve). It is proposed that Council utilise this budget allocation for payment of the deposit of $10,457.60. In terms of the proposed contract settlement will only take place once approval for the subdivision and amalgamation of the Water Corporation Land has been obtained (which will in all likelihood only occur towards the end 2014/15 financial year or even early in the 2015/16 financial year).  If at that stage State Government funding for the acquisition of the Water Corporation Land has not been secured, Council can use the same budget allocation to pay the balance purchase price.

 

The cost of constructing the New Drain (which is to be paid by the City) could be significant. It will include excavation of a new drain and remediation of the existing drain, crossing Vasse Highway and reconnecting the works to Water Corporation’s drainage network to the west of Vasse Highway and fencing. These costs have also been included under the City’s business case for Sate Government funding for the Runway Extension. Under the proposed Land Exchange and Sale Contract the City is under no obligation to undertake these works until such stage as the Runway Extension is progressed which in turn will only proceed once State Funding has been secured.  Therefore these costs will not impact on the City’s 2014/15 budget.

 

The City will in the meantime be responsible for payment of certain costs associated with registration of transfer of the subject land parcels. These include legal costs for preparation of the Land Exchange and Sale Contract, subdivision and amalgamation costs, settlement fees, Landgate registration fees and outgoings which, in total, are unlikely to exceed $25,000. Sufficient funds are available under the 2014/15 Airport Operations Budget (Airport Maintenance 341-11151-3165) for payment of these costs.

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The proposed land acquisition is consistent with the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan 2013 which provides under Community Objective 4.2 for a community which is well connected to its neighbours and the broader world and identifies continuation with expansion plans for the Busselton Regional Airport as a Council strategy to achieve the relevant community objectives.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential risks associated with the proposed land acquisition has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework.  There is a possibility that the City’s funding application for development of the BRA may not succeed, causing the acquisition of the Water Corporation Land being redundant.  The risk associated with such an event will be a financial risk considered to be of medium impact which, under the circumstances, is considered to be acceptable without need for further action.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The City consulted extensively with a wide range of advisors, experts and government agencies for purposes of preparing the BRA Master Plan, the City’s business case and associated funding applications.  The Land Exchange and Sale Contract is the result of intensive high level negotiations between City and Water Corporation officers.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The Runway Extension is the single most important component of Stage 2 of the BRA development project as it will allow narrow body aircraft carrying sufficient fuel load to reach eastern state destinations such as Sydney and Melbourne, to land and take off from BRA. The Runway Extension and associated land acquisition have been identified as such in the BRA Masterplan, the City’s business case and associated funding applications. A southern alignment of the Runway Extension is the preferred option and therefore acquiring the Water Corporation Land is considered to be a strategic acquisition in the context of the BRA development project as a whole.

 

Water Corporation, at management level, has not always been receptive to the concept of subdividing Lot 1 and disposing of a portion thereof. However years of negotiations at officer level between the City and Water Corporation resulted in Water Corporation indicating that it understands the regional significance of the BRA development and in particular the Runway Extension and eventually agreed to sell the Water Corporation Land to the City on what is considered to be favourable conditions.  These conditions include the mutually agreed per hectare rate for determining the value of all of the land involved in the proposed transaction ($13,790.00 per hectare) which in turn is based on an independent valuation of the Water Corporation Land (which has independently been confirmed as being in the range under the City’s business case process).  This is considered to be beneficial to the City as:

 

·     The City may ultimately use the Water Corporation Land, which was valued as “grazing”, for public purposes (runway extension); and

·     The City’s Land, due to its location and physical characteristics, cannot be used for anything else other than drainage.

 

Water Corporation’s requirement for the existing drain to be replaced by the New Drain is also considered to be fair and reasonable. As a consequence of the topography of the land in the vicinity of BRA a comprehensive drainage network is required for the Runway Extension and the proper functioning of BRA, of which these drainage works form part. Although the cost of constructing the New Drain could be significant Water Corporation agreed to allow the City to defer construction of the New Drain until the Runway Extension progresses, with no obligation on the City to construct the New Drain at all if, for whatever reason, the Runway Extension does not progress. In effect the City will therefore be under no obligation to construct the New Drain until such time as State Government funding has been secured. 

 

The City Land has limited use. Both lots consist of narrow, linear portions of land with Lot 55 forming part of a watercourse and Lot 57 comprising a drain next to Vasse Highway (see Attachment B) with both lots currently being used for drainage purposes as part of Water Corporation’s Vasse River Diversion Drain system. The City does not have any other use for the City Land other than drainage. By transferring the City Land to Water Corporation the City will also avoid any potential future liability which may arise in relation to the use of the City Land for drainage purposes (e.g future maintenance or environmental obligations associated with storm water drainage)

 

There is no guarantee or certainty, should Council decide not to proceed at this stage with the proposed acquisition of the Water Corporation Land, that Water Corporation will be prepared to extend the City’s preferred buyer status in relation to the Water Corporation Land on the current favourable terms and conditions. There is also the risk that Water Corporation may, for reasons beyond the City’s control, in future decide not to dispose of the Water Corporation Land at all. On the other hand should the BRA development for whatever reason not progress the financial implication for the City of acquiring the Water Corporation Land on the proposed terms and conditions is considered to be minor.  In such event the net result would be that the City acquired the Water Corporation Land, which currently has an agricultural zoning, at grazing rates and in the process exchanged as partial payment the City Land (which has limited use and is of relatively little value to the City). Therefore proceeding with acquisition of the Water Corporation Land on the proposed terms and conditions is considered to be in the City’s best interest and therefore recommended.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed land exchange transaction provides the City with an opportunity to acquire land strategically required for the Runway Extension on what is considered to be favourable terms and conditions, with relatively minor financial implications and risk to the City. It is therefore recommended that Council endorse the proposed land exchange and sale transaction as per the Officer Recommendation.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council has the option not to formally acquire the Water Corporation Land until such stage as funding for the Runway Extension has been secured.  For the reasons as mentioned under OFFICER COMMENT this alternative is not recommended.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION

 

Upon execution of the Land Exchange and Sale Contract the City must pay the deposit of $10,457.60 and commences the subdivision and amalgamation process which, in terms of the contract, has to be completed within 12 months of execution.  Upon completion of the subdivision and amalgamation process settlement will take place which will include registration of transfer of the various land parcels and payment of the balance purchase price by the City to Water Corporation.

 

The City has to undertake and complete the works required for construction of the New Drain once funding has been secured for the Runway Extension which is unlikely to occur within the next 18 months.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

That the City of Busselton agrees to enter into a Land Exchange and Sale Contract with Water Corporation in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in this report.

 

 

  


Council                                                                                      55                                                         24 September 2014

11.             Planning and Development Services Report

11.1           RESERVE 22965 GEOGRAPHE BAY ROAD, DUNSBOROUGH – PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE PURPOSE OF THE RESERVE FROM ‘CAMPING AND RECREATION’ TO ‘RECREATION AND FORESHORE MANAGEMENT’

SUBJECT INDEX:

Dunsborough Foreshore Concept Plan

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Principal Strategic Planner - Louise Koroveshi

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Location Plan (Reserve 22965)  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is requested to authorise the Chief Executive Officer to write to the Minister for Lands requesting that the purpose of Reserve 22965 Geographe Bay, Dunsborough (Centennial Park) be changed from ‘Camping and Recreation’ to ‘Recreation and Foreshore Management’. This request follows the previous resolution of the Council (C1406/154) to endorse a containment zone within the reserve to accommodate the future development of a café and/or kiosk on the Dunsborough foreshore.

 

The amendment is required to ensure that the purpose of the reserve is consistent with its present values and intended future use and management and to remove inconsistency with other elements of the legislative framework.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

At its 25 June 2014 meeting the Council resolved (C1406/154), inter alia, to endorse a containment zone within which to develop a café and/or kiosk on the Dunsborough foreshore (within ‘A’ Class Reserve 22965) and request the Minister for Lands to amend the management order for the reserve to provide the City with the power to lease the nominated containment zone. The City has not as yet written to the Minister for Lands with the request for power to lease as the Department of Lands has advised that it would be appropriate for both requests (that is, the request for power to lease and the request the subject of this report for the change of reserve purpose) to be considered as a package by the Minister for Lands, rather than as separate matters.

 

The current purpose of the reserve, being ‘Camping and Recreation’, has historical and Aboriginal heritage connections with its use as the Roelands Mission Camps between the 1940s and the late 1970s. The reserve has not been used since for this type of camping. Also since this time, local and State legislation has been enacted that now regulates camping on private and public land, including land owned and/or managed by the City. This is explained further under the Statutory Environment section of this report.

 

It is therefore considered timely to seek a change to the purpose of the reserve that better reflects its present values and future use and management.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key elements of the statutory environment in relation to this report are the Land Administration Act 1997 and the Local Government Property Local Law 2010. Each is discussed below under appropriate subheadings.

 

Land Administration Act 1997

 

The Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA) provides for the disposition and management of State land and outlines the processes that relate to reserved land. Reserve 22965 is an ‘A’ Class reserve and clause 42 of the LAA deals with changing the purpose of reserves that have this classification. ‘A’ Class reserves are quite different to other reserves, such as ‘C’ Class reserves, in that any proposed change has to go through a parliamentary process. In this regard, the City is required to write to the Minister for Lands requesting that the purpose of the reserve be changed from ‘Camping and Recreation’ to ‘Recreation and Foreshore Management’ and the Minister is required to lay the proposal before both Houses of Parliament.

 

Local Government Property Local Law 2010

 

This local law sets out the City’s powers for regulating a range of matters, including camping, on land it owns and/or manages. Generally there is a presumption against camping on land managed and/or owned by the City, other than within a caravan park and/or camping ground registered pursuant to the Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Act 1995 (such as the Kookaburra Caravan Park). Notwithstanding this, the legislative framework does allow the City to issue temporary camping permits for special events.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The relevant plan in relation to this report is the Dunsborough Foreshore Management Plan 2009 which sets out principles and recommendations to guide the management of the Dunsborough foreshore reserves. The plan contains a specific recommendation to change the current purpose of Reserve 22965 to ‘Public Recreation and Foreshore Protection’ to more accurately reflect its current role and values. This is consistent with the approach that the City has incorporated in management plans for other coastal reserves and, whilst some of those changes may not have yet been implemented, the City’s Strategic Land Review will assist in this regard.

 

The Officer Recommendation is generally consistent with the Dunsborough Foreshore Management Plan and the City’s approach with other coastal reserves.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no direct financial implications arising from the recommendations of this report.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendation of this report is considered to be consistent with community objective 2.2 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2010 – ‘A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections.’

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the Officer Recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment identified ‘downside’ risks only, rather than upside risks as well. The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve a sending a written request to the Minister for Lands to change the purpose of the reserve. In this regard, there are no significant risks identified.

 

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

As part of the broader government agency and community consultation undertaken to date in relation to progressing the establishment of a café and/or kiosk on the Dunsborough foreshore, City officers have sought advice from the Department of Lands on related matters. Advice received has identified the need to change the purpose of Reserve 22965 to more accurately reflect its current and intended future use and management arrangements and to remove the inconsistency with elements of the City’s local law in relation to camping.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The current purpose of Reserve 22965 Geographe Bay Road, Dunsborough has historical and Aboriginal heritage connections that relate to its past use as the Roelands Mission Camps. Since then, the legislative framework has changed so that now camping is an activity that is generally not permitted on City owned and/or managed land, unless under certain circumstances such as the land being registered for that use under State legislation, or the City issuing a temporary camping permit. Given that this type of camping has not occurred on the reserve since the late 1970s and the relevant foreshore management plan does not identify camping as part of the reserve’s present values or future management intent, the current purpose is no longer relevant.

 

Officers are therefore recommending that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to write to the Minister for Lands requesting that the purpose of Reserve 22965 be changed from ‘Camping and Recreation’ to ‘Recreation and Foreshore Management’. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is recommended that the proposal to change the purpose of Reserve 22965 be supported.

 

OPTIONS

 

Should the Council not support the Officer Recommendation the Council could consider the following options –

 

1.            Seek more information before making a decision.

2.            Resolve not to support the Officer Recommendation.

 

Officers consider that there are no substantive issues that would support either option.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve forwarding the request to the Minister for Lands and this would occur within one month of the resolution of the Council.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council request that the purpose of Reserve 22965 Geographe Bay Road, Dunsborough be changed from ‘Camping and Recreation’ to ‘Recreation and Foreshore Management’.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      55                                                         24 September 2014

11.2           MANAGEMENT OF DOGS IN PUBLIC PLACES, INCLUDING BEACHES

SUBJECT INDEX:

Animal Management

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A Council that engages broadly and proactively with the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Environmental Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Ranger and Emergency Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Acting Director, Planning and Development Services - Greg Simpson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Acting Chief Executive Officer  - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Advertised Proposals (late 2012 consultation process)

Attachment b    Summary of Submissions (late 2012 consultation process)

Attachment c    Proposed Dog Management Areas on Beaches   

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is asked to consider the City’s approach to the management of dogs in public places under the care and control of the City. It is recommended that the proposed approach be adopted for consultation purposes (noting consultation is required by State law), with consultation being undertaken and the issue then being referred back to the Council for its consideration before any final decisions are made.

 

The proposed approach has taken into consideration feedback received from a community consultation process undertaken in late 2012. For a range of reasons, most notably change and uncertainty in terms of the State level legislative framework, the review process had not been advanced much since that consultation process, but it is considered that the City is now in a good position to recommence and finalise the review process.

 

In formulating the approach proposed in this report, officers have sought to balance a wide range of different, often divergent, views and interests, together with other factors that need to be considered, including the actual potential for conflict in different contexts, as well as the resources that can reasonably be allocated to promotion, monitoring and enforcement of controls.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

There has not been a significant review of the approach to the management of dogs in public places (including on beaches) in the City of Busselton for over 20 years. The term ‘management’ in this context is essentially being used to describe the controls as to when and where dogs are permitted, including when and where dogs are permitted on a leash, and also when and where they are permitted to be off-leash. In the absence of Council decisions to either prohibit dogs entirely in particular places, either all the time or at particular times, or to allow dogs to be off-leash, again either all the time or at particular times, then dogs are currently permitted to be in public places in the District, provided that they are kept on a leash (Note that State law requires that dogs must be under the control of their owner or another responsible person, even when off-leash, and must also be cleaned up after; also note that particular provisions also apply under State and/or Commonwealth law to assistance dogs, working dogs and dangerous dogs).

 

Over the last 20 years or so, however, there have been significant changes in the broader context, including: the demographic context (a substantially larger and much more urban population, including a substantial increase in the amount of unit, small-lot and other relatively dense forms of residential development); the physical context (the urban area is now much larger, and there are many parks and reserves now available for use by the community which did not exist 20 years ago); the social and cultural context (attitudes can shift and change over time, and we also now have a more diverse community); and the legislative context (most particularly, recent changes to the State dog management legislation – principally the Dog Act 1976 [‘the Act’] and subsidiary legislation, which has been subject of significant amendment in the last few years).

 

For the reasons set out above, officers had commenced a comprehensive review of the City’s approach to the management of dogs in public places as early as 2011. At that time, the legislative framework required that any changes to the City’s approach would require the review of our Dogs Local Law (‘the Local Law’). As Councillors would be aware, the local law making and review process can be a time consuming and very rigid process, requiring careful drafting, sometimes by external legal practitioners, public advertising, further advertising if any substantial departures from the originally advertised proposals are required and finally a Parliamentary review process.

 

Partly for that reason, a decision was made to undertake substantial, preliminary consultation prior to formally commencing the Local Law review process – that would then reduce the risk of significant changes needing to be made once the formal local law review process had actually commenced. Following several informal briefings of Councillors, proposed changes to our approach to the management of dogs in public places were advertised for public consultation purposes in late 2012. More information on the consultation process and outcomes is set out in the ‘Consultation’ section of this report. It is worth noting at this point, though, that there was a very high level of community interest in the process, with nearly 800 submissions being received and expressing a wide range of, sometimes divergent, views (the advertised proposals are provided as Attachment A and a summary of submissions is provided as Attachment B).

 

Shortly after that, however, amendments to the Act were drafted by the State Government and subsequently presented to Parliament which, if and when they were approved, would mean that changes to the City’s approach to the management of dogs in public places would no longer require review of the Local Law. Rather, changes to our approach would be able to be made via an absolute majority resolution of the Council, following completion and consideration of the outcomes of a consultation process. Given that, it was no longer seen as worthwhile to proceed with a review of the Local Law in a manner that would have provided for a review of our approach to the management of dogs in public places – and the review of the Local Law (which was still necessary for other reasons and has proceeded) and the review of our approach to the management of dogs in public places became separate processes. The relevant amendments to the Dog Act came into effect in late 2013.

 

Subsequent to the public consultation process that took place in late 2012, officers collated and analysed the submissions received. That analysis has been presented to informal briefings of Councillors on several occasions, together with workshopping/discussion of potential and preferred directions. Officers have considered the feedback received from Councillors, as well as the outcomes of the public consultation process, in formulating the approach to the management of dogs in public places proposed in this report. It does need to be reiterated, though, that the public consultation process revealed a wide range of, sometimes divergent, views, and there was also a degree of divergence apparent amongst Councillors. In formulating the approach proposed in this report, officers have sought to balance the range of different views and interests, together with other factors that need to be considered, including the actual potential for conflict in different contexts, as well as the resources that can reasonably be allocated to promotion, monitoring and enforcement of controls.

 

There are nevertheless some fundamental reasons why it has and more than likely will prove very difficult to achieve complete community consensus on this issue. Firstly, different members of the community have different levels of tolerance for, appreciation of and confidence with, dogs. For instance, there are members of the community who find encounters with dogs, even small, relatively unthreatening dogs, to be very stressful. This can sometimes be because of past encounters with dogs that may have been very unpleasant or even genuinely dangerous. There are also members of the community who are very confident with dogs, and in fact find it very hard to understand why others are concerned about encounters with dogs at all. Most of the community fits between one of these two positions.

 

Secondly, for many, a dog is effectively part of the family and, especially for some older people, one of their most important relationships is with their dog – so, in an emotional sense, for some people, restricting their right to take their dog to the beach or to other public places is tantamount to not allowing them to take their children or best friend to that place.

 

Finally, at any given time and at any given place, dogs can be prohibited, be permitted, but only on a leash, or be permitted to be off-leash, but no more than one of these things can be the case in any given place, at any given time. Different people, though, will inevitably have different views as to what approach should prevail at a given time and at a given place, and pleasing one person will inevitably displease another. Especially with respect to beach areas, many people will have a particular interest in one or a small number of particular places (possibly their ‘favourite’ places, often places near their home, or other places that they are in the habit of visiting regularly), and will often want those places to be either places where dogs are prohibited, or places where dogs are permitted to be off-leash, and will not necessarily be satisfied with a situation where some other, possibly nearby place, is managed in the way they would like their ‘favourite’ place to be managed. In short, this is an issue on which it will not be possible to entirely please everyone.

 

Notwithstanding the potential difficulties, it is seen as important that the Council proceeds with and ultimately completes a review of our approach to the management of dogs in public places. That is both because of the changes in the broader context described above, and because of the level of community interest, but also because of amendments to the Dog Regulations 2013 (‘the Regulations’) that took effect in May 2014, and which mean that the areas identified in the Local Law as places where dogs are prohibited, or places where dogs are permitted to be off-leash, no longer have any affect, and dogs are therefore permitted in public places throughout the District, but only on a leash. Those amendments were unexpected by officers, and were in fact contrary to advice received from the Department of Local Government only months prior to the amendments coming into effect. The current situation, however, is considered untenable – and certainly places the City officers charged with policing dog management controls (i.e. our Rangers) in a difficult position.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The most important statutory environment is set out in the Act and the subsidiary Regulations, with s31 of the Act being most relevant to the issues addressed in this report. The key elements of s31 are set out below.

 

S31(1) of the Act sets out that –

A dog shall not be in a public place unless it is — 

(a)          held by a person who is capable of controlling the dog; or

(b)          securely tethered for a temporary purpose,

                by means of a chain, cord, leash or harness of sufficient strength and not exceeding the prescribed length.

 

S31(2), though, sets out that -

                A dog is exempt from the requirements of subsection (1) if …it is in a dog exercise area…

 

S31(2B) of the Act then sets out that -

A local government may, by absolute majority…specify a public place, or a class of public place, that is under the care, control or management of the local government to be a place where dogs are prohibited —

(a)          at all times; or

(b)          at specified times.

S31(3A) of the Act also sets out that –

A local government may, by absolute majority…specify a public place, or a class of public place, that is under the care, control or management of the local government to be a dog exercise area.

 

S31(3C) of the Act then establishes consultation requirements for specifying prohibited and/or exercise areas -

At least 28 days before specifying a place to be —

(a)          a place where dogs are prohibited at all times or at a time specified … or

(b)          a dog exercise area…

                …a local government must give local public notice of its intention to so specify.

 

As noted in the ‘Background’ section of this report, s31(5) of the Act also sets out that –

A local government must specify…such dog exercise areas as are, in the opinion of the local government, sufficient in number, and suitable, for the exercising of dogs in the district.

 

Note that ‘public place’ is defined in the Act as ‘any place to which the public may lawfully have access’. Note, though, that a local government can only establish dog prohibited and/or dog exercise areas on public places ‘under the care, control or management’ of the local government. This includes Crown Land over which the City has a management order or freehold land owned by the City, but does not include Unallocated Crown Land (UCL), unmanaged reserves (i.e. Crown Land that ha a designated purpose, but no management body) or Crown Land managed by another body.

Dogs and other domestic animals are prohibited and/or restricted from entering conservation estate, including National Parks, by virtue of other State laws, and as a result this report does not address management of dogs in those areas – with one exception, being an area of beach in the Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park, adjacent and to the north of Yallingup townsite.

 

Dogs and other animals are also controlled to some degree by the City’s Busselton Regional Airport Local Law, Jetties Local Law and Property Local Law, and those controls are noted in other parts of this report where necessary.

 

Of particular note is the definition of ‘local government property’ in the Property Local Law, which is defined as; “anything except a thoroughfare – (a) which belongs to the (City) or in which the (City) has an interest; (b) of which the (City) is the management body…; or (c) which is an ‘otherwise unvested facility’…”

 

Note there are some areas of overlap and inconsistency and overlap between the Act and the Property Local Law, with the latter requiring the issue of a specific permit for the taking of an animal onto local government property and the latter empowering the City to establish dog exercise areas. To the extent of any inconsistency, the Act would prevail in relation to the management of dogs.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Meelup Regional Park Management Plan and several foreshore and reserve management plans are relevant to consideration of this issue. Those plans have been considered in developing the recommendations of this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The financial implications associated with implementing the recommendations of this report include the provision and maintenance of necessary signage, new dog bag dispensers and waste disposal bins. This is intended to be undertaken within the annual budget allocation for replacement and maintenance of such facilities.

 

The assessment of the suitability of public places for the exercising of dogs has considered matters such as parking and access paths. Parkland areas are unfenced and readily accessible and some form of access is available through the provision of existing infrastructure at those beach locations proposed to be dog exercise areas. The future upgrading of beach access will be considered as part of the ongoing improvement of the City’s foreshore areas.

 

Enforcement of the Act will utilise current Ranger staff resources, however, there will be competing demands for Ranger resources especially during the summer months, such as bushfire prevention and response, which can often limit Ranger availability to conduct on beach patrols at times when they are most needed for dog enforcement. Future resource requirements will be reviewed regularly and considered as part of the City’s workforce planning to ensure appropriate service levels. Any significant increase in the extent and nature of controls on when and where dogs are permitted relative to what is proposed in the officer recommendation may, however, be beyond the capacity of existing resources available for consistent implementation.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendations of this report reflect Objective 6.1 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013, which is; “A Council that engages broadly and pro-actively with the community”.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment sought to identify ‘downside’ risks only rather than ‘upside’ risks and where the risk, following implementation of controls has been identified is medium, or greater.

 

Risk

Category

Control(s)

Likelihood

Consequence

Risk

Significant public objection to proposed approach

Reputational

Develop a sound approach and communicate that approach clearly and consistently

Possible

Minor

Medium

 

CONSULTATION

 

In November 2012, the City advertised for public consultation purposes proposals relating to when and where dogs might be prohibited, and when and where dogs may be exercised off-leash. The proposals were advertised through the City’s Council for Community page and on the City’s website, and promoted by way of a media release. Static displays were set up in Busselton and Dunsborough Libraries and Rangers also set up street stands at high pedestrian traffic locations in the Busselton City Centre to answer questions and provide information to the community on the proposals. A community information session was also held.

 

The proposals mostly related to the management of dogs on beaches, and identified areas proposed to be ‘Prohibited Areas’ (where dogs were to be prohibited at all times), ‘Exercise Areas’ (where dogs were to be allowed off-leash at all times) and ‘Seasonal Areas’ (where dogs were to be prohibited during the ‘daytime’ in ‘summer’ [defined as 8.00am-6.00pm, 1 December to 30 April], but allowed to be exercised off-leash the rest of the time). The advertised proposals are provided as Attachment A.

 

As a result of the consultation process, the City received 773 submissions, with 399 individual written submissions commenting on multiple issues, and with a similar number of submissions either in support or objecting to the proposed dog prohibited and dog exercise areas in particular locations. A summary of submissions is provided as Attachment B. Some particular aspects of the submissions are outlined below.

 

There were 374 submissions in the form of a standard letter, and which only related to proposed dog management areas in the Dunsborough, Eagle Bay and Smiths Beach area. These submissions were all broadly supportive of dog access to beaches and requested the ‘Seasonal Area’ restrictions be wound back from 8.00am-6.00pm, 1 December to 30 April, to the duration of the Summer/Christmas school holidays and the Easter period only, and only from 9.00am-3.00pm. In total, 432 submissions requested the proposed ‘Seasonal Area’ restrictions be wound back.

 

The reasons for that view appear to be several-fold, notably that there is less use of beaches for swimming outside of holiday periods, and that by 6.00pm in April especially, it is beginning to get dark, and many people would like to take their dogs to the beach after school/work. These issues are discussed in the ‘Officer Comment’ section of this report, but it should be noted here that it is not practicable to have controls which apply for the duration of the Summer/Christmas school holidays or the Easter period, as these are not fixed dates, and to implement such controls signage would need to be modified each and every year.

 

A submission was also received from the Wonnerup Residents’ Association which indicated 92% of 50 Wonnerup residents and landowners canvassed supported the beach area from Port Geographe to the Shire of Capel boundary being a dog exercise area.

 

Prior to specifying dog prohibited areas and areas where dogs may be exercised, at least 28 days’ notice must be given to the community. This obligation to give notice will provide further opportunity for the community to comment and any future submissions received during this process would be presented to Council for consideration prior to any changes to existing dog management arrangements. In addition to meeting the minimum statutory requirements for consultation, a broader consultation programme would be implemented, similar to that which occurred in late 2012.

 

Following the 28 day period for giving notice to the community, should Council decide to go ahead with any changes to existing dog management arrangements, it would be appropriate that the decisions be advertised and a community notification and education programme put in place. Should the Council decide to depart from the advertised proposals in any significant way, especially through an increase in either the proposed exercise or prohibited areas, then further advertising would be required before a final decision could be made.

 

To assist the City’s review of its dog management areas, an assessment of other local governments was undertaken, which included the Cities of Canning, Stirling, Melville, Mandurah and Bunbury. The assessment found that these local governments generally manage dog access in public places based on factors relating to level of public usage, preservation of amenity and environmental impact (protection of wildlife). Apart from the similarities in approach to prohibiting dogs in places where people regularly congregate, such as public buildings, civic areas and the like, there were considerable differences between local governments in their approach to the management of dogs in open areas such as on sports playing fields, parkland reserves and on beaches.

 

In general, public places that experience high levels of public usage or where there are wildlife protection and amenity concerns, have the highest level of restrictions and dogs are often prohibited in these places at all times or at least some of the time. There are also a number of local governments that allow dogs to exercise on parkland and on active recreation areas, such as open playing fields, except when the playing fields are being used for sporting or other approved activities. The location of dog exercise areas on beaches is generally determined based on the avoidance of the most popular beach areas for swimming.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The principal purpose of dog management controls is to manage conflicts between dogs and their owners, and other users and uses of public places. There are some places where the potential for conflict is high, and there is a clear need for dog management controls. There are other places where the potential for conflict is low, and there is no public interest in not allowing dogs to be in those places, including off-leash. There is nothing intrinsically ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ with dogs being allowed to be exercised off-leash, or with dogs being prohibited from being in certain places at all times, or for part of the time.

 

There is also clearly a need to consider the needs and desires of a diverse range of people with a diverse range of views, and to meet those needs and desires in an equitable fashion. The proposed dog management areas also reflect a need for the nature and pattern of dog management controls to be relatively simple and straightforward, such that they can be clearly communicated to and understood by the community (once an overall pattern has been established, however, it may be appropriate to ‘tweak’ controls in particular areas to suit particular contexts). In order to efficiently and consistently enforce dog management controls, simplicity is also attractive, but so is a relatively liberal approach – with dogs generally being permitted, including off-leash, unless it is fairly clear that would not be appropriate. The proposed dog management controls set out in this report reflect the principles set out in the paragraphs above.

 

Also worthy of note before looking at the proposed dog management controls specifically is the fact that the Act allows a local government to designate particular controls in relation to a; “public place, or a class of public place”. There are, in fact, several thousand separate ‘public places’ in the District, and specifically identifying each and every public place would be completely unworkable – notwithstanding that some particular places may warrant separate identification. The general approach, however, is to identify ‘classes of public places’ to which particular controls would apply. Note that the legislation does not identify or describe particular classes of places, so it is up to the local government to develop its own classifications – those classifications must, however, be sufficiently clear and precise that they can be consistently understood by the community, by the officers implementing the controls and, importantly, by the courts.

 

Dog management areas are proposed to be established in a manner that may be summarised as follows (noting that it is initially proposed, as required by the Act, that these proposals are advertised for consultation purposes, before being further considered by the Council) –

 

1.         Dogs to be prohibited/managed as per existing controls in cemeteries (noting that animals are already prohibited from cemeteries, unless otherwise approved, by virtue of the City’s  Cemeteries Local Law), the Busselton Regional Airport (noting that animals are already prohibited from the Airport, unless otherwise approved, by virtue of the Busselton Regional Airport Local Law) and the Busselton Jetty (also noting that animals are already prohibited, unless otherwise approved, on the Busselton Jetty via the Jetties Local Law);

 

2.         Dogs to be prohibited in public buildings;

 

3.         Dogs to be prohibited at all times within all childrens’ playgrounds;

 

4.         Dogs to be prohibited from City depot and waste management sites;

 

5.         Dogs to be prohibited in the whole of Meelup Regional Park, other than some small portions of beach within the Park and adjacent to Eagle Bay townsite (see point 7 below);

 

6.         Dogs to be permitted, but only on a leash, within the key City/Town Centre and Foreshore reserves of Mitchell Park, the Busselton Foreshore between Marine Terrace, the coast, Scout Road and Gale Street (except for Signal Park – see point 8 below), the Dugalup Brook reserves (to the immediate north of Dunsborough Town Centre, from Cape Naturaliste Road to Gifford Road), Lions Park, Seymour Park, and on the Dunsborough Foreshore between Gifford Road and the Centennial Park car park;

 

7.         Beach areas to be identified as ‘Prohibited Areas’, ‘Exercise Areas’ or ‘Seasonal Areas’ (plus one ‘Modified Seasonal Area’ to address a very specific and localised issue) – and the details of what is proposed in relation to beach areas is set out later in this section of the report (and note it is also proposed that dogs are prohibited if organise events are taking place on beaches, even though dogs might otherwise be permitted);

 

8.         Dogs to be permitted to be exercised off-leash on ‘all other reserves’ and freehold land owned by the City that is not the subject of a leasehold agreement (including Signal Park), subject to the following limitations and conditions  –

 

9.1       Dogs are prohibited when approved, organised events are taking place (such as weddings, concerts or sporting events, but excluding markets or sporting fixtures generally open to the public without charge); and

 

9.2       Dogs are permitted, but only on a leash and not on active, playing surface(s), at sporting fixtures generally open to the public without charge and at approved markets;

 

Note: the above does not apply to events that specifically involve dogs (such as dog obedience training, dog trials or dog grooming events), wherein dogs are permitted if they are involved in those events and managed in a manner consistent with the requirements of the event – and these types of events that specifically involve dogs are already provided for in State law.

 

9.         Dogs to be permitted, but only on a leash, in all other public places at all other times (this is the default position established by State law);

 

10.       The approach is to be reviewed after 12 months after finalisation and implementation, including through a further public consultation period; and

 

11.       Refinements to and/or modifications to the approach to be considered for particular places on as needs basis, but only after the overall approach has been established and settled.

 

Points 1-5 and 9 above are considered to be largely self-explanatory and so are not further outlined or discussed. Points 6-8 and 11/12 above, however, are considered to require more detailed explanation – and that is provided below.

 

Meelup Regional Park and other reserves predominantly consisting of native vegetation

Dogs had been prohibited within Meelup Regional Park pursuant to the City’s existing Local Law. Given the nature of the Park, it is seen appropriate that continue, but with one exception, being portion of the Eagle Bay townsite foreshore (and for further discussion of that, see ‘Beach areas’ sub-heading below – also note that Meelup Regional Park includes not only the main body of the Park itself, but also the foreshore reserve to the north, except for small areas of privately owned foreshore, all the way to Bunker Bay and the Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park).

 

Beach areas

It is the approach to dog management controls on beach areas that received the most feedback during the late 2012 consultation process, and is generally thought to be of greatest community interest. The advertised proposals in late 2012 divided beach areas into three separate categorisations; ‘Prohibited Areas’ (where dogs were to be prohibited at all times); ‘Exercise Areas’ (where dogs were to be allowed off-leash at all times); and ‘Seasonal Areas’ (where dogs were to be prohibited during the ‘daytime’ in ‘summer’ [defined as 8.00am-6.00pm, 1 December to 30 April], but allowed to be exercised off-leash the rest of the time).

 

Whilst ‘Prohibited Areas’ and ‘Exercise Areas’ are easy to understand and reflect categories specified in the Act, there is in fact any number of other categorisations that could be created - for instance, the times and/or dates applicable to ‘Seasonal Areas’ could be modified in any way desired by the Council. In addition, the nature of the controls applicable to the different ‘seasons’ could also be varied – for example, areas could be ‘prohibited’ in one season and ‘on-leash’ in another, or ‘on-leash’ in one season and ‘exercise’ in another. Theoretically, more than two ‘seasons’ could also be identified. It would be relatively easy to create six or more separate classifications. That would, however, be very difficult to clearly communicate to and be understood by the community.

 

As such, it is proposed that, as with the previously advertised proposals, all beach areas be allocated to one of three categories only, with the three categories being essentially the same as previously advertised: ‘Prohibited Areas’; ‘Exercise Areas’; and ‘Seasonal Areas’ (where, again, dogs are to be prohibited during the ‘daytime’ in ‘summer’, but allowed to be exercised off-leash the rest of the time). A change to the time controls applicable to the ‘Seasonal Areas’ is proposed, however, with the proposal being that they extend only from 9.00am-5.00pm, 1 December to 30 April. If smaller and fewer areas were proposed as ‘Exercise Areas, then there may have been some rationale to further reduce the hours when dogs are allowed on beaches during the ‘summer’ period in the ‘Seasonal Areas’. Because there are considerable options identified for those who want to exercise their dog off-leash, even during the daytime in summer, though, that is considered neither necessary nor appropriate. The three categories into which all beach areas (with one exception at Eagle Bay – discussed below, which is referred to as ‘Modified Seasonal’) under the City’s management are proposed to be placed are therefore as follows –

 

1.    ‘Prohibited Areas’ (where dogs are to be prohibited at all times);

2.    ‘Exercise Areas’ (where dogs are to be allowed, including off-leash, at all times, except when approved, organised events are taking place, wherein dogs are to be prohibited); and

3.    ‘Seasonal Areas’ (where dogs are to be prohibited during the ‘daytime’ in ‘summer’ [defined as 9.00am-5.00pm, 1 December to 30 April], but allowed to be exercised off-leash the rest of the time).

 

These categorisations are intended to apply to the beach only, i.e. from the limit of ephemeral vegetation or the toe of a seawall to the water only, and not including vegetated foreshore areas, beach access paths or car parks.

 

It is considered that boundaries between areas with each categorisation need to be aligned with places where pedestrian access is provided to the beach, and preferably with car parking areas. That allows for the effective signing of controls, placement of bins and dispenser units, and also allows those who wish to walk along the coast with their dog to move on and off the beach as required.

 

The proposed pattern of categorisations means that, within the main urban areas (i.e. Busselton urban area, from Wonnerup to Abbey, and Dunsborough urban area consisting of Dunsborough and Quindalup), except in the northernmost part of the Dunsborough urban area, no section of beach is further than 1.0km from an Exercise Area or further than 1.0km from a Seasonal Area (where dogs would be prohibited in the daytime in summer) and/or a Prohibited Area. For most of the coast within the main urban areas, a regular alternation between Exercise Areas and Seasonal Areas is proposed – although where there are caravan parks and resorts within proximity of the coast the area is identified as a Seasonal Area. Because, for most of the year, the chance of significant conflict between dogs, their owners and other beach users along most of the coast is low, only a small number of Prohibited Areas are proposed, and only in the highest priority areas.

 

The categorisation proposed for each segment of the coast, moving east to west from Forrest Beach to Bunker Bay and then extending around and down the west coast) is set out in the table below (and is also set out in graphical form at Attachment C – noting that Exercise Areas are identified in green, Prohibited Areas in red and Seasonal Areas in orange).

 

Segment

Description

Approximate length (km)

Proposed category

Notes

1.   

Municipal boundary (with Shire of Capel) to eastern side of Port Geographe Seawall

7.5

Exercise

Very little potential for conflict between users in the eastern part of this segment, and community support for exercise in the westernmost portion, where potential for conflict is greatest

2.   

Eastern side of Port Geographe Seawall to eastern side of Port Geographe channel

0.9

Seasonal

As the land adjoining this section of coast is developed, it may be appropriate to introduce a Prohibited area in future

3.   

Western side of Port Geographe channel to beach access path from Groyne Road car park

0.3

Exercise

Car parks provided at both ends of this area, which is considered best opportunity for an exercise area in the area from Port Georaphe for several kilometres to the west

4.   

Beach access path from Groyne Road car park to beach access path from car park east of Russell Street

1.4

Seasonal

Includes popular, summer swimming areas and Busselton Beach Resort, as well as multiple small car parks

5.   

Beach access path from car park east of Russell Street to beach access path from car park at Ford Road/Geographe Bay Road intersection

1.3

Exercise

Less popular for swimming than areas to the east and/or west, with fewer car parking opportunities

6.   

Beach access path from car park at Ford Road/Geographe Bay Road intersection to eastern side of Scout Road car park

1.2

Seasonal

Includes popular, summer swimming areas, as well as a number of car parking opportunities

7.   

Eastern side of Scout Road car park to beach access steps just the east of a continuation of West Street

0.5

Prohibited

Principal Busselton Foreshore area, with greatest intensity of use throughout the year, and because of the presence of the swim jetty and other facilities, it is used for swimming outside the identified ‘summer’ period

8.   

Beach access steps just to the east of a continuation of West Street to beach access just to the east of a continuation of Gale Street

0.3

Seasonal

Includes popular, summer swimming areas, as well as car parking

9.   

Beach access just to the east of a continuation of Gale Street to beach access to the eastern side of the King Street car park

0.8

Exercise

Limited use for swimming, even during summer, and best opportunity for an exercise area in central Busselton area

10. 

Beach access to the eastern side of the King Street car park to beach access to the beach access from the Margaret Street car park

0.3

Seasonal

Very popular swimming area in summer, includes Geographe Bay Yacht Club, close to central Busselton and with good parking and other facilities very close to the water

11. 

Beach access from the Margaret Street car park to the east of the groyne between Craig Street and Bower Road (i.e. either side of Vasse Diversion Drain)

1.1

Exercise

Limited accessibility west of Margaret Street car park, but very popular area for those with dogs throughout the year in area east of the Drain, in area west of the drain, best opportunity for exercise area in area for several kilometres to the west of Vasse Diversion Drain, as seasonal area desirable further west because of Mandalay Holiday Park

12. 

Beach access just to the east of the groyne between Craig Street and Bower Road to beach access from car park opposite Mandalay Holiday Park

0.8

Seasonal

Includes beach near Mandalay Holiday Park, as well as car park and other facilities at Dolphin Road

13. 

Beach access from car park opposite Mandalay Holiday Park to beach access path at end of Alan Street

0.8

Exercise

Fairly inaccessible, with wide, mostly heavily vegetated foreshore reserve

14. 

Beach access path at end of Alan Street to beach access path at end of Harnett Street

2.0

Seasonal

Includes a number of caravan parks and tourist resorts, as well as facilities at Holgate Road

15. 

Beach access path at end of Harnett Street to eastern side of car park associated with Abbey Boat ramp

0.85

Exercise

Best opportunity for exercise area in Abbey locality

16. 

Eastern side of car park associated with Abbey Boat ramp to Locke Drain (i.e. both sides of Buayanyup Drain)

2.3

Seasonal

Access to facilities at Abbey Boat Ramp and includes Locke Estate

17. 

Locke Drain to Siesta Park Groyne

0.6

Exercise

Accessible area, but less potential for conflict with beach use than areas either side

18. 

Siesta Park Groyne to western boundary of Siesta Park Holiday Park

0.8

Seasonal

Contains Siesta Park Holiday Park

19. 

Western boundary of Siesta Park Holiday Park to eastern beach access track in proximity to the Wyndham Resort

3.1

Exercise

Very limited public access and limited potential for conflict

20. 

Eastern beach access track in proximity to the Wyndham Resort to western beach access in proximity to Wyndham Resort

0.13

Seasonal

Small section of beach accessible from Wyndham Resort

21. 

Western beach access in proximity to Wyndham Resort to eastern side of Quindalup Boat Ramp

3.6

Exercise

Relatively inaccessible section of beach, with limited potential for conflict

22. 

Eastern side of Quindalup Boat Ramp to 1.1km to western side of ‘Fisherman’s Boat Ramp

1.1

Seasonal

Includes significant car parking and facilities, as well as Dunsborough Bay Yacht Club

23. 

Western side of ‘Fisherman’s Boat Ramp to beach access to the east of Lot 30 (237) Geographe Bay Road

0.6

Exercise

Relatively inaccessible section of beach, with limited potential for conflict

24. 

Beach access to the east of Lot 30 (237) Geographe Bay Road to beach access from car park to the west of Dunsborough YHA

0.6

Seasonal

Includes Dunsborough YHA and good beach access from car park at western end

25. 

Beach access from car park to the west of Dunsborough YHA to beach access path just to the west of Tulloh Street

0.6

Prohibited

Intended to protect waterbirds using Elmore Lagoon and is a relatively short segment, with seasonal and exercise areas proposed either side

26. 

Beach access path just to the west of Tulloh Street to beach access path from Centennial Park car park

1.0

Exercise

Westernmost significant opportunity for exercise area with limited potential for conflict, and with prohibited areas either side

27. 

Beach access path from Centennial Park car park to beach access path just to the west of Gifford Road

0.37

Prohibited

Principal Dunsborough Foreshore area, with greatest intensity of use throughout the year

28. 

Beach access path just to the north-west of Gifford Road to beach access path just to the north-west of Burt Court

0.18

Exercise

Westernmost opportunity for exercise area with limited potential for conflict

29. 

Beach access path just to the north-west of Burt Court to the southern boundary of Meelup Regional Park (just to the north of Hurford Street)

1.9

Seasonal

Contains Dunsborough resort strip and Old Dunsborough

30. 

Southern boundary of Meelup Regional Park to beach access path adjacent to Baudin Memorial

6.2

Prohibited

Reflects values of Meelup Regional Park

31. 

Beach access path adjacent to Baudin Memorial to Jingarmup Brook (in Eagle Bay townsite)

0.6

Seasonal

Popular summer swimming area with good beach access, but lower environmental risks that other areas in Meelup Regional Park, because road is so close to the coast

32. 

From Jingarmup Brook (in Eagle Bay townsite) 450 metres to the north (and within Meelup Regional Park)

0.45

Modified Seasonal (dogs allowed on leash from 1 August to 30 April, allowed to be exercised off leash the rest of the year)

Best opportunity to provide exercise area at Eagle Bay, but limited during extended summer period to protect nest sites of Hooded Plover – understood the proposed arrangement is broadly supported by both Meelup Regional Park Management Committee and Residents of Eagle Bay Association

33. 

From 450 metres north of Jingarmup Brook to northern end of Bunker Bay where Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park begins (and other than small areas where private land extends to the high water mark, within Meelup Regional Park)

4.5

Prohibited

Reflects values of Meelup Regional Park

34. 

 

 

 

 

 

As noted in reference to Segment 33 above, other than a short section of coast at Smiths Beach, the west coast is located within the Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park, where control of dogs and other domestic animals is a matter for the Department of Parks and Wildlife and is provided for under legislation that agency is responsible for. In relation to Yallingup, however, the Council has resolved to seek a management order over the beach and adjoining foreshore from Slippery Rocks to a point just to the north of the Dawson Drive car park beach access (i.e. excluding the Rabbits Hill car park area). It is envisaged that the area proposed to be transferred to the City would mostly be identified as a Seasonal Area. Until that land actually comes across into the City’s management, however, there is not the ability to identify it as such formally. There have also been discussions in the past with both the Department of Parks and Wildlife and members of the Yallingup community about identifying an area of the beach north of the Dawson Drive car park beach access as an Exercise Area. At this time, it is recommended that the Council resolve to indicate its intention to both identify the beach from Slippery Rocks to a point just to the north of the Dawson Drive car park beach access as a Seasonal Area, and also to seek Department of Parks and Wildlife formal consideration of identifying an area of beach to the north of the Dawson Drive car park beach access as an Exercise Area.

 

It should also be noted that the beach and foreshore adjacent to Smith’s Beach is Unallocated Crown Land, and the City is therefore not able to designate that land as a dog prohibited and/or exercise area – and the default ‘dog on leash’ situation therefore applies.

 

There is clearly any number of alternatives to the approach set out above that the Council could consider. As noted above, however, it is considered that boundaries between areas with each categorisation need to be aligned with places where pedestrian access is provided to the beach, and preferably with car parking areas. It is also seen as important that the overall approach is not made significantly more complicated, or significantly less liberal.

 

Other reserves

 

The approach proposed in relation to ‘other reserves’ is that dogs be permitted to be off-leash, subject to certain limitations and conditions as follows –

 

·    Dogs to be prohibited when approved, organised events are taking place(such as concerts or sporting events, but excluding markets or sporting fixtures generally open to the public without charge); and

 

·    Dogs to be permitted, but only on a leash and not on active, playing surface(s), at sporting fixtures generally open to the public without charge and at approved markets.

 

As noted previously, this is other than in the case of events that specifically involve dogs (such as dog obedience training, dog trials or dog grooming events), wherein dogs are permitted if they are involved in those events and managed in a manner consistent with the requirements of the event (and again note that these types of events that specifically involve dogs are already provided for in State law).

 

The reasons for the approach proposed are essentially fourfold; (1) when events are not taking place, these areas can practically be used by people wanting to exercise dogs off leash without conflicting in any significant way with other members of the community; (2) there may be issues from time to time with owners failing to clean up after their dogs, but they can be managed and it seems somewhat unfair to prevent all owners using reserves because a proportion do not clean up after their dogs; (3) there are some kinds of events where it is clear that dogs are not appropriate at all (concerts for instance); and (4) there are other events where dogs on a leash are fine if managed appropriately (such as on the sidelines of junior sporting fixtures).

 

There are obviously a number of alternatives the Council may wish to consider, including identifying particular arrangements for more reserves (noting a small number are already separately identified in the recommendation and discussed in the introductory part of this ‘Officer Comment’ section of the report), or not allowing dogs even on a leash when events are taking place.

 

12 month review and future refinements/modifications

One of the significant benefits of recent changes to the Act is that changes to dog management areas which once required completion of a local law review process can now be accomplished relatively simply through an absolute majority resolution of the Council, following the undertaking of consultation in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Given that, as well as the fact that this is a complex matter where significant change is proposed, it is recommended that the Council commit to undertake a review of the proposed approach, once adopted in final form (i.e. after consultation) and following a further consultation process, 12 months after implementation.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The approach to dog management areas set out in the report and recommendation below is seen as providing a balanced and sound overall approach to the management of dogs in public places in the District.

 

OPTIONS

 

There are a number of options that the Council could consider, and some of the key alternatives are set out briefly within the relevant sub-sections of the ‘Officer Comment’ section of this report above. Should the Council be of a mind to want fundamental or very significant departures from the approach proposed by officers, it may wish to consider making a resolution that establishes basic principles to guide the preferred approach, and request that officers prepare proposals that reflect those basic principles for presentation to the Council, rather than attempting to comprehensively modify the approach proposed by officers in a more specific fashion through an alternative motion or motions.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

It is envisaged that consultation would commence within one month of the Council making a resolution consistent with the officer recommendation.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council –

 

1.    Pursuant to s31 of the Dog Act 1976 (other than where the context does not require the powers contained within s31), and subject to any other written law and any law of the Commonwealth about assistance animals as defined in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Commonwealth) section 9(2), resolve to adopt for consultation purposes a proposed approach to dog management areas as follows –

 

a.         Dogs to be prohibited/managed as per existing controls in cemeteries, the Busselton Regional Airport and the Busselton Jetty (as per the Cemeteries Local Law, Busselton Regional Airport Local Law and Jetties Local Law);

b.         Dogs to be prohibited in public buildings (i.e. ‘buildings’ as defined in the  City’s Property Local Law);

c.         Dogs to be prohibited at all times within all childrens’ playgrounds (i.e. ‘childrens’ playground’ defined as; “an area set aside for use by children and noted by the presence of dedicated childrens’ playground equipment and the presence of either sand or other form of soft fall surface”);

d.         Dogs to be prohibited from City depot and waste management sites;

e.         Dogs to be prohibited in the whole of Meelup Regional Park, other than a small portion of beach within the Park and adjacent to part of Eagle Bay townsite (see point (h) below) Dogs to be permitted, but only on a leash, within Mitchell Park, the Busselton Foreshore between Marine Terrace, the coast, Scout Road and Gale Street (except for Signal Park), the Dugalup Brook reserves (to the immediate north of Dunsborough Town Centre, from Cape Naturaliste Road to Gifford Road – Reserves 42673, 35758, 22613 and 26513), Lions Park, Seymour Park, and on the Dunsborough Foreshore between Gifford Road and the Centennial Park car park;

f.          Beach areas, including the beach only (i.e. from the limit of ephemeral vegetation or the toe of a seawall to the water only, and not including vegetated foreshore areas, beach access paths or car parks) to be categorised as ‘Prohibited’, ‘Exercise’, ‘Seasonal’ or ‘Modified Seasonal’, with those areas being defined as follows –

 

‘Prohibited’ is as per s31(2B)(a) of the Dog Act 1976 and means that dogs are prohibited at all times (except assistance dogs and other dogs exempted by State and Commonwealth law);

 

‘Exercise’ is as per s31(2) of the Dog Act 1976 and means that dogs are permitted, including off-leash, at all times, except when approved, organised events are taking place, wherein dogs are to be prohibited (except assistance dogs and other dogs exempted by State and Commonwealth law);

 

‘Seasonal’ means that dogs are permitted as per ‘Exercise Area’, except during the period 9.00am-5.00pm, 1 December to 30 April inclusive, when they are prohibited as per ‘Prohibited Areas’; and

 

‘Modified Seasonal’ means that dogs are permitted as per ‘Exercise Area’, except during the period 1 August to 30 April inclusive, when they are permitted at all times, but only a leash as per s31(1) of the Dog Act 1976; and

 

g.         Beach areas under the care, control or management of the City, extending along the coast from the Shire of Capel boundary to the west and then to the south along the City’s west coast to the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River boundary, but not including land in National Park or privately owned land, to be categorised according to the categories described at (i) above and as follows –

 

Segment

Description

Proposed category

1.       

Municipal boundary (with Shire of Capel) to eastern side of Port Geographe Seawall

Exercise

2.       

Eastern side of Port Geographe Seawall to eastern side of Port Geographe channel

Seasonal

3.       

Western side of Port Geographe channel to beach access path from Groyne Road car park

Exercise

4.       

Beach access path from Groyne Road car park to beach access path from car park east of Russell Street

Seasonal

5.       

Beach access path from car park east of Russell Street to beach access path from car park at Ford Road/Geographe Bay Road intersection

Exercise

6.       

Beach access path from car park at Ford Road/Geographe Bay Road intersection to eastern side of Scout Road car park

Seasonal

7.       

Eastern side of Scout Road car park to beach access steps just the east of a continuation of West Street

Prohibited

8.       

Beach access steps just to the east of a continuation of West Street to beach access just to the east of a continuation of Gale Street

Seasonal

9.       

Beach access just to the east of a continuation of Gale Street to beach access to the eastern side of the King Street car park

Exercise

10.     

Beach access to the eastern side of the King Street car park to beach access to the beach access from the Margaret Street car park

Seasonal

11.     

Beach access from the Margaret Street car park to the east of the groyne between Craig Street and Bower Road (i.e. either side of Vasse Diversion Drain)

Exercise

12.     

Beach access just to the east of the groyne between Craig Street and Bower Road to beach access from car park opposite Mandalay Holiday Park

Seasonal

13.     

Beach access from car park opposite Mandalay Holiday Park to beach access path at end of Alan Street

Exercise

14.     

Beach access path at end of Alan Street to beach access path at end of Harnett Street

Seasonal

15.     

Beach access path at end of Harnett Street to eastern side of car park associated with Abbey Boat ramp

Exercise

16.     

Eastern side of car park associated with Abbey Boat ramp to Locke Drain (i.e. both sides of Buayanyup Drain)

Seasonal

17.     

Locke Drain to Siesta Park Groyne

Exercise

18.     

Siesta Park Groyne to western boundary of Siesta Park Holiday Park

Seasonal

19.     

Western boundary of Siesta Park Holiday Park to eastern beach access track in proximity to the Wyndham Resort

Exercise

20.     

Eastern beach access track in proximity to the Wyndham Resort to western beach access in proximity to Wyndham Resort

Seasonal

21.     

Western beach access in proximity to Wyndham Resort to eastern side of Quindalup Boat Ramp

Exercise

22.     

Eastern side of Quindalup Boat Ramp to 1.1km to western side of ‘Fisherman’s Boat Ramp

Seasonal

23.     

Western side of ‘Fisherman’s Boat Ramp to beach access to the east of Lot 30 (237) Geographe Bay Road

Exercise

24.     

Beach access to the east of Lot 30 (237) Geographe Bay Road to beach access from car park to the west of Dunsborough YHA

Seasonal

25.     

Beach access from car park to the west of Dunsborough YHA to beach access path just to the west of Tulloh Street

Prohibited

26.     

Beach access path just to the west of Tulloh Street to beach access path from Centennial Park car park

Exercise

27.     

Beach access path from Centennial Park car park to beach access path just to the west of Gifford Road

Prohibited

28.     

Beach access path just to the north-west of Gifford Road to beach access path just to the north-west of Burt Court

Exercise

29.     

Beach access path just to the north-west of Burt Court to the southern boundary of Meelup Regional Park (just to the north of Hurford Street)

Seasonal

30.     

Southern boundary of Meelup Regional Park to beach access path adjacent to Baudin Memorial

Prohibited

31.     

Beach access path adjacent to Baudin Memorial to Jingarmup Brook (in Eagle Bay townsite)

Seasonal

32.     

From Jingarmup Brook (in Eagle Bay townsite) 450 metres to the north (and within Meelup Regional Park)

Modified Seasonal (dogs allowed on leash from 1 August to 30 April, allowed to be exercised off leash the rest of the year)

33.     

From 450 metres north of Jingarmup Brook to northern end of Bunker Bay where Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park begins (and other than small areas where private land extends to the high water mark, within Meelup Regional Park)

Prohibited

 

 

h.         Notwithstanding point (h) above, dogs are prohibited when approved, organised events are taking place on a given section of beach;

i.          Dogs to be permitted to be exercised off-leash on all other local government property (including Signal Park), subject to the following limitations and conditions-

 

A.        Dogs are prohibited when approved, organised events are taking place (such as weddings, concerts or sporting events, but excluding markets or sporting fixtures generally open to the public without charge);

B.         Dogs are permitted, but only on a leash (or otherwise restrained as per s31(1) of the Dog Act 1976) and not on active, playing surface(s), at sporting fixtures generally open to the public without charge and at approved markets; and

C.         Dogs are permitted, but only on a leash (or otherwise restrained as per s31(1) of the Dog Act 1976), within any parking area (i.e. ‘parking area’ as defined in the City’s Parking Local Law).

 

j.          Dogs to otherwise be regulated in public places as per the Dog Act 1976 (which generally allows dogs to be in public places, provided they are on a leash);

k.         The approach is to be reviewed 12 months after finalisation and implementation, including through a further public consultation period; and

l.          Refinements to and/or modifications to the approach to be considered for particular places on as needs basis, but only after the overall approach has been established and settled;

 

2.    Pursuant to s31 of the Dog Act 1976, gives public notice of its intention to specify the proposed dog management areas as set out in 1 above, and for the proposals to be returned to Council for determination and to consider any submissions received in relation to the proposals before making any final determinations; and

 

3.    In relation to Yallingup, indicate its intention to both identify the beach from Slippery Rocks to a point just to the north of the Dawson Drive car park beach access as a ‘Seasonal Area’ once that land is transferred to the City’s management, and also to seek Department of Parks and Wildlife formal consideration of identifying an area of beach to the north of the Dawson Drive car park beach access as an ‘Exercise Area’ (but which will remain in National Park for at least the foreseeable future); and to also seek comment on those proposals in parallel with the proposals set out at point 1 above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  


Council                                                                                      73                                                         24 September 2014

12.             Engineering and Work Services Report

12.1           PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY (PAW) BETWEEN ANTHONY ROAD AND DAVID DRIVE, GEOGRAPHE

SUBJECT INDEX:

Thoroughfares

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Infrastructure assets are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Engineering and Facilities Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Development Control

REPORTING OFFICER:

Land and Infrastructure Officer - Andrew Scott

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Map of subject area

Attachment b    PAW survey findings report

Attachment c    Confidential PAW survey findings report  

Attachment d   Written Submissions

Attachment e    Designing out crime and antisocial behaviour in PAWs

Attachment f    Photos of PAW

Attachment g   Path Plan  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

During October 2013, the Council resolved for the pedestrian access way (PAW) between Anthony Road and David Drive, Geographe, to be closed for a trial period, due to the reports of anti-social behaviour.

 

Following the trial period, residents within the area were surveyed to gauge their opinion about the PAW and the trial closure.  Based on the survey responses and the importance of the PAW as part of a pedestrian network within the neighbourhood, this report recommends that the PAW is reopened, provided works are completed to mitigate the incidence of anti-social behaviour.

 

A petition in relation to this matter, requesting that the laneway be reopened, was received at the City on 9 September 2014.  The action requested in this petition is considered to be dealt with by Council’s consideration of this report.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The PAW between Anthony Road and David Drive

 

The PAW Lot 200 located between Anthony Road and David Drive, Geographe (‘the PAW’) was created during 1982 as part of a subdivision of land that also created several residential lots on Guerin Street, David Drive, Luke Way and into Anthony Road.

 

The PAW is utilised for pedestrian access and by public utilities.  Services that run through the PAW are power, water and sewerage.

 

The PAW forms part of a pedestrian network from Armitage Drive to Harwood Road through to Freycinet Drive and Port Geographe including the footbridge and the western groyne.

 

Adjoining the north western part of the PAW is a public utilities reserve on which power supply infrastructure (a transformer unit) is placed.

 

Previous reports to the Council related to the PAW

 

The PAW has been considered in previous reports to the Council:

·    Council decision C971/0023 – The Council resolved to keep the PAW open and to install poles to stop motor cycles from using the PAW.

·    Council decision C1306/140 – The Council resolved to advertise for public submissions a proposal to temporarily close the PAW.

·    Council decision C1310/269 – The Council resolved to close the PAW for a trial period of six months.

 

Reported incidence of anti-social behaviour in the PAW

 

The types of anti-social behaviour within the PAW as reported previously by residents include:

·     unauthorised use by riders of motor cycles and scooters;

·     unauthorised use by skateboards and damage to fences caused by skateboards;

·     consumption of alcohol;

·     glass bottles and other litter;

·     people throwing objects from the PAW onto the roofs of buildings;

·     lack of privacy as people peer over the fence into adjoining property;

·     indecent acts;

·     drug taking.

 

Reported incidence of anti-social behaviour in other PAWs

 

Adjoining land owners have expressed concern about anti-social behaviour in the following PAWs:

·     PAW between Hobson Street and Silver Gull Court;

·     PAW between Links Court and Glen Eagles Crescent.

 

The main concern from the adjoining land owners is damage being caused to boundary fencing.

 

PAWs

 

PAWs (pedestrian access ways) are generally created on the subdivision of land under s. 152 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (or s. 28 of the prior Town Planning and Development 1928) and ceded to the Crown.  By default, PAWs are vested with local government due to s. 3.53 of the Local Government Act 1995.

 

PAWs are provided primarily for the unimpeded movement of pedestrians, although PAWs may be used for other purposes.  They are favourable to public utility providers as they are able to place their services within the PAW and access those services without the requirement for legal access easements.

 

Designing out anti-social behaviour in PAWs

 

Recognising that anti-social behaviour can occur within PAWs, the WA Planning Commission and WA Police have produced various publications for designing out anti-social behaviour within PAWs.

 

Options for mitigating the incidence of anti-social behaviour within PAWs are considered in the officer comments section of this report.

 

Dealing with requests to close a PAW permanently

 

There is no legislation that gives local government the authority to permanently close a PAW.  That authority lies with the Minister for Lands (via the Department of Lands) in consultation with State Planning.

 

Given that PAWs are created through ‘planning and development’ processes, proposals to close a PAW will generally require the reassessment of the planning processes that led to their creation.  Relevant State Planning documents include ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ and Planning Bulletin 57/2009A.  Two of the twelve ‘principal aims’ of Liveable Neighbourhoods document that relate specifically to walking are (page 2):

“2. To ensure that walkable neighbourhoods and access to services and facilities are designed for all users, including those with disabilities.”, and

“4. To provide for access generally by way of an interconnected network of streets which facilitate safe, efficient and pleasant walking, cycling and driving.”

 

The procedures for closure of a PAW are detailed in Chapter 5 of the Department of Lands ‘Crown Land Administration & Registration Practice Manual’, July 2013; and Chapter 8 of the Landgate ‘Land Titles Registration Practice Manual’, November 2013.

 

According to the Department of Lands ‘Crown Land Administration & Registration Practice Manual’ (page 5-26):

“In general terms, a closure of a PAW or ROW should not proceed without Local Government and DoL taking into consideration matters including but not limited to the following:

·     consideration of equity of access particularly with regard to disability and age;

·     agreement being reached for either acquisition and inclusion of the subject land in adjoining properties, or for other acceptable land management arrangements;

·     evidence that arrangements have been made to protect or relocate any public utility services located within the PAW or ROW;

·     evidence that reasonable objections to the closure raised by adjacent property owners and owners and residents of properties served by the PAW or ROW have been addressed; and

·     evidence that relevant transport and planning considerations have been taken into account and issues raised by DoL and other relevant government departments has been properly considered.”

 

According to the Landgate ‘Land Titles Registration Practice Manual’ (pg 382):

“Local Government must assess the impact of closing a PAW or ROW and in considering a closure request, a balance needs to be found between resident accessibility to facilities and public transport, and security and amenity. Where Local Government proceeds with a closure request, it is required to prepare a summary report for DPI that also includes confirmation that the Local Government has resolved to recommend the closure.

 

Generally a PAW or ROW will only be closed when it can be sold to the adjoining landowners or reserved and vested in an appropriate agency for public utility purposes.”

 

NOTE:  ‘DPI’ is now State Planning (of the former Department of Planning and Infrastructure).

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

·     Planning and Development Act 2005, section 152.

·     Local Government Act 1995, section 3.53.

·     Land Administration Act 1997.

·     The Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913.

·     The Road Traffic Code.

·     Local laws as they apply to thoroughfares.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

·     WAPC Planning Bulletin 57/2009A – Planning guidelines for pedestrian access ways

·     Engineering and Works Services Standards and Specifications:   Section 9(c) Landscape, Rural & Urban Road Reserves.  Details policy relating to verge gardens and pedestrian/cyclist safety.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

·     The officer recommendation includes works to mitigate the incidence of anti-social behaviour within the PAW.  The 2014/15 Budget includes an amount of $50,000 for those works.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

Key goals

Community objectives

2. Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Place

2.3 Infrastructure assets that are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations.

4. Connect City

4.1 Transport options that provide greater links within our district and increase capacity for community participation.

 

4.3 A linked network of cycle ways and pedestrian paths providing alternative transport options.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Risk

Rating

Mitigation

Public health: Pedestrians being forced onto the road to get around verge gardens

Consequence: Moderate

Likelihood: Possible

Rating: High

Manage verge gardens to policy.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Further to previous consultation relating to the PAW for previous reports to the Council; residents, the Busselton Primary School and people who made a previous submission were asked to either complete a survey form and/or provide a written submission regarding the trial closure of the PAW.

 

The survey was distributed to properties within a ‘walkable-distance’ catchment area of the PAW.  The findings of the survey are reported in Attachment B.

 

Written submissions are reported in Attachment C.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Broad neighbourhood support for the PAW to be reopened

 

The survey results found that the majority (55%) of residents within a ten-minute walkable-distance catchment area would prefer that the PAW is reopened.  Only 11% would prefer the PAW remains closed.  The balance were either not concerned whether the PAW is reopened or kept closed, or did not respond to the survey question.

 

Appendix C of Attachment B ‘PAW survey findings report’ maps the distribution of preference across the walkable-distance catchment area of the PAW.

 

Anti-social behaviour

 

The survey results found that a majority (58%) of residents felt that prior to the closure, the PAW was kept mostly in a clean and tidy state, contrary to what might be a strong indicator of anti-social behaviour occurring within the PAW.

 

But that is not to say that anti-social behaviour did not occur within the PAW when it was open or in the broader neighbourhood.  Litter and empty drink bottles were cleared from the PAW and there is the occasional graffiti (like many community facilities).

Based on the PAW survey findings, the main concern of residents has been the riding of motorised vehicles through the PAW.  This issue should largely have been addressed though as the City erected barricades at each end of the PAW, and due to a recent focus by local police on modified bicycles fitted with petrol driven motors.  The barricades must be wide enough to allow prams and pedestrian vehicles through so they’re not going to stop all unauthorised use of the PAW by motorised vehicles.  But a few of the survey responses indicated that use of motorised vehicles through the PAW is not the problem it once was.

 

The more disturbing reports of anti-social behaviour come from the properties that adjoin the PAW and include reports of drunken behaviour, drug use, indecent acts, gangs of youths and other possible breaches of the criminal code.

 

Anecdotal feedback suggests the level of anti-social behaviour in the park has declined since the PAW was closed.  However, it is too simplistic to attribute the decline in anti-social behaviour to one element. The decline could also be attributed to Policing efficiencies, changes in tenancy or the recent re-landscaping works in the park (much of the undergrowth vegetation has been thinned-out improving surveillance across the park).  All of these elements (amongst others) would make the park and the area less desirable to the elements of the anti-social public that might use the park/area.

 

Piecing together the various reports and survey responses, there appears to be a link between the nearby Guerin Street Park (120m from the PAW), the PAW and possibly the liquor store in the shopping centre at the corner of Armitage Drive and Marine Terrace.  The PAW is on the route between the shopping centre and the park, and while passing through the PAW, the elements of anti-social public that might drop litter, street drink, make noise or otherwise disturb the peace of adjoining residents.

 

Further to passing through the PAW and considering the extra open space created from the public utility reserve that adjoins the PAW, the elements of anti-social public may be congregating at the PAW.  It is at these times that the more disturbing reports of anti-social behaviour and possible breaches of the criminal code may be occurring.

 

Impact of the trial closure of the PAW

 

The PAW survey found that 40% of the respondents have been inconvenienced by the trial closure of the PAW.  A further 23% of the respondents were not concerned by the closure.

 

Closing the PAW has meant pedestrians must walk along David Drive around a couple of corners south of the PAW.  The main concern for residents of the closure is the lack of footpaths, and the poor visibility around the David Drive corner due to the verge gardens.  Residents advise that while pushing a pram or on a pedestrian vehicle (Gopher), they are forced onto the road due to the verge gardens that extend to the kerb.  Attachment D contains photographs of the verge gardens.

 

Survey respondents expressed concern for the safety of children that utilised the PAW to access shops, the primary school and school bus stops.  Rather than allow children to walk around David Drive, one resident at least now drives the children to school rather than let them walk.

 

Some elderly residents with pedestrian vehicles felt safer using the PAW rather than negotiate the corners of David Drive due to the lack of footpaths and the verge gardens.

 

For the respondents that noticed the worst of the anti-social behaviour, they now say that the area is considerably quieter, safer and more civil since the PAW has been closed.

 

Reasons why the PAW between Anthony Road and David Drive should be reopened

 

Following are reasons supporting the reopening of the PAW:

·     According to the survey findings, there is strong community support for the PAW to be reopened.  Prior to the trial closure, the PAW was being used for its intended purpose and it encouraged walking and cycling rather than using a motor vehicle.

·     For many residents, the PAW provides the most direct pedestrian link to the Busselton Primary School, the Bayside Shopping Centre, the Guerin Street Park and bus stops, i.e. the very services that the PAW was designed to facilitate pedestrian access to.  Closing the PAW has inconvenienced many residents.

·     Residents are concerned about the hazard of walking around David Drive due to a lack of footpaths and because they are forced onto the road due to the verge gardens that extend to the kerb.

·     The PAW between Anthony Road and David Drive splits the pedestrian traffic between Grant Street and David Drive.  Closing the PAW forces pedestrians around David Drive and they are then directed to continue along David Drive towards the PAW that links David Drive with Armitage Drive.  Residents towards the end of David Drive have expressed their concern about the increased pedestrian traffic through the PAW between David Drive and Armitage Drive and the associated anti-social behaviour.  (There is potential for the closure of one PAW to have a domino effect on other PAWs.)

·     The PAW fulfils Strategic Community Objective 4.3, ‘A linked network of cycle ways and pedestrian paths providing alternative transport options’.

·     The re-landscaping of the Guerin Street Park has received good reports that should encourage more use of the facility.  The PAW provides a direct pedestrian link to the park for more residents.

·     The PAW is part of a broader pedestrian and bicycle ‘spine’ network from Port Geographe to Armitage Drive.

·     While the City should be able to close the PAW for short periods to address hazards to the public or on the request of WA Police, the City does not have the authority to close the PAW for extended periods without first attaining the consent of the Department of Lands in consultation with State Planning.

 

Dealing with anti-social behaviour in PAWs

 

Attachment D provides options that may be used to deal with anti-social behaviour within PAWs.  The WA Planning Commission and WA Police provide additional documents for designing out anti-social behaviour and crime in PAWs.

 

Given there is anti-social behaviour within the PAW between Anthony Road and David Drive and the broader neighbourhood, there are a number of actions that the City might take to mitigate the incidence of anti-social behaviour:

 

·      Apply anti-graffiti coating to fences.

·     Improve night visibility and surveillance through the PAW and the Guerin Street Park by erecting solar powered lighting.

·     Narrow the path through the PAW so that it gives a sense that it is more of a thoroughfare and less of a place for mingling or loitering.

·     Fence off the adjoining public utility reserve to reduce the open space that it creates with the PAW (and possibly encouraging loitering within the area).

·     Set up a gate across the PAW to give the option for the PAW to be closed after hours (when the anti-social behaviour seems to most of a problem) or to address immediate concerns for public safety (such as on advice of WA Police).  The PAW should remain open during the hours that the local shops are operating and to allow residents to access schools and bus stops.

All work to mitigate the incidence of anti-social behaviour should be of a standard that withstands vandalism, while retaining the PAW as an amenity for the community (and does not become like a high security compound).

 

The 2014/15 Budget includes an amount for works to design out anti-social behaviour within the PAW, but the budget may not extend to employing someone to open and close the PAW periodically should that option be implemented.

 

Addressing the issue relating to pedestrian access around David Drive

 

The PAW survey found a clear concern of residents about the road safety hazard from a lack of footpaths around David Drive.  This concern is compounded by the verge gardens that extend to the kerb, as this forces pedestrians, including school children, to walk on the road.  One resident is that concerned that they have not allowed their school children to walk to school since the PAW was closed and drives them to school instead.

 

Irrespective of the future of the PAW, this issue should be addressed by ensuring that the first few metres of the verge from the road kerb is clear of obstructions and has a suitable tread for pedestrians as per provisions within local law and Council Policy.  Residents should be advised of Council Policy relating to verges and asked to make sure their verge gardens comply with the policy.

 

Plans to construct footpaths within the area

 

The 2014/15 Budget includes an amount to construct a footpath along Grant Street from Armitage Drive to Anthony Road.  A footpath should alleviate concerns from residents about the lack of footpaths in the area.

 

Referring to Attachment F, a footpath along Grant Street of approximately 290m would complement the pedestrian path network from Port Geographe to Armitage Drive, and provide a more direct link for residents to and from the Busselton Primary School and the Bayside Shopping Centre.  From the PAW survey responses, the path would be well utilised.

 

However, an important link in the network is the PAW between Anthony Road and David Drive.  Closure of the PAW disrupts the continuity of the network to some extent as pedestrians need to loop around David Drive.  Should the PAW remain closed, the footpath should be extended approximately 220m from Grant Street along Anthony Road towards David Drive and then around David Drive to Luke Way.

 

Alternatively, a footpath of approximately 400m might be constructed along David Drive from PAW between Armitage Drive and David Drive to Luke Way.  This path would be of benefit to the residents along Avocet Boulevard for access to the Guerin Street Park, but this path alignment would be of a lesser benefit to school children and of little benefit to pedestrians accessing the Bayside Shopping Centre.  On balance (based on the PAW survey response), this path would be less utilised than a footpath along Grant Street.  Furthermore, David Drive (west of Anthony Road) is a cul de sac, so there is no through traffic, servicing 20 properties.  This might be compared to Grant Street which is a through road servicing properties along Grant Street, Melville Court, Anthony Road and David Drive at least.

 

To summarise, the most suitable alignment for a footpath is along Grant Street as this provides the most direct link for pedestrians to the Busselton Primary School and Bayside Shopping Centre.  But this would be dependent on the reopening of the PAW between Anthony Road and David Drive.

 

Procedure to close the PAW

 

Should the Council resolve to make a request to the Department of Lands to close the PAW permanently or for an extended period, there is a procedure that should be followed prior to making the request.  That procedure is covered in the Background section of this report.  This part of the report deals with the more specific issues regarding requests to close the PAW between Anthony Road and David Drive.

 

The procedure for closing a PAW is based on a presumption against closure.  Prior to making a request for closure, firstly, the City should be able demonstrate what it has done to deal with the anti-social behaviour within the PAW or why further action would not be practicable.

 

Secondly, the City should formulate a list of compelling reasons with supporting evidence for the PAW to be closed.  The reasons for the need for a strong case include the strong community support for the PAW to remain open; the proximity of the PAW to shops, schools, bus stops and parks; and due to the PAW forming part of a network of footpaths for pedestrian access that is consistent with the principals of Liveable Neighbourhoods.

 

Thirdly, an agreement in principle should be established for the disposition of the land on closure of the PAW.  The option for disposition is for an adjoining land owner to agree to purchase a portion of the PAW land.  This option may involve costs to relocate services and for the granting of easements on the land, and would be subject to the consent of the public utilities with services currently running through the PAW.  Given there are at least 3 service utilising the PAW, an agreement in principle is not likely to be straightforward.

 

CONCLUSION

 

From the survey responses, there appears to be a link between the incidence of anti-social behaviour within the PAW and the nearby Guerin Street Park.

 

According to the reports from residents of property that adjoin the PAW, the incidence of anti-social behaviour in the area has declined markedly since the PAW has been closed.  This may be attributed to the trial closure of the PAW but could also be attributed, in part at least, to other factors such as the recent landscaping works at Guerin Street Park and the result of community policing in the area.  This group of residents have rated the level of anti-social behaviour to be disturbing, which at times has made them fearful.  And they have noticed acts that are possible breaches of the criminal code.

 

Beyond the group of residents bearing the brunt of the anti-social behaviour, there is a very strong response from residents for the PAW to be reopened as the trial closure has disrupted pedestrian access to the Busselton Primary School, the Bayside Shopping Centre, bus stops and the Guerin Street Park.  Closure of the PAW is contrary to the principle aims of Liveable Neighbourhoods and the City’s strategic community objectives as the PAW forms part of a pedestrian network from Freycinet Drive (including the groyne reconfiguration) through to the school and shopping facilities on Armitage Drive.

 

Furthermore, residents are concerned about the hazard of having to walk on the road around the corners of David Drive.  Irrespective of the outcome regarding the PAW, the City should address the issue of verge gardens extending to the kerb.

 

Given the strong community response for the PAW to be reopened, this report recommends that the PAW is reopened on the basis that works are completed to address the anti-social behaviour within the PAW and the nearby Guerin Street Park.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may consider resolving to opening the PAW at least until issues of safe pedestrian use of the verge around David Drive is resolved.  During that time, the City may conduct more research and prepare a report that would demonstrate compelling reasons for the PAW to be closed and to negotiate an agreement in principle for the disposition of the PAW and then make a request to the Department of Lands for the PAW to be closed permanently.

 

While this option might address the immediate concerns of residents walking around David Drive, it does not provide certainty regarding the future of the PAW as there is no certainty that the Department of Lands will approve the closure of the PAW.  Also, it does not address the concerns of adjoining land owners regarding the incidence of anti-social behaviour within the PAW which may start again with the opening of the PAW.  Additionally, officer (or contractor) time to conduct the research and complete a report supporting the permanent closure of the PAW is likely to be significant with no guarantee of an outcome.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Works to mitigate the incidence of anti-social behaviour within the PAW should be completed this financial year.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council supports:

 

1.            reopening of the pedestrian access way (PAW) between Anthony Road and David Drive, Geographe and acknowledges receipt of the petition requesting this outcome;

 

2.            works to mitigate the incidence of anti-social behaviour within the PAW and within the   nearby Guerin Street Park;

 

3.            managing the extent of verge gardens along David Drive in accordance with policy and to               ensure pedestrian safety.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      91                                                         24 September 2014

12.2           AWARD OF RFT 11/14 PROVISION OF CLEANING SERVICES OF CITY OWNED BUILDINGS

SUBJECT INDEX:

RFT 11/14 PROVISION OF CLEANING SERVICES OF CITY OWNED BUILDINGS

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, leisure facilities and services.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Engineering and Facilities Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Facility Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Facilities Coordinator - Shawn Lombard

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Confidential Tender Evaluation and Recommendation Report  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is requested to consider the tenders received in response to Request for Tender RFT11/14 “Provision for Cleaning Services of City Owned Buildings” and if thought fit, approve the award of contracts to the preferred respondents.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The City’s objectives with this Request for Tender are to:

 

·    Appoint one or more contractors to provide scheduled cleaning services to the City’s buildings. There are 11 cleaning schedules included in the RFT.

·    To appoint a panel of contractors to provide periodic services and event services on an “as required basis” during the term of the contract.

 

The current cleaning services have been engaged through three separate contracts due to a number of issues. The contracts due to expire are:

o    The original Cleaning Tender – RFT 04/10;

o    A temporary Cleaning contract awarded under RFQ 20/11;

o    The award of a temporary services contract under RFT 07/12.

The current contracts end on the same date in order for all City cleaning services to be considered under one tender process.

 

The City has made a number of amendments to the way in which the cleaning schedules have been advertised, these being different allocation of buildings within the schedules to allow for clearer works scopes. Amendments suggested by managers and coordinators to our key venues, having regard to their daily operational and cleaning requirements. The revision of times and frequencies for each venue, based on experience and historic review data. Lastly the inclusion of new venues and activities, as the City is growing and expanding its profile in both physical venues and events.

 

The Request for Tender was prepared and advertised, with all these amendments being captured, in the new Request for Tender -  RFT11/14 “Provision of Cleaning Services to City Owned Buildings”. The City received eight (8) submissions from: Multiclean, Ocean Air, Delron Cleaning, GJK Facility Services, Cleandustrial, OCe Corporate Cleaning, Hudson’s and Pioneer Facility Services.

 

The review process of all submissions for Tender RFT11/14 “Provision for Cleaning Services of City Owned Buildings” has been completed by the Tender Evaluation Panel that comprised of the following City Officers:-

 

•             Shawn Lombard                                Facilities Coordinator.

•             Mark Tyler                                          Contracts & Tendering Officer.

•             Daniell Abrahamse                          Manager of Engineering & Facilities Services.

 

It is proposed that contracts will commence on 1 October 2014, and will run for a period of two (2) years with two (2) one (1) year extensions exercisable at the City’s discretion.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

 Part 4 (Tenders) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 apply. In particular:

 

Regulation 11: “Tenders are to be publicly invited according to the requirements of this Division before a local government enters into a contract for another person to supply goods or services of the consideration under the contract is, or is expected to be, more, or with more, than $100,000…”;

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The following Council Policies have relevance to the Provision of Cleaning Services for City Owned Buildings.

 

Policy 239 – Purchasing:

The proposed procurement process complies with this policy.

Policy 049/1 –Regional Price Preference:

The Regional Price preference was applied to qualifying submissions

Policy 031 – Tender Selection Criteria:

The tender selection criteria for RFT11/14 were chosen and endorsed under the CEO delegated authority provisions of this policy.

Policy 233 – Occupational Health and Safety

Respondents were asked to provide details of their OHS processes and the procurement process otherwise complies with this policy.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

When officers reviewed the RFT 11/14 submissions using the previous year’s financial data, the following was noted:

The RFT 11/14 submissions value is 12.08% cheaper than the actual expenditure for the 2013/14 period.

The RFT 11/14 submission value is 21.54% cheaper than the 2013/14 budget allocation.

The RFT 11/14 submission value is 28.62% cheaper than the 2014/15 budget allocation.

If all the tender award values plus all the contingency values are considered, noting unallocated venues, additional periodic cleans, event cleaning, GLC and NCC/Library budget transfer (discussed later in the report) plus a contingency amount for unforeseen items, this total value is still 3.38% less than last year’s annual budget.

This same lump sum when reflected on this year’s budget shows an approximate 12% saving on the annual budget for the 2014/15 period.

 

The officers evaluation of the financial implications of awarding contracts to the preferred tenderers indicates that, the total annual value of the submissions for the scheduled cleaning services and one periodic clean (per venue) are well within the adopted Council FY2014/15 budget allocation for cleaning services. This is with an allowance for the following additional cleaning costs:

 

•             Unallocated venues not yet awarded due to venues not being completed. These are venues currently under construction. Provisional budget has been allocated to each such venue.

•             A second set of periodic cleans for all venues in the course of the FY2014/15 financial year.

•             The event budget cost allocations, as these are used by the Council staff to substitute the cleaning requirements for these events using the panel of contractors. They are over and above the daily cleaning requirements.

•             Contingency to allow for schedule adjustment and possible frequency increase or new venue allocations.

 

In addition to the above officers in discussion with the GLC and NCC management are of the belief that it would represent better value for money to conduct cleaning services at the Naturaliste Community Centre and the Geographe Leisure Centre “in house” using new casual staff resources. As this would require the transfer of funds and the employment of new staff, this will be subject to a more detailed business case and separate report to the Council. However, it is envisaged that the equivalent funding allocated in the cleaning budget for these facilities will, if brought in house provide a better level of service with minor cost savings. In the mean time until the business case has been completed a temporary short term contract (RFQ) will be used to will be used to appoint a contractor to clean these venues, noting that schedules 6 and 7 (for the above facilities) will not be awarded as part of the officers recommendation.

 

Please note that schedule 4 will not be awarded as part of this tender award report. Schedule 4 represents the Kookaburra Caravan Park, which is cleaned under the new management contract. Tenderers were requested not to quote on this schedule.

 

Please refer to the confidential officer recommendation report at Attachment A for a comparison of the values of the submissions from respondents and more information about the financial assessment undertaken.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This proposal aligns to the City’s Strategic Community Plan of 2013:

 

Key Goal Area 2:               Well planned, Vibrant and Active Places

Objective:                           2.1 A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, leisure facilities and services.

2.3 Infrastructure assets are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations.

Key Goal Area 3:               Robust Local Economy

Objective:                           3.3 A community where local business is supported.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The objective of this tender is to create a panel of Contractors who best demonstrate the ability to provide quality services at a competitive price across the identified cleaning schedules. 

 

The risk has been categorised as an L5 (Unlikely with minor operational consequences). The risk has been assessed in this manner because the panel contractors have all demonstrated an ability to provide the services, underpinned by providing laudable referees and supportable financial profile information.

 

Therefore the City has no reason to believe that any of the Contractors may not be able to perform the services as and when required. The risk is perceived to have minor operational consequences for the City given the nature of the contract.

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

Nil

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

As part of the tender evaluation an initial compliance check was conducted to identify submissions that were non-conforming with the immediate requirements of the RFT.  This included compliance with contractual requirements and provision of requested information.

 

Although otherwise fully compliant, submissions from OCe and Cleandustrial were not considered as part of the final evaluation, as those respondents stipulated that their offers were conditional on being offered all 11 cleaning schedules or a specified number of them. All other submissions were found to be fully compliant.

 

The assessments of the tenders were based on the following Qualitative Criteria as included in the Request for Tender Document:

 

•          Relevant Experience: 15% - a review of relevant work experience, including relevant referees.

•          Key personnel skills and experience: 15% - a review of the team structure, and key personnel skills and qualifications

•          Tenderers Resources: 20% - a review of the respondents’ ability to provide the required work gear and hardware, as well as staffing resources to accommodate additional and unforseen frequency and schedule issues.

•          Demonstrated Understanding: 20% - detailing the respondents’ understanding of the specific commercial cleaning requirements of the RFT.

               

The Tendered price was given a 30% weighting.

 

The responses to the qualitative criteria was reviewed and scrutinised by the evaluation panel. The following 3 tenderers ranked as the top respondents on the qualitative criteria:-

 

Ranked position:             Contractor Name:                                            Weighted Qualitative Score (out of 7):

1.                                            Multiclean                                                                                           5.32

2.                                            Delron Cleaning                                                                                4.68

3.                                            Ocean Air Carpet Care & Commercial Cleaning                    4.58

 

The qualitative scores were then applied to the respondents’ prices for each of the scheduled cleaning services and the Regional Price Preference was applied to the qualifying submissions. 

 

The evaluation panel noted the following having had regard to terms of the RFT:

 

•          As discussed in the financial section of this report, officers believe that it would represent better value for money to conduct cleaning services at the Naturaliste Community Centre and the Geographe Leisure Centre “in house” using new casual staff resources. As noted this will be subject to a more detailed business case and further council report. In the mean time until the business case has been completed a temporary short term contract (RFQ) will be used to appoint a contractor to clean these venues. Please note that schedules 6 and 7 (for the above facilities) will not be awarded as part of the officer’s recommendation.

 

•          One of the City’s objectives for the RFT is to create a panel of contractors to provide periodic services and event services on an “as required basis” for the term of the contract. It was felt that a minimum of three (3) contractors would best represent a good resource pool to accommodate this requirement. It was also considered that local contractors need to be represented on the panel for efficiency and having regard to the City’s Purchasing Policy for supporting the local economy. Accordingly in the final analysis, in certain schedules where the combined scoring was very close, the second placed respondent was selected to obtain a sufficient number of contractors on the panel. This will assist the City’s overall achievement of best value for money.

 

•          It was determined that it was not appropriate to split the award of Schedules 9 and 10 – BBQ’s at Dunsborough and Busselton.

 

As noted in the financial section of this report schedule 4 will not be awarded as part of this tender award report. Schedule 4 represents the Kookaburra Caravan Park, which is cleaned under the new management contract. Tenderers were requested not to quote on this schedule.

 

In Summary, the table below sets out the evaluation panel’s recommended service provider for each of respective service schedule:

 

Schedule:                            Schedule Description:                                    Successful Contractor

Schedule 1:                         Administration/Council                                                 Multiclean

Schedule 2:                         Ablutions/Change rooms                                              Ocean Air

Schedule 3:                         Public Halls                                                                          Multiclean

Schedule 4:                         Kookaburra                                                                        Not to be awarded

Schedule 5:                         Busselton Ablutions                                                        Multiclean

Schedule 6:                         Geographe Leisure Centre                                           Not to be awarded

Schedule 7:                         Naturaliste Community Centre & Library                                Not to be awarded

Schedule 8:                         Dunsborough Ablutions                                                Multiclean

Schedule 9:                         BBQ’s - Dunsborough                                                     Delron

Schedule 10:                       BBQ’s - Busselton                                                             Delron

Schedule 11:                       Community Resource Centre                                      Multiclean

 

Accordingly, it is proposed that Multiclean, Ocean Air and Delron will be appointed to the panel for periodic and event services.

 

To further substantiate the recommendation the following is to be noted for each proposed successful tenderer:-

 

•          Schedule 1, 3, 5, 8 and 11: Administration Buildings - Multiclean - From the assessment it is evident that Multiclean has an effective company structure, and a good level of resource backup. They ranked as the best overall company for qualitative criteria. They were also very competitive in their pricing and with these items combined will be recommended for the award of various schedules.

 

•          Schedule 2: Ablutions & Change rooms - Ocean Air Cleaning - Ocean Air Cleaning ranked well under the Qualitative scoring, and when their price submission was compared, they provided good value for money. As well as being very competitive, Ocean Air are a locally based organisation.

 

•          Schedule 4: Kookaburra Caravan Park – Cleaning services are procured by the manager of Kookaburra Caravan Park.

 

•          Schedule 6 and 7: Geographe Leisure Centre and Naturaliste Community Centre –. As discussed in the financial section of this report, officers believe that it would represent better value for money to conduct cleaning services at the Naturaliste Community Centre and the Geographe Leisure Centre “in house” using new casual staff resources. As noted this will be subject to a more detailed business case and further council report. In the mean time until the business case has been completed a temporary short term contract (RFQ) will be used to appoint a contractor to clean these venues. Please note that schedules 6 and 7 (for the above facilities) will not be awarded as part of the officer’s recommendation.

 

•          Schedule 9 and 10: BBQ’s Busselton &Dunsborough - Delron Cleaning - Delron Cleaning ranked second in the initial qualitative ranking, and have presented the best value for money in these schedules. Furthermore, they are local and have the required resource levels to meet current and increased frequencies under this schedule.

 

CONCLUSION

 

This report seeks the Council’s endorsement of the officer’s recommendation to award to each of the cleaning service schedules other than Schedules 4, 6 and 7 and to appoint a panel of three contractors to provide periodic and events services on an “as required” basis.

 

OPTIONS

 

1.         The Council may choose not to accept the officer’s recommendation to award the contracts to the preferred tenderers and select alternative service providers.

 

2.         The Council may reject the officer’s recommendation and not award the contracts. This will cause considerable disruption to the City’s cleaning operations as the current tender contracts expire on 30 September. The City would therefore be required to go back out to tender and, in the interim, engage contractors on a short term basis following a short term RFQ process.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The award of the tender to the successful tenderers can be completed immediately after the Council has endorsed the officer’s recommendation. Tenderers will receive formal written notification within 7 days of the decision. All unsuccessful tenderers will be notified in this time.

 

The contracts will commence on 1 October 2014, and will run for a period of two (2) years with two (2) one (1) year extensions exercisable at the City’s discretion.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

1.         That the Council

2.        

1.         awards contracts for RFT11/14 “Provision for Cleaning Services of City Owned Buildings” to the following tenderers for the following schedules:

 

•             Schedule 1          (Administration/Council):             Multiclean

•             Schedule 2          (Ablutions/Change rooms):         Ocean Air

•             Schedule 3          (Public Halls):                                     Multiclean

•             Schedule 5          (Busselton Ablutions)                     Multiclean

•             Schedule 8          (Dunsborough Ablutions)             Multiclean

•             Schedule 9          (BBQ’s – Dunsborough)                 Delron Cleaning

•             Schedule10         (BBQ’s – Busselton)                        Delron Cleaning

•             Schedule11         (Community Resource Centre)   Multiclean

 

and appoint Multiclean, Ocean Air and Delron Cleaning to provide periodic and event cleaning services on an “as required” basis.

 

2.         Not award contracts for RFT11/14 “Provision for Cleaning Services of City Owned Buildings” for the following schedules:

 

Schedule 6:                         Geographe Leisure Centre                                          

Schedule 7:                         Naturaliste Community Centre & Library               

 

Noting that a further report will be presented to the Council with a business case determining the potential of bringing these schedules/services in house.            

 

 


Council                                                                                      89                                                         24 September 2014

12.3           AWARD OF TENDER RFT10/14 – BARNARD PARK OVAL REDEVELOPMENT – SUPPLY & INSTALLATION OF SPORTS OVAL LIGHTING

SUBJECT INDEX:

RFT10/14 - Supply & Installation of Sports Oval Lighting

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, leisure facilities and services.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Engineering and Facilities Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Parks and Gardens

REPORTING OFFICER:

Projects and Technical Contracts Officer - Karl Clively  

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Confidential Tender Evaluation and Recommendation Report   

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is requested to consider the evaluation of tenders received in response to Request for Tender RFT10/14 Barnard Park Development – Supply & Installation of Sports Oval Lighting.

 

The purpose of this report is to obtain the Councils consent to award Tender – RFT10/14 in accordance with the Tender Evaluation panel recommendation and to amend the 2014/15 budget as the tender submissions are over the allocated budget.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The objectives of this Request for Tender are to appoint a suitably qualified contractor for the supply and installation of sports oval lighting for the City of Busselton as part of the Barnard Park Redevelopment Project.  The Scope of Works includes, but is not limited to luminaries, towers, cables, cabinets and associated equipment to achieve a minimum of 50 lux.

 

Tender documents were requested from twenty (20) Contractors. At the tender deadline five (5) submissions were lodged for evaluation. Submissions were received from K & K Electrical, Geographe Underground Services, Cable West, Brad Scott Electrical and Anser Group Pty.

 

The review process of all submissions for RFT10/14 has been completed by the Tender Evaluation Panel that comprised of the following City Officers:-

 

Mark Tyler                                          Contracts & Tendering Officer

Karl Clively                                          Projects and Technical Contracts Officer (Panel Chair)

Paul Crewe                                         Manager, Major Projects

 

It is anticipated that the works will be completed on or around 30 November 2014.

 

The budget for these works was set in early 2013 based on the available information and costs at the time. Unfortunately the tender submissions for the supply and installation of the Barnard park sports field lighting have come in over the initial budget set for this element of the overall Barnard park upgrade. This report will make recommendations to fund the shortfall.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Part 4 (Tenders) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 apply, In particular, Regulation 11: “Tenders are to be publicly invited according to the requirements of this Division before a local government enters into a contract for another person to supply goods or services of the consideration under the contract is, or is expected to be, more, or with more, than $100,000…”

 

Local Government Act 1995, section 6.8 ‘Expenditure from municipal fund that is not included in the annual budget’.   A resolution in advance of the expenditure is required by absolute majority.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The following Council policies have relevance to the Tender process.

 

Policy 239 – Purchasing:

The procurement process complies with this policy.

 

Policy 049/1 –Regional Price Preference:

The Regional Price Preference was applied to this tender.

 

Policy 031 – Tender Selection Criteria:

The procurement process complies with this policy.

 

Policy 233 – Occupational Safety and Health

Respondents were asked to provide details of their OSH processes and the procurement process otherwise complies with this policy.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Application of appropriate selection criteria to the tender assessment process has contributed to ensuring that prospective tenderers are offering the most competitive price to satisfy the requirements contained within the scope of works.

 

The costs of works within this tender are provided for in the capital works budget for the Barnard Park Redevelopment Project.

 

The best value for money tender submitted was that from Brad Scott Electrical WA (BSEWA) for a total cost $462,400.00.

 

The overall budget for the Barnard Park project is $3,193,732, which includes a grant of $111,402 from the Department of Sport and Recreation for the Sports lighting. The overall budget has an allocation of $316,792 for the sports lighting component. With the tenders submitted and assuming the contract is awarded as per the officer recommendation, which is the lowest value tender this equates to a shortfall of $145,608.00.

 

The shortfall of $145,608.00 can be partially offset by a $35,000.00 predicted under expenditure (savings) from other elements of the project.

 

The remaining $110,000.00 shortfall is suggested to be funded in the following ways:

 

·   Option 1. Draw $110,000 from the Community & Recreation Facilities Restricted fund as follows:

 

Transfer $15,460 from the Busselton Precinct balance to be allocated for car parks.

Transfer $50,460 from the City (Formally Shire) District balance to be allocated for car parks.

Transfer $44,080 from the City (Formally Shire) District balance to be allocated for active playing fields.

Officers are recommending the use of this funding as approximately $240,000 of car park construction remains to be completed within the Barnard park project. The car parking funds would be used to offset the shortfall of the installation of the sports lighting.

 

Note: The Community and Recreation Facilities Fund is a Restricted Asset account made up of developer contributions for the provision of community facilities.

 

The Local Planning Policy ‘Community Facilities Implementation Policy (2008)’ document lists the community facilities to which development contributions may be directed.  The car parks and active playing fields are listed under ‘District Level Community Facilities’.

 

The appropriation of funds is in accordance with the Community Facilities Implementation Policy 2008 and supporting documents.

 

·   Option 2. Not construct the Carey St and Marine Terrace car parks which equates to a value of $86,600.00 and use these monies to part fund the shortfall.

In addition transfer $23,400 from the City (Formally Shire) District balance to be allocated for active playing fields. The only concern with this option is this will create a shortfall of formalised car parking in the near future. However, this car parking could be funded in future budgets.

 

·   Option 3. It would be possible to only award the tender for lighting one of the two sporting fields. This would bring the project in on budget, the negative impact being the lack of sports lighting reduces the level of use of one sports field.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

Key Goal Area 2:                              Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Places.

 

Community Objective 2.3:           Infrastructure assets that are well maintained and responsibly

managed to provide for future generations.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The objective of this tender is to isolate and identify a Contractor who best demonstrates the ability to provide a quality service at a competitive price.  The tender evaluation process mitigates the risk to the City. 

 

The risk has been categorised as an L5 (Unlikely with minor operational consequences) and has been assessed in this manner because  BSEWA (Brad Scott Electrical) has successfully completed numerous other projects with the City of Busselton on time and within budget, further vindicating the panel’s decision. BSEWA (Brad Scott Electrical) has provided an exemplary financial profile underpinned with creditable financial and professional referees.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The Projects and Technical Projects Officer has consulted with experienced industry specialists in framing up the technical specifications contained within the scope of works.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

As part of the tender evaluation an initial compliance check was conducted to identify submissions that were non-conforming with the immediate requirements of the RFT.  This included compliance with contractual requirements and provision of requested information.

All submissions were deemed to be compliant.

 

A detailed assessment of all tender submissions is provided in the Confidential Tender Evaluation and Recommendation Report.

 

With reference to the shortfall in funds the officers’ preference would be to proceed with option 1, as detailed in the financial section of this report. The Community and Recreation Facilities Fund can be used to fund the shortfall and this would provide the most appropriate final outcome for the Barnard Park sports grounds.

 

CONCLUSION

 

This report seeks the Council’s endorsement to support the officer’s recommendation and offer the contract to BSEWA (Brad Scott Electrical) in accordance with the Terms and Conditions as specified in RFT10/14 – Barnard Park Development – Supply & Installation of Sports Oval Lighting.

 

In addition the report seeks the councils endorsement to make budget amendments in accordance with Option 1 of the financial section of this report.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may consider the following options:

 

1.      The Council could choose not to accept the officer’s recommendation to award the contract to the preferred tenderer and propose an alternative tenderer.

 

2.      The Council reject the officer’s recommendation and not award the contract and recall tenders for the work.

 

3.      The Council may choose to not fund the shortfall as recommended within the report and therefore not award the tender.

 

4.      The Council may choose another financial option and award the tender.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The award of the tender to BSEWA (Brad Scott Electrical) will be announced immediately after the Council has endorsed the officer’s recommendation. The successful Tenderer will receive formal written notification within seven (7) days of the decision being handed down. All unsuccessful tenderers will also be notified in this time.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.      Awards the contract to BSEWA (Brad Scott Electrical) in accordance with the Terms and Conditions as specified in RFT10/14 Barnard Park Development – Supply & Installation of Sports Oval Lighting.

 

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

2.      Amends the 2014/15 budget to provide an allocation of $110,000 from the Community and Recreation Facilities Fund to assist in funding the supply and installation of sports lighting at Barnard Park (cost code C3098, activity code 6820). All funds to be transferred to C3098 Active Playing Fields - Barnard Park (Eastern Section).                                                                                    

  


Council                                                                                      93                                                         24 September 2014

13.             Community and Commercial Services Report

13.1           COMMUNITY SPORT & RECREATION FACILITIES FUND – ANNUAL AND FORWARD GRANT ROUND APPLICATIONS – 2015/16 – 2017/18 TRIENNIUM

SUBJECT INDEX:

Leisure Services

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, leisure facilities and services.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Community Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Community Development and Leisure Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Community Services - Maxine Palmer

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   City of Busselton Application - District Active Playing Fields (Stage 3 Sports Pavilion), Lot 338 Barnard Park 'Active Sporting Precinct'  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

Each year Local Government Authorities are required to rate and prioritise the Annual and Forward Grant Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) submissions received within their municipality.

 

The purpose of this report is to meet the CSRFF criteria by outlining the submissions received for projects within the City for this current funding round and request that Council rate each application prior to forwarding to Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) for final consideration.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

DSR administers the CSRFF program, with the purpose of providing State Government financial assistance to Local Government Authorities and local community groups (up to one third of the total capital cost), to develop well-planned facilities for sport and recreation.

 

In order to assist with the evaluation of submissions and to ensure projects are viable and appropriate, DSR has developed “Key Principles of Facility Provision”. Accordingly, each submission is to be assessed against those criteria.

 

Under the provision, Local Government Authorities are required to rate and prioritise local submissions using the following guide;

 

RATE

DESCRIPTION

A

Well planned and needed by the municipality

B

Well planned and needed by the applicant

C

Needed by the municipality, more planning required

D

Needed by the applicant, more planning required

E

Idea has merit, more preliminary work needed

F

Not recommended

 

Submissions for the current funding round closed on Friday, 29 August 2014. Following this date, each Local Government Authority is required to assess and prioritise applications before forwarding all documentation to the South West Office of DSR no later than 30 September 2014.

 

Following receipt by DSR, local applications along with others received throughout the State, will be evaluated and ranked by relevant State Sporting Associations and the CSRFF Assessment Panel, prior to the outcome being announced by the Minister for Sport and Recreation in February 2015. Funds for successful applications will become available in July / August 2015.

 

There is one grant category being applied for in the current round of funding, as follows:

 

Forward Planning Grants

$166,667–$4,000,000 will be allocated to the large scale projects where the total project cost exceeds $500,000 and may require an implementation period of between one and three years. Grants given in this category may be allocated in one or a combination of the years in the triennium.

 

On 20 August 2014, Councillors were briefed and asked to consider one project for the Forward Grant Round which would include two components as follows:

 

1.      City of Busselton Forward Planning Grant Application – District Active Playing Fields (Stage 3 Sports Pavilion), Lot 338 Barnard Park ‘Active Sporting Precinct’.

2.     Busselton Surf Life Saving Club Grant Application – New Club premises as key tenant of City of Busselton Youth Community and Events building on Busselton Foreshore Reserve 38558

 

However based on further clarification, DSR later advised that this approach was inconsistent with DSR Guidelines on the basis each component was two separate developments on different sites and reserves. In addition, because Lotterywest is providing the majority of the funding for the proposed Surf Life Saving Club/Youth building ($2.4 million out of a total $2.9 million) DSR cannot provide co-funding as Lotterywest funding is already deemed to be State Government funding. This exceeds DSR’s guidelines of a likely Lotterywest / CSRFF combined contribution of up to 1/3 of the total project cost.

 

On this basis, the Council is asked to prioritise one submission consisting of just one component the District Active Playing Fields (Stage 3 Sports Pavilion). The scope of this proposal has also been reviewed to bring the cost estimates into line with the current Long term Financial Plan.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Nil

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The development of Barnard Park into District level playing facilities is outlined in the City’s Active Open Space Strategy.

 

Should the Council adopt the recommendations within this report the City’s draft Long Term Financial Plan will require amendment for 2015/16 and 2016/17.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

One (1) application is received for consideration in the current round of funding:

 

1. City of Busselton Forward Planning Grant Application – District Active Playing Fields ‘Active Sporting Precinct’ (Stage 3 Sports Pavilion).

 

Under the CSRFF guidelines, the City is eligible for up to 1/3 (one third) funding of the total project budget. The State Government may however contribute up to 2/3 (two thirds) of total project costs through a combination of Royalties for Regions and CSRFF funding programs. The next round of Royalties for Regions funding has yet to be announced.

 

It is proposed to apply for funding over two years. This is based on the previous successful funding for the ovals which were also staged over two years. This will not impact on the City’s ability to acquire other funding in the second year (e.g. sports lighting funding was received for 2014/15 although the funding for the second oval was still outstanding.

 

The original cost estimates were recently reviewed by a Quantity Surveyor and although two years of cost escalations, landscaping and other improvements were provided for costs have increased above those forecast in the Long Term Financial Plan. The scope of the building has therefore been reduced to:

 

o   Rationalise the storage components (with storage provided elsewhere in the precinct)

o   Reduce the First aid / Umpire room and Kiosk by 50%

o   Remove the lobby and consolidate public and disabled toilet requirements.

o   Reduce the Function Room on the upper floor later stage

o   Relocate the Managers office into existing office spaces

o   Consider alternative construction methods

o   Remove the lift and consider an external all-access ramp.

 

This has reduced the total ground floor construction costs from $1,904,500 to $1,626,940 and the second floor from $2,585,900 to $1,958,900, which reduces the projected total project cost from $4,490,400 to $3,535,840.

 

The proposed funding strategy for this project is as follows:

 

 

Based on this, it is estimated that $542,313 of Council funding will need to be budgeted for in the 2015/16 and 2016/17 budgets. This is based on the State government only contributing up to a maximum of 1/3 (one third) to the total project cost through the CSRFF funding.

 

The net impact to the City’s Long Term Financial Plan, if this project is endorsed by Council and the CSRFF funding application is successful, is an increase of $204,459 in 2015/16 and $231,584 in 2016/17.  This will be considered as part of the LTFP review currently being undertaken.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter aligns with the Council’s Strategic Plan 2010-2020, and principally with the following Strategic Priority:

 

·      Community and Social Well Being:  provide a range of quality leisure, cultural, recreation and sporting facilities and services

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the Officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment identifies ‘downside’ risks only, rather than ‘upside’ risks as well. The table below describes identified risks where the residual risk, once controls have been identified, is identified as ‘medium’ or greater;

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

Royalties for Region funding for stage 2 is not received and therefore the level of funding required from Municipal Funds increases.

 

 

 

The project will only proceed when the required amounts of external funding are obtained.

Moderate - Significant delays service delivery with unacceptable recovery time or inconvenient delays to major deliverables

Unlikely - Could occur at some time

M9

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation has taken place between City Officers and staff from the South West Office of DSR in regard to the City’s application. In 2012, the Regional Manager of the Department of Sport and Recreation met with City Officers on several occasions, and a delegation of members of the City, including the Mayor, met with the Director General and senior staff from DSR in Perth, during the earlier stages of the Barnard Park development. Recently Officers from the City also consulted with the Regional Manager for the Department of Sport and Recreation in regards to the proposed funding strategy for this round.

 

It was at this meeting that delegates from the City were advised to submit two sequential (but separate) Forward Planning Grant applications for the ‘District Active Playing Fields’ (Barnard Park) project over two financial years to maximise the City’s chances of receiving funding from this particular funding scheme. It was recommended at this meeting to sequence the funding applications as follows:

 

1.    For the ‘District Active Playing Fields’ (Total project cost of $3 million in 2013/14);

 

 2.    For the Sports Pavilion to service the ‘District Active Playing Fields’ (Total project cost of $3.5 million in 2014/15) 

 

Consultation has taken place between Officers of the City and the identified users for this project; the Busselton Margaret River Cricket Association (BMRCA), Busselton Margaret River Junior Cricket Association (BMRJCA), Busselton Junior Rugby Club (BJRC), Leeuwin Naturaliste Junior Soccer Association (LNJSA) and the competition division of the Busselton Fire and Rescue Services (BFRS). This occurred on two series of occasions as follows:

 

1.      In 2012 prior to the development of Stage 1 (District Playing Fields) and Stage 2 (Sports Lighting);

 

2.      In 2014 prior to the submission of this current application for Stage 3 (Sports Pavilion Stage 1).

 

Consultation included the following:

 

·        A preliminary meeting with the clubs / associations;

 

·        The formation of the Active Sporting Precinct Working Group (ASPWG) including delegates from the clubs / associations.

 

The ASPWG methodology has focused on:

 

I.    The development of  Terms of Reference for the ASPWG

 

II.  Meetings of the ASPWG to develop the needs assessment and feasibility study scope

 

III. Internal consultation within the club membership to determine future direction

 

IV. Circulation and sharing of Information that could be used in the development of an Architectural design brief for the development of concept designs and cost estimates for the future ‘Active Sporting Precinct’

 

V.  The circulation and sharing of information that could be used in the development of facility, asset and financial management plans

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

City of Busselton– District Active Playing Fields (Stage 3 Sports Pavilion) – Total estimated cost $1,626,940

 

The City of Busselton's vision for the redevelopment of Busselton Foreshore is to be ’unique water's edge playground to be enjoyed by all‘. The scope of this development includes a wider foreshore area outside the Busselton Foreshore Working Group's original development zone that has, for many decades, been used as playing fields and public open space. The increase in capacity that the development of Barnard Park into a District Active Playing Field offers to sports and events responds to population growth and changes in community demographics in the long term. The addition of Community Club Facilities will provide a sustainable and inclusive community facility contributing to the health and well being of Busselton residents as well as to the City's aim to be recognised as the "events capital of the Southwest".

 

This funding application is for construction of the ground floor of a Community Club Facility to service the District Playing Fields. This facility will include change rooms, ablutions, public and disabled toilets, covered viewing areas, umpire room and a kiosk. Kiosk sales will help the Clubs generate revenue to support their financial viability and potentially contribute to the upper storey function room and events space envisaged for the facility at a later stage.

 

Consultation conducted, using a variety of approaches, for the development of the now adopted Active Open Strategy provided the impetus for the development of these facilities. Based on this assessment, the demand for improved and expanded facilities for Cricket, Soccer, Rugby and active sporting events was reinforced, particularly when viewed in the context of population growth, and the younger population profile that Busselton is now demonstrating.

 

The Leeuwin Naturaliste Junior Soccer Association, Busselton Junior Rugby Club and the respective Cricket Associations currently have no dedicated facilities to serve a combined active membership of in excess of 1300 people (with many of these sports also increasing in memberships by 4% per annum). The competition division of the Busselton Fire and Rescue Services have facilities that are also inadequate for future competition needs.

 

In 2013 the City of Busselton Council adopted Active Open Space Planning Recommendations to guide the future planning of active open space facilities within the district. This followed 18 months of consultation, needs assessments, a review of the City Leisure Services Plan and a demographic analysis of individual population precincts across the City.

 

The facilities were assessed as either Local, District or Regional and the recommendations and designations across the region are detailed on the inside pages of the Active Open Space Planning 2013 document.

 

The key Council adopted facility development strategies for Barnard Park include:

 

Precinct                             Facility                                  Active Open Space Planning Recommendations

Geographe Precinct

Barnard Park

That Barnard Park be designated as a district level facility for Cricket, Soccer, Rugby, active sporting events and the Busselton Fire and Rescue Service competition running division

 

 

That funding continue to be sourced to implement the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan, including a phased development of district active playing fields and the development of a community club facility

 

 

That the City works with community stakeholders to implement a community club operational/management model to manage the new community club facility

 

Under the guidelines for the CSRFF grant funding process, The City of Busselton is required to rank, in order of priority, all applications received from within its boundaries. The City of Busselton ranks this application as high, well planned and needed by the Municipality.

 

Options

 

The Council may decide not to support the City of Busselton Application – District Active Playing Fields (Stage 3 Community Club Facilities) at this time.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.     Submits the City of Busselton’s Application for funding – District Active Playing Fields (Stage 3 Community Club Facilities) to the Department of Sport and Recreation’s Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund and rates the Application as a priority ‘A’ project.

 

2.     Supports the allocation of $542,313 in both the 2015/16 and 2016/17 years of the draft Long Term Financial Plan for the construction of the District Active Playing Fields (Stage 3 Sports Pavilion) subject to the City receiving funding through the Department of Sport and Recreation’s Forward Planning Grant.

 

 


Council                                                                                      99                                                         24 September 2014

13.2           RETAIL TRADING HOURS REVIEW

SUBJECT INDEX:

Retail Trading Hours

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A strong, innovative and diversified economy that attracts people to live, work, invest and visit.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Community Services; Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Economic Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Invitation for Submission – proposal for extended retail trading hours in Busselton 2014

Attachment b    List of submissions for proposed extended retail trading hours in Busselton

Attachment c    Submission from Busselton Fresh IGA - Part A

Attachment d   Retailer research - Part B  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

In 2011, the City of Busselton applied to the Department of Commerce to extend Retail Trading Hours in Busselton on a year-round basis.  As required by resolution (C1110/313), in 2012 a review of the extended trading regime was undertaken and was endorsed (C1212/348) by Council to remain in place.

 

In August 2014 the City undertook public consultation on a proposal for year-round extended Retail Trading Hours that progressed toward consistent Retail Trading Hours across the District, and with Perth for weekday trading.  This report provides an overview of the outcomes of the consultation and recommends that Council applies to the Department of Commerce to further extend Retail Trading Hours in Busselton on a permanent year-round basis, and that it be reviewed in 12 months time.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Retail Trading Hours Act 1987 applies to retail shops in Western Australia south of the 26th parallel.  It sets out the trading hours and rules covering various categories of retail outlets.  The trading hours of restaurants, cafes and takeaway food shops are not covered by the Act.  Current State year round General Retail Trading Hours, as per the Retail Trading Hours Act 1987, include:

 

·    Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 8.00am to 6.00pm;

·    Thursday from 8.00am to 9.00pm;

·    Saturday from 8.00am to 5.00pm.

 

In August 2012, legislation was amended for the Perth metropolitan area allowing the following year round General Retail Trading Hours, as per the Retail Trading Hours Act 1987:

 

·    Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday from 8.00am to 9.00pm;

·    Saturday from 8.00am to 5.00pm;

·    Sunday and Public Holidays from 11.00am to 5.00pm;

·    Christmas Day, Good Friday and ANZAC Day:  Closed.

 

Non-metropolitan Local Governments are empowered, subject to endorsement by the Minister for Commerce, to extend general retail trading hours beyond those stipulated in the Retail Trading Hours Act 1987 and any permitted exemptions.

Currently the Department of Commerce permits trading hours in City of Busselton shopping precincts as follows:

 

Busselton

·    Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 8.00am to 7.00pm;

·    Thursday from 8.00am to 9.00pm;

·    Saturday from 8.00amto 6.00pm;

·    Sunday and Public Holidays from 10.00am to 6.00pm;

·    Christmas Day, Good Friday and ANZAC Day closed.

 

Dunsborough

·    Monday to Sunday from 8.00am to 9.00pm inclusive of ALL Public Holidays (including Good Friday, ANZAC Day and Christmas Day).

 

Each year, the City of Busselton consults with the local community and businesses to determine extended trading hours for the Christmas and holiday trading periods for approval by the Minister for Commerce.  Extended trading hours have been requested by the Busselton Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) to cater for periods of high customer demand during major events and the holiday season.  The Department of Commerce has previously suggested that Busselton consider making application for a permanent/long term variation to its trading hours to eliminate the need for annual submissions and to create uniform hours across the year.

 

Previous decisions and actions relating to the extension of Retail Trading Hours in Busselton is summarised as follows:

 

2010

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 27 October 2010, Council resolved (C1010/372):

 

1.    That the Council approve the temporary adjustment to the Retail Trading Hours from November 2010 for the shopping precinct for the Shire of Busselton as follows:

 

a.    Seasonal trading period with the same hours as the Department of Commerce approved Christmas trading hours for the period from Monday 29 November 2010 until 31 December 2010

b.    That the trading hours on Sunday 5 December 2010 be extended to 9pm to coincide with the Ironman event.

 

The Department of Commerce approved Christmas trading hours comprised of weekday trading from 8.00am to 9.00pm, Saturday trading from 8.00am to 5.00pm and Sunday trading from 10.00am to 5.00pm, from 29 November 2010 to 31 December 2010.

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 10 November 2010, Council resolved (C1011/387):

 

That the Council does not approve extended trading hours in January 2011, and the trading hours to remain as they are now.

 

2011

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 10 August 2011, Council resolved (C1108/248):

 

That the Council:

 

(a)         Endorses the preferred proposed year-round extensions to the retail trading hours in Busselton, on a seven day per week basis, to be reviewed in 12-months:

 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 8.00am to 7.00pm;

Thursday from 8.00am to 9.00pm;

Saturday from 8.00am to 6.00pm;

Sunday and Public Holidays from 10.00am to 6.00pm;

ANZAC Day from 1.00pm to 6.00pm.

 

(b)         Request that the CEO seek community feedback on the preferred proposed retail trading hours and present a report back to Council prior to an application being made to the Department of Commerce.

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 12 October 2011, Council resolved (C1110/313):

 

That the Council:

 

a)        Make application to the Department of Commerce for year-round extensions to the retail trading hours in Busselton, based on a seven day per week basis:

 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 8.00am to 7.00pm;

Thursday from 8.00am to 9.00pm;

Saturday from 8.00am to 6.00pm;

Sunday and Public Holidays from 10.00am to 6.00pm;

ANZAC Day from 1.00pm to 6.00pm.

 

(b)      Request that the CEO review the extended retail trading hours in twelve months time and present a report back to Council.

 

2012

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 12 December 2012, Council resolved (C1212/348):

 

That the Council endorses the current retail trading hours for Busselton:

 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 8.00am to 7.00pm;

Thursday from 8.00am to 9.00pm;

Saturday from 8.00am to 6.00pm;

Sunday and Public Holidays from 10.00am to 6.00pm;

 

Excluding Good Friday, ANZAC Day and Christmas Day.

 

2013

The City advertised its intention to extend Retail Trading Hours for the Holiday and Event season, commencing 9 December 2013 to 3 January 2014.  This was undertaken in consultation with the BCCI who supported the proposal.  No submissions were received and a successful application was subsequently received from the Department of Commerce approving the following extension; 

 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday from 8.00am to 9.00pm;

Thursday from 8.00am to 9.00pm (no change);

Saturday from 8.00am to 6.00pm;

Sunday and Public Holidays from 10.00am to 6.00pm;

Christmas Day Closed.

 

 

 

Following a recent review of the current trading hours across the City of Busselton, including the recognition of continued annual extensions for the major events and holiday season in Busselton, and anomalies in trading hours that exist between Busselton and Dunsborough, in August 2014 Council sought submissions on a proposal to progress towards unifying the trading hours across the local government district by the following year-round extension to retail trading hours in Busselton:

 

·    Monday to Sunday from 8.00am to 9.00pm

·    ANZAC Day from 1.00pm to 9.00pm

·    Christmas Day and Good Friday closed.

 

It is proposed Dunsborough’s extended trading hours (as approved by the Minister for Commerce in 1993) be retained.

 

This report presents the outcomes of the review process and recommends that the Council makes application to the Department of Commerce to extend Retail Trading Hours in Busselton to be more in line with Dunsborough, as proposed.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Busselton operates under the Retail Trading Hours (Shire of Busselton) Variation Order 2011 of the Retail Trading Hours Act 1987.

 

Dunsborough operates under the Local Government Retail Trading Hours Exemption Order (No 23) 1993 of the Retail Trading Act 1987.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The recommendations are in line with Council policies.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Nil.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter aligns with the City of Busselton’s endorsed Strategic Community Plan 2013, and principally with the following Strategic Goal:

 

Well planned vibrant and active places;

·    A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, and leisure facilities and services.

 

Robust Local Economy;

·    A strong, innovative and diversified economy that attracts people to live, work, invest and visit

·    A City recognised for its high quality events and year round tourist offerings

·    A community where local business is supported.

 

Further, extended retail trading hours assist the City in meeting its vision of becoming the ‘Events Capital of Regional WA’ by providing a range retail services to better serve the needs of visitors to the region, thereby value-adding to events, and further encouraging increased visitation and attraction of events to the region.


 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The recommendations contained within this report are considered low risk and as such a formal risk assessment is not provided.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Under the rules and guidelines for Permanent/Long Term variations to the Order for Non-Metropolitan Governments, a community consultation process is required.  The following provides an overview of the consultation process in relation to permanent extended Retail Trading Hours conducted since 2010:

 

2010

In September 2010, an extensive consultation process was undertaken by City Officers in conjunction with BCCI, which comprised of:

 

·      Individual meetings with nine (9) major retailers;

·      Information letter and a survey feedback form mailed out to 840 local businesses;

·      Survey feedback form published on the City’s website;

·      Form and information published in the Busselton Dunsborough Times ‘Council for the Community’ Page.

 

Through this, the community provided feedback to permanent changes to extend retail trading hours for the Christmas and special events period in 2010/2011. 114 survey responses were received and a report was presented to the Council on 10 November 2010 (C1011/387), as noted above.

 

2011

In 2011 Council commissioned a community survey which included questions relating to the retail trading hours of Busselton.  Of the 1,213 responses received, 51.8% were only moderately satisfied or less than moderately satisfied with current shopping hours, indicating potential room for improvement to the then trading hours.

 

As part of Council resolution C1108/248, in August and September 2011 the City invited public submissions on the endorsed proposed extended retail trading hours over a four (4) week period.  Additionally, the City invited submissions from key major stakeholders, including BCCI, Geogprahe Bay Tourism Association (GBTA) and the Busselton and District Resident Association.  Five (5) submissions were received; four (4) in support of the proposed changes, albeit one opposing trading on ANZAC Day, and one (1) opposing the proposed changes. 

 

One (1) of the supporting submissions was made by the BCCI who represented approximately 300 local businesses, further supporting extended hours similar to Dunsborough to provide consistent trading hours throughout the City.  The opposing submission was made by the Busselton Retail Trading Hours Alliance (‘the Alliance’) representing 41 small-medium sized local businesses. 

 

Subsequent to previous consultation undertaken, the consultation process undertaken in August and September 2011 proposed specific extended trading hours, which had not occurred in the past.  Based on the results and the number of submissions received through this consultation process, Council resolved (C1110/313) to endorse the proposed extended trading hours.

 

2012

Twelve (12) months from the commencement of extended trading hours, and as per Council resolution C1110/313, City Officers undertook a review, via consultation with businesses to ascertain the impact of the new trading regime.  Consultation undertaken was through the BCCI.  Due to the smaller number of local general retail shops (those with > 18 employees), general retailers were invited to a forum to discuss the impact of current trading hours and make recommendations for future trading hours.  Minimal response was received to the invitation which resulted in the forum being cancelled, verbal feedback provided indicated that this was a result of the demanding workload of retailers but that there was a strong desire to retain the current trading hours.  Three (3) written responses were however received from general retailers who all indicated their support for the continuation of current trading hours, with one (1) also recommending a further increase in weekday trading.

 

In order to develop a broader perspective on the issue, a survey was sent out to 250 BCCI member businesses to ascertain the impact and recommendations for future trading hours.  This survey resulted in four (4) responses, two (2) supporting current trading hours and two (2) requesting the need to reduce current trading hours.

 

In addition both the BCCI and GBTA indicated, through a submission, their support and desire to retain the current trading regime.

 

2013

In consultation with the BCCI, the City advertised its intention to extend Retail Trading Hours in Busselton over the holiday and event season.  No submissions were received and a subsequent approval to extend trading hours was received by the Department of Commerce.

 

2014

In the lead up to the annual application for extended trading hours over the holiday and event season, in consultation with BCCI a proposal for year-round extended trading hours was advertised for a three (3) week period.  The proposal incorporated specific trading hours to bring Busselton more in line with Dunsborough.  Through this process a total of 96 submissions were received; eight (8) in support of the proposed changes, 80 opposing the proposed changes, and eight (8) who did not indicate a preference.  In support of the proposed changes, the BCCI and GBTA who represent 300 and 430 member businesses respectively both made a submission.  It should be noted that 63 individual submissions (55 opposing and 8 no preference) were submitted to the City by an individual, indicating that there may have been a point where submissions were solicited, therefore results potentially being unrepresentative of the community as a whole.

 

Through the BCCI, further consultation was undertaken with the City’s general retailers (those with >18 employees) who indicated their support of the proposed changes. 

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Trading hours in Western Australia are regulated by different trading restrictions applicable to various areas and types of retailers. The Retail Trading Hours Act 1987 enables non-metropolitan local governments to extend general trading hours beyond standard arrangements.  These extensions require endorsement by the Minister for Commerce.

 

Small retail shops have no restrictions on trading hours and may continue to trade each day of the year.  A ‘small retail shop’ is a shop owned by up to six (6) people who operate no more than three (3) retail shops, in which up to 18 people work at any one time (excluding apprentices).  On 18 June 2011, the Hon. Simon O’Brien MLC, Minister for Finance, Commerce and Small Business, announced an increase in the number of people, from 13 to 18, that small retail shops in the state are able to have working at any one time.  This change in legislation was designed to provide retailers with the flexibility to employ more people and expand their operations, while at the same time provide other stores with the opportunity to become small retail shops and trade 24 hours per day should they choose.  This was viewed as a positive step in providing more flexibility and helping retailers improve customer services, the range of goods available, and to be more competitive.

 

Special retail shops may trade between 6.00am and 11.30pm each day of the year. ‘Special retail shops’ include: newsagencies and bookshops, pharmacies, garden nurseries, hardware and improvement shops, video shops, art and craft shops, souvenir and duty free shops, shops at sports venues, boating shops, motor vehicle spare parts shops and shops at international standard hotels.

 

Small retail and special retail shops must hold a Certificate from the Department of Commerce to trade during these hours.

 

Various amendments have been made to the Retail Trading Hours Act 1987 over the past few years which has seen the hours that general retailers are able to operate extended.  Previously, general retailers were restricted to operate until 6.00pm on any weeknight, however in 2010 the Perth metropolitan area trading hours was extended to 9.00pm on any weeknight.  This amendment also expanded the number of localities defined under the ‘special trading precinct’ (Armadale, Fremantle, Joondalup, and Midland), which also extended weeknight trading to 9.00pm.  Similarly, the trading hours of general retail shops operating in ‘holiday resorts’ (Rockingham, Rottnest Island and Wanneroo) was extended to 9.00pm on any weeknight (previously restricted to operate until 9.00pm weeknights within the holiday period only). 

 

In 2012 the Retail Trading Hours Act 1987 was again amended to allow general retailers in the Perth metropolitan area to operate on Sundays from 11.00am until 5.00pm, previously Sunday trading was restricted.  This amendment also extinguished the ‘special trading precinct’, allowing those localities previously defined within this precinct able to trade under the same hours as Perth metropolitan areas.

 

Under the Non-Metropolitan Local Government Empowerment Policy a number of local government authorities have removed trading hour restrictions within their jurisdictions, including the neighbouring Shires of Augusta-Margaret River and Dardanup.  The City of Busselton is one (1) of 12 local governments who have made variations to standard general retail trading hours.  The Shire of Manjimup is the most recent Shire to vary standard trading hours which allows weekday trading from 8.00am to 9.00pm, Saturday from 8.00am to 5.00pm, and Sunday and Public Holidays from 11.00am to 5.00pm (excluding Christmas Day, Good Friday and ANZAC Day).

 

Officers have researched a number of retail trading regimes across the State.  Through this research it is clear that there is an increasing movement to extend trading hours to capitalise on the changing nature and demands of consumers.  Currently there are two (2) trading regimes operating within the City of Busselton District; Dunsborough general retailers operate under trading hours from 8.00am until 9.00pm each day; while Busselton has restrictions that differ during the week and on weekends.  A significant retail development within the Shire of Dardanup has recently commenced, with an announcement that there will be an offering of retail trading 24 hours per day.  Similarly, the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River has removed trading hour restrictions, while Perth continues to introduce permanent extensions to facilitate flexibility for both retailers and consumers.  Further to this, the Premier has previously stated that he is willing to progress liberalised retail trading hours.  Not only are the differing trading hours within the City of Busselton, neighbouring Shires, and Perth confusing for locals and visitors, there is a risk that if the trading hours within Busselton continues to be restricted that retail leakage to neighbouring regions will occur.  This will have a negative impact on the region’s economic growth, investment attraction capacity, and ability to increase tourism visitation numbers.

 

Economic Impact

In 2005 the Shopping Centre Council of Australia commissioned the report ‘Extension of Retail Trading Hours in Western Australia: An assessment of the economic and social benefits of extended trading hours’.  The report concluded that there is a convincing demonstration that there are clear and substantial economic and social benefits to the community in extending retail trading hours, including:

·      Greater consumer choice and convenience;

·      Higher retail sales;

·      Lower retail price inflation;

·      Increased employment;

·      Greater investment;

·      Benefits for local suppliers; and

·      Benefits for tourism and migration.

 

Further, the report concluded that Western Australia’s case for reforming its trading hours regime is helped by the experiences of other States, which have all been positive.  For example, in a benchmarking study comparing the case for extending retail sectors in Victoria and South Australia (at the time when South Australia had not liberalised its trading hours), the evidence was that Sunday trading in Victoria benefited retail jobs growth.  Limited data and evidence is available to support that the restricted trading in Perth has been effective in supporting small business.  The retail industry sector is the third largest contributor to the City of Busselton’s Gross Regional Product, contributing some $110.8m to the regional economy in 2011/12.  In 2011/12, some six (6) months after retail trading hours were permanently extended, the sector experienced an annual economic growth rate of 8%, and an annual increase of 5.6% in productivity levels.  Further, in 2011/12 the retail industry sector employed 15.3% of the District’s total working population, and was recorded as the largest industry employer.

 

Tourism Industry

A recent Fact Sheet published by Tourism WA, ‘Australia’s South West Overnight Visitor Fact Sheet 2011/12/13’, indicates the importance of the retail sector within the City of Busselton District.  In the year ending 2013, 26% of intrastate tourists to the region ranked ‘shopping for pleasure’ as their preferred leisure activity to undertake when holidaying in the South West region, while 78% of international visitors ranked it as their 4th preferred leisure activity. 

 

Whilst it is acknowledged within the tourism industry that the amenities and retail outlets in Busselton are of a generally high standard, it has been identified in a recent study commissioned by Tourism WA that there are shortcomings in operating hours.  Market Research company TNS was recently commissioned by Tourism WA to undertake research into the brand identity of the Busselton/Margaret River region.  The study revealed visitor frustration over the early closing hours of many businesses in the region, and also showed it was influencing their choice of accommodation.  As that the concentration of the region’s accommodation is in Busselton, the issue of limited trading hours is particularly concerning.  This was also confirmed by the GBTA, through their contact with more than 300,000 visitors at the Busselton and Dunsborough Visitor Centres annually, who experience regular negative feedback from tourists regarding the opening hours of retail outlets in Busselton. 

 

Recognising the tourism industry as a significant contributor to the District’s economy, the City of Busselton Council has implemented a differential rating system whereby properties rated within the Industrial and Commercial zones across the City directly contribute toward the City’s continued support of tourism, marketing, and event activities.  In 2014/15 the Differential Rate raised $366k towards events and $122k towards marketing.  A Marketing and Events Reference Group (MERG) comprising of key business and tourism stakeholders has been established to recommend to Council the way in which these funds are allocated. 

 

In 2013/14 through the GBTA, a significant marketing campaign was developed aimed at increasing the number of visitors to the region during non-peak periods.  Due to the success of the campaign, a decision was made to value-add to the program by extending it to run throughout the year, and throughout 2014/15.  $200k over the two (2) financial years has been allocated to the program.  Data produced by GBTA indicates that the marketing program continues to yield positive results with visitor numbers to the region during the non-peak and peak seasons continuing to increase.  As the region’s primary tourism booking agent, in September 2014 the GBTA reported that over a 12 month period the region experienced an additional 243,520 more visitors to the region, an additional $560k in accommodation and tour bookings (excluding non-bookable products such as retail, attractions, cafes, restaurants, etc), and with an average visitor spend per trip of $555, a significant injection into direct tourism investment.  The further extension of retail trading hours is therefore seen to value-add to the program by improving the visitor experience of the region, in particular Busselton, and to assist in increasing visitation, length of stay and spend.

 

In an effort to realise the vision of becoming the ‘Events Capital of Regional WA’, the City of Busselton hosts more than 100 events per year.  In 2011/12, 44 events were held in the District, and in 2014/15 the number is expected to increase to 101. Attracting an additional estimated 68,000 visitors to the region, it is estimated that in 2013/14 the economic impact of events to the District totalled $53.8m.  Since commissioning the City of Busselton Events Strategy in 2011, the City Officers have continued to attract events during the off-peak shoulder period, and further develop existing events held throughout the year.  Recognising the busy event season in December, the City of Busselton has previously applied to the Department of Commerce for temporary extensions to retail trading hours to service the needs of tourists to the region during this time.  With the events season now extending throughout the year, there is an increasing need to service the needs of tourists through increased trading hours on a year-round basis, as evidenced by the number and spread of events in 2014/15.

 

In an effort to develop the City as a key destination point for the cruise ship industry, the City has been working with key tourism and business stakeholders to secure Busselton as a destination point on various cruise ship itineraries.  In doing so, a significant entertainment program has been developed for the visits.  Further to this, it is recognised that the opening hours of retail outlets is a key factor in providing a positive experience for visitors to the City.  In 2014/15 the City has secured six (6) cruise ship visits, with an additional 14 visits booked over the following two (2) financial years.  It is anticipated that positive experiences when visiting the region will result in repeat visitation over time.

 

Increased trading will not only provide additional benefits for the tourism industry by attracting more people to the town and providing a better experience for tourists, it will also encourage an extended length of stay and visitor spend, as evidenced by data produced by the tourism industry.  Further, as the City continues the upgrade of the Busselton Foreshore, attracts further investment to the area, and continues to progress the Busselton Regional Airport redevelopment, the number of visitors to the City on a year-round basis will only continue to increase.  As the City continues to develop as a tourist destination, more flexibility in trading hours is essential. 

 

Social Impact

It is recognised that the nature and demand of consumers is continuing to change with the increased offerings of online shopping available 24 hours per day, and the working hours of Fly-In-Fly-Out (FIFO) and Drive-In-Drive-Out (DIDO) employees driving further relaxation in retail trading hours.  In 2011, Council commissioned a community survey which included questions related to the retail trading hours of Busselton, prior to the extended hours as they are today.  Of the 1,213 responses received, 51.8% were only moderately satisfied or less than moderately satisfied with the then shopping hours.  Notably, 42.7% of respondents indicated a weekday trading preference for 6.00pm or beyond; those who were dissatisfied with the then trading hours indicated their preference for earlier opening hours on weekends and public holidays and later closing times on all days.  A remarkable 72.8% of respondents were very satisfied or extremely satisfied with the shopping hours of Dunsborough, potentially indicating that there is room for improvement to Busselton’s trading hours to more closely resemble Dunsborough.

 

Dunsborough’s exempted trading hours makes provision for operators to choose individual hours of operations between 8.00am and 9.00pm daily.  It is noted that major supermarket Coles amends their trading hours to cater to the busy tourist season.  From 1 December to 30 April trading hours are between 8.00am and 8.00pm, and from 1 May to 30 November trading hours are between 8.00am and 7.00pm.  This is one way in which extended trading hours are balanced to benefit the retailer, community and tourists. 

 

In a study compiled by Professor Fiona McKenzie and Dr Aileen Hoath of the Curtin Graduate School of Business in 2013, ‘The Social and Economic Perception and Impact of Rio Tinto's Fly-In-Fly-Out Workforce on the Busselton Community’, it was identified that Busselton was not capitalising on retail spending opportunities due to a leakage to other neighbouring areas, a result of Busselton’s current retail offerings and restrictive practices.  It is therefore evident that given the changing needs and nature of the Busselton community, the flexibility for retailers to operate extended hours similar to that of Dunsborough provides greater flexibility for both the retailer and consumer, and works towards retaining the dollar spend in the Busselton community.

 

In the latest figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Population by Age and Sex, Regions of Australia 2013’, the City of Busselton recorded a population base of 34,290 people.  Outside of the Perth metropolitan area, the City recorded the highest local government population base behind the City of Albany and the City of Greater Geraldton.  Coupled with the growing FIFO/DIDO base and recent studies, it is evident that there is greater need for flexible lifestyle options.  The proposal to extend retail trading hours in Busselton is seen to achieve this in part.

 

Issues raised through public consultation

Through the public consultation process, a number of issues were raised regarding the further extensions to trading hours.  One (1) of the main opposing respondents did however state that there is merit and demand for the continuation of extending trading hours during the holiday and events season.  The key issues raised are summarised below:

 

Key issue

Response

Extended trading hours will destroy small business; there is a need to protect small business

Whilst it is projected that major retail chains will see an increase in consumer spending should retail trading hours be extended, it is similarly projected that smaller retailers will benefit from increased consumer spending as a result of increased retail traffic through the Busselton Central Business District (CBD).  Through research undertaken by the GBTA, as a result of the recent ‘Recharge’ marketing campaign, the region saw a significant increase in visitor numbers during the off-peak season.  Similarly, in a study undertaken by market research company TNS, it was revealed that visitors to Busselton experience a level of frustration over the early closing hours of many businesses, and also showed it was influencing their choice of accommodation which is particularly concerning given the breadth of accommodation offerings in Busselton. 

 

Increased retail offerings supports the attraction of tourists and events to the region, and further promotes consumer spending in Busselton rather than nearby centres who have removed trading hour restrictions, such as the Shires of Augusta-Margaret River and Dardanup, alternatively to Perth where trading hours continue to extend to capitalise on the increasing consumer demand for flexible retail offerings.

 

Additionally, extended trading hours will have a cyclical effect on the City’s economy; increased consumer spending will lead to an increase consumer confidence, and an increase in investment opportunities, and will further support current economic development initiatives including the Airport upgrade, Cruise Ship industry (and its potential for repeat vists), foreshore investment attraction, attraction of events, and wine industry development, all which aim to attract and capitalise on tourists to the region, and support small business.

Extended trading hours reduces the profitability of small businesses; small businesses cannot carry the costs of penalty rates

It is acknowledged that the costs of operating a business continue to rise due to many external factors.  However creating a positive economic environment for business to operate is a key to facilitating growth in retail spend.  As the third largest contributor to the City of Busselton’s economy, the retail industry sector contributed $110.8m to the regional economy in 2011/12.  In 2011/12, some six (6) months after retail trading hours were extended, the sector experienced an annual economic growth rate of 8%, and an annual increase of 5.6% in productivity levels.  Further, in 2011/12 the retail industry sector employed 15.3% of the District’s total working population, and was recorded as the largest industry employer.

 

The proposed extension to trading hours is viewed by Officers as a key opportunity to continue the trend of increasing productivity levels to support the operational costs of conducting business.

The proposed extended trading hours goes against the Busselton lifestyle

Busselton enjoys a relaxed lifestyle, and as a result is a popular tourist destination.  However in order for both locals and visitors to continue to enjoy the benefits that Busselton has to offer, it is imperative that the City continues to experience economic growth.  The retail industry sector is the third largest economic contributor to the Busselton economy.  Extended retail trading hours is seen to support and facilitate economic growth by supporting the needs of both locals and tourists to the region by further promoting consumer spending within the City as opposed to neighbouring areas.  In January 2012, Busselton moved toward City status as it was proclaimed as the State’s newest City.  This move is reflective of the City being recognised as a major regional retail centre, and as a premier regional tourist destination in Western Australia.  As the City continues to promote itself as the ‘Events Capital of Regional WA’, flexibility of trading hours is required when attracting national and international scale events and tourists to the region. The sentiments of this need has been recognised by the State Government as Perth metropolitan trading hours have been extended to allow weekday trading to 9pm and Sunday trading from 11am to 5pm.  Similarly, current population growth rates, as per the Western Australian Planning Commission’s WA Tomorrow publication, predict an additional 56% of people residing in Busselton by 2026.  With this brings an expectation that Busselton will provide services that would be expected of other major cities, including the flexibility of trading hours.  Any move to reduce the current trading hours would be seen as a backward step in achieving the strategic priorities of the City as it moves to become the largest regional City outside of Perth.

Extended trading hours provides major chain retailers with even more extended hours, particularly during the off-season and winter months when tourism and consumer activity demand is at its lowest, has and will continue to undermine small retailers who are at a natural disadvantage to their competitors

General Retailers (> 18 employees) now have the option to open for extended hours and choose to do so in the hours that are commercially viable and according to customer needs. Small retailers (< 18 employees) have the ability to open beyond the regulated hours, with a further option to operate 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week.  The major supermarket chains take full advantage of the extended hours and many of the small retailers in Busselton view the new regulated hours as an opportunity to match the hours of general retailers, and in some cases often going beyond this. Dunsborough general retailers have the ability to open until 9pm seven (7) days per week, every day of the year, but find it better to close at 8pm during the summer and 7pm in winter. This continues to work for Dunsborough operators, both general and small retailers, and is also envisaged to work for Busselton with extended trading hours.

Small business needs support to continue to employ local youth and provide locally sourced fresh produce

The proposal to extend retail trading hours supports the employment of local youth and the promotion of local producers. 

 

Both small and large retailers employ a significant number of youth.  Whilst retailers that fall within the general retail category goes beyond supermarkets, it is evident that the supermarket industry is one of the main employer of local youth as it offers flexible working hours that are conducive to school students.  Similarly, it is acknowledged that small business also employs a significant proportion of youth, and with the proposed extended trading hours, there will be increased opportunities for youth employment beyond the current restricted trading regime should businesses choose to operate the hours that general retailers operate.

 

It is anticipated that extended trading hours will result in increased retail spending both in large and small retail outlets, which will further increase demand on local producers and suppliers.  Additionally, extended trading hours will prove attractive to both events and tourists to the region, and will not only provide opportunities for local producers and suppliers to value-add through tourism product development, but will also increase local  exposure to wider markets.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Extended retail trading hours has the potential to provide the region with significant economic return through increased consumer spending, visitor numbers, and events to the region.  In turn, it is anticipated that such increased economic activity will result in increased investment and attraction of other industry sectors to the region.  In order to achieve this, it must be recognised that the City needs to achieve a balance between consumer demand and the hours in which retailers are prepared to open.  In assessing retail trading options, it is important to ensure Busselton remains competitive in terms of retail opportunities in order to prevent the potential leakage of retail spend to areas outside of the District that have more favourable trading regimes, such as neighbouring Shires and Perth.  Further, it is important to consider recent research that concludes that the current retail offerings in Busselton are not conducive to tourists to the region, nor to the increasing FIFO/DIDO industry, two major regional industry sectors. 

 

Of the 96 submissions received eight (8) were in support of the proposed changes, 80 opposed the proposed changes, and eight (8) did not indicate a preference.  Also in support of the proposed changes, the BCCI and GBTA represent 300 and 430 member businesses respectively.  It should be noted that 63 individual submissions (55 opposing and 8 no preference) were submitted to the City by an individual, indicating that there may have been a point where submissions were solicited, therefore results potentially being unrepresentative of the community as a whole.

 

Whilst there were a number of submissions received opposing the proposal to extend retail trading hours in Busselton to reflect that of Dunsborough, it must be noted that the ability to respond to key issues raised through the consultation process is an important factor that needs to be taken into consideration rather than just the volume of submissions received alone. 

 

Finally, the majority of businesses operating in Busselton are as classified as ‘small business’, who have the ability to operate 24 hours per day.  Those that fall into the ‘general retail’ category currently operate within the regulated trading regime.  The proposed trading hours will allow general retail operators to extend their retail offerings by operating within these regulated hours, at their individual choice, creating critical mass to further support small business should they choose to open similar hours.

 

Options

There are a range of options Council may consider, including;

 

1. Remain with status Quo

Leave current trading hours as they currently stand:

 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday:                    8.00am-7.00pm

Thursday:                                                                              8.00am-9.00pm

Saturday:                                                                               8.00am-6.00pm

Sunday and Public Holidays:                                        10.00am-6.00pm

Closed:  Good Friday, ANZAC Day and Christmas Day.

 

This option is viewed by Officers as being restrictive as evidenced by recent research undertaken by Tourism WA and the Curtin Graduate School of Business.  The anomalies of trading hours between Busselton and Dunsborough also creates confusion for retailers, locals, and visitors to the region, and facilitates the leakage of retail spend to neighbouring areas and Perth.

 

2. Holiday and Events Option

Continue to apply to the Department of Commerce for extended trading hours each year for the Holiday and Events season:

 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday:              8.00am-9.00pm (additional 2hrs)

Thursday:                                                                              8.00am-9.00pm (no change)

Saturday:                                                                               8.00am-6.00pm (no change)

Sunday and Public Holidays:                                        10.00am-6.00pm (no change)

Closed:  Good Friday, ANZAC Day and Christmas Day.

* Consideration may be given to trading hours on Public Holidays, the recommended trading hours on Public Holidays is in line with state-wide regulated trading regimes

 

This option only provides an additional two (2) hours, four (4) days per week trading, however requires City Officers to continually apply on an annual basis for extended trading hours for a relatively short period of time.  Individual applications for extensions require a level of community consultation and assessment of submissions received prior to preparing a submission and receiving approval from the Department of Commerce, which can often be a time consuming process.  The Department of Commerce has previously recommended that the City consider permanent extensions to eliminate the need for individual applications.  This option also continues to place disparities between the trading regimes of Busselton and Dunsborough which can be confusing for locals and visitors to the District.

 

3. Extend current Holiday and Events Season trading hours on a year-round basis

Apply to the Department of Commerce for the Holiday and Event season trading hours on a year-round permanent basis:

 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday:              8.00am-9.00pm (additional 2hrs)

Thursday:                                                                              8.00am-9.00pm (no change)

Saturday:                                                                               8.00am-6.00pm (no change)

Sunday and Public Holidays:                                        10.00am-6.00pm (no change)

Closed: Good Friday, ANZAC Day and Christmas Day.

* Consideration may be given to trading hours on Public Holidays, the recommended trading hours on Public Holidays is in line with state-wide regulated trading regimes

This option only provides an additional two (2) hours, four (4) days per week trading, however provides for consistent weekday trading, similar to Dunsborough.  Whilst bridging the weekday trading gap between Busselton and Dunsborough, by not extending trading hours on weekends and public holidays continues to place disparities between the trading regimes of Busselton and Dunsborough which can be confusing for retailers, locals and visitors to the District.  Similarly, this option does not address the issues raised in recent studies of flexible retail offerings in order to prevent the leakage of retail spend in neighbouring areas and Perth.

 

4.  Exempted Trading Hours as Perth Metropolitan area

Apply to the Department of Commerce for the current trading hours as Perth metropolitan area, which currently includes annual applications for extensions to the Holiday and Events season:

 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday:           8.00am-9.00pm (additional 2hrs)

Saturday:                                                                             8.00am-5.00pm (reduce 2 hrs)

Sunday and Public Holidays:                                        11.00am-5.00pm (reduce 2hrs)

Closed:  Good Friday, ANZAC Day and Christmas Day.

* Consideration may be given to trading hours on Public Holidays, the recommended trading hours on Public Holidays is in line with state-wide regulated trading regimes

 

Holiday and Event season (requires annual applications to the Department of Commerce):

 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday:              6.00am-9.00pm (additional 4hrs)

Saturday:                                                                               6.00am-9.00pm (additional 5hrs)

Sunday and Public holidays:                                           8.00am-8.00pm (additional 4hrs)

Closed:  Good Friday, ANZAC Day and Christmas Day.

* Consideration may be given to trading hours on Public Holidays, the recommended trading hours on Public Holidays is in line with state-wide regulated trading regimes

 

Whilst this option provides some consistency with Perth metropolitan areas, it provides an additional two (2) hours trading on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Fridays, however reduces the current trading capacity on Saturday, Sunday and public holidays by two (2) hours each day.  Whilst weekday trading will be consistent with Dunsborough, the reduction in hours on weekends and public holidays is viewed by Officers as a step backwards in promoting the City as a premier events and tourist destination, and would create a level of confusion for retailers, locals and visitors to the District.  Further to this, this option incorporates annual extensions to the holiday and events season, requiring individual applications for extensions and a level of community consultation and assessment of submissions received prior to preparing a submission and receiving approval from the Department of Commerce, which can be a time consuming process.  It should also be noted that there is current lobbying to further liberalise the State retail trading regime, potentially to a deregulated state.  If changes were to occur, it would create anomalies between Perth metropolitan areas and Busselton.

 

5.  Extend current trading hours on a year-round basis – bridging the gap between Busselton and   Dunsborough

Apply to the Department of Commerce for extended trading hours similar to that of Dunsborough on a year-round permanent basis:

 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday:           8.00am-9.00pm (additional 2hrs)

Thursday:                                                                            8.00am-9.00pm (no change)

Saturday:                                                                             8.00am-6.00pm (no change)

Sunday and Public Holidays:                                        8.00am-6.00pm (additional 2 hours)

Closed:  Good Friday, ANZAC Day and Christmas Day.

* Consideration may be given to trading hours on Public Holidays, the recommended trading hours on Public Holidays is in line with state-wide regulated trading regimes

This option is viewed by Officers as a further step towards bridging the gap between trading regimes that exist within the District, and perhaps provides a compromise between the two (2) trading regimes, allowing flexibility for retailers to open the hours of their choice.  This option provides an additional two (2) hours four (4) days per week, and an additional two (2) hours on Sunday and Public Holidays.  Whilst there will continue to be some disparity between the trading hours of Busselton and Dunsborough, this option provides consistency in weekday trading and weekend trading.  This regime will however fall short on weekend trading experienced during the holiday and event season.

 

6.  Exempted Trading Hours as Dunsborough

Apply to the Department of Commerce for extended trading hours as Dunsborough on a year-round permanent basis:

 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday:                  8.00am to 9.00pm (additional 2hrs)

Thursday:                                                                            8.00am to 9.00pm (no change)

Saturday:                                                                             8.00am to 9.00pm (additional 3 hours)

Sunday and Public Holidays:                                        8.00am to 9.00pm (additional 5 hours)

Closed: Good Friday and Christmas Day, and until 1.00pm on ANZAC Day

* Consideration may be given to trading hours on Public Holidays, the recommended trading hours on Public Holidays is reflective of community consultation outcomes

 

This option is viewed by Officers as appropriately bridging the gap between the disparate trading regimes that exist between Busselton and Dunsborough, whilst acknowledging the importance of ANZAC commemorations.  Further, this option eliminates the need for annual applications to the Department of Commerce for extensions to cater for the holiday and events season, a recommendation from the Department.  This option also allows individual retailers to operate the hours of their choice, keeps Busselton competitive in terms of retail opportunities, and reduces the potential leakage of retail spend to areas outside of the District that have more favourable trading regimes.  This option is incorporated into the Officer Recommendation.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should Council endorse the Officer Recommendation, an application can be made to the Department of Commerce immediately.

 

Should Council endorse an alternate recommendation that requires an application to the Department of Commerce, an application can be made immediately.  However, should Council choose Option One (1), the effects will be immediate as the current retail trading hours would remain in place.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.            Make application to the Department of Commerce for year-round extensions to the retail trading hours in Busselton, based on a seven (7) day per week basis:

 

Monday to Sunday and Public Holidays from 8.00am to 9.00pm;

ANZAC Day from 1.00pm to 9.00pm;

Closed: Good Friday and Christmas Day

 

2.            Requires the CEO to review the extended retail trading hours in twelve (12) months time and present a report back to Council.

 

  


Council                                                                                      115                                                      24 September 2014

14.             Finance and Corporate Services Report

14.1           LOCKE ESTATE - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

SUBJECT INDEX:

Agreements/Contracts

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Infrastructure assets are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Property and Compliance Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Property Coordinator - Ann Sanford

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Plan of Scouts Leased Premises identifying on-site van  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

In 2011, the City entered into a new lease agreement with the Scout Association of Australia – Western Australian Branch Incorporated (“the Scouts”) for campsite number 1 at the Locke Estate.

 

At the time the lease was negotiated the Scouts were given 2 years to remove the caravan and annexe, which comprised their caretaker residence, from the coastal setback zone.   The current lease terms reflect this.

 

The Scouts have now requested a further 5 year extension to this period.  It is recommended that the Council agree to this for the reasons outlined in the report.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Reserve 22674 known as the Locke Estate, consists of 16 individual campsites leased to not for profit organisations. Prior to entering into new lease agreements in 2011, there were a number of issues that lessees needed to address. These included the requirement for the provision of a coastal setback zone and the demarcation of a conservation area on each site.  The Council resolved that there was to be no further development in either of these areas and generally that infrastructure, septic tanks and caravans were to be removed from the coastal setback zone.

 

At the time the terms of a new lease on the Locke Estate were discussed with the Scouts, they requested an extension of time to relocate the caravan and annexe.  The reason for their request was the lack of sufficient funding to relocate, build or purchase an alternative facility at the time. 

 

As a result, on the 12 October 2011, the Council resolved in part (C1110/313) the following;

 

“2.          Upon satisfaction of high risk health and building regulatory compliance issues (if any), authorises              the CEO to enter into a lease agreement with Scouts Association of Australia – Western Australian      Branch Inc. for the occupation for Site 1 being a portion of Reserve 22674 Lot 5303, Deposited Plan    220583, Volume LR3088 Folio 423 Caves Road, Siesta Park, in accordance with the following terms and conditions:

 

a)            the term of the lease to be for 21 years, commencing on 1 December 2011 and expiring on 30 November 2032;

                b)            the rent to commence at $800 per annum exclusive of GST

                c)            all costs for the preparation of the lease to be met by the Lessee; and

d)            otherwise generally in accordance with the Locke Estate Lease at Attachment 2, with the addition of a clause allowing one (1) caravan and associated annexe to remain within the Coastal Setback Zone for a maximum of 24 months.

 

At this time, a concession was also granted to another lessee.  In the case of the Seventh Day Adventists, they were given a period of seven years to remove six onsite vans and annexes located within the coastal setback area. 

 

Time extensions for other compliance matters such as the construction of disabled toilets, provision of sullage dump points and various environmental health requirements have been granted to a number of other lessees who were struggling to fund full regulatory compliance.

 

The Scouts have largely complied with other regulatory compliance issues that had to be addressed prior to or within the first 2 years of entering into the new lease.  They have also paid for the acquisition of the caravan and annexe from the caretaker, which was previously in private ownership.  They have however been unable to find sufficient funding to relocate the caravan or construct alternative accommodation for the caretaker within the two year time frame originally envisaged; hence they are requesting an extension that would represent a realistic timeframe to accumulate this funding.   This timeframe would be in keeping with a similar period overall to that originally granted to the Seventh Day Adventists.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The land leased to the Scouts is crown land managed by the City of Busselton.    The lease terms and conditions enable the City to comply with the management order by controlling third party (lessees) use of the reserve to ensure that use remains within the reserve purpose. 

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

N/A

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

If the Council adopt the officer recommendation, there will be no financial implications as any costs associated with the preparation of the deed of amendment will be the responsibility of the Scouts.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The following components of the City of Busselton Strategic Plan are relevant in considering this request:

 

Key Goal Area 2

•             Well planned, vibrant and active places

•             Provide a range of quality leisure, cultural, recreation and sporting facilities and services;

•             Responsible management of public infrastructure assets.

 

Council Strategy

•             Ensure our recreational facilities meet the needs of our growing community

•             Maintain community assets at an appropriate standard, consulting with the community about      expectations and costs of maintenance.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

There are no identified risks associated with the Officer Recommendation which are medium level or above.  There is the potential for other lessees on Locke Estate to complain about the fact that they were required to remove similar items from the coastal setback zone within shorter timeframes.  The treatment of this risk would be to explain why a concession was granted to this group and in particular the fact that the approach of the City is one of reasonableness and flexibility in order to achieve the best overall community outcomes.   

 

CONSULTATION

 

No consultation with third parties has been undertaken as the request of the Scouts is not considered to adversely impact anyone else.

 

There has been ongoing discussion and negotiation with the Scouts in relation to the programme of works required to meet a range of regulatory compliance issues.  This has continued informally between the parties during compliance and property inspections undertaken since commencement of the lease.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

During the past 2 years, the Scouts have been working on upgrading their campsite to ensure compliance with the Caravan Park and Camping Grounds Act 1995.  This has included substantial expenditure on capital works required to the ablution facility. The Scouts have also purchased the caravan and annexe from the caretaker which was in important first step in achieving compliance.  There are still works to be undertaken which will require significant funding to complete.  The works include the provision of a dedicated Caretakers residence within the development zone.  This will either be the residence purchased from the Caretaker or something completely new.

 

The Scouts have been in regular contact with City officers concerning their works programme and had every intention at the outset to remove the caretaker residence within the original 2 year timeframe allowed.  Unfortunately the cost of other regulatory compliance requirements relating to buildings like the toilet block and the provision or upgrade of other infrastructure has cost the Scouts more than anticipated at the outset.  This is the reason why they have requested an extension of time beyond the 2 years originally allowed.

 

Whilst an extension until 2018 is being proposed, it is recommended that no further extension past this date be given as the purpose of the coastal setback zone is to mitigate the impact of erosion by restricting development in vulnerable areas.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Scouts have worked with City officers consistently since entering into their lease and have demonstrated their willingness to be fully compliant.  The extension of time requested is generous but aimed at proving ample time for the Scouts to accumulate the additional funds needed either to relocate this caravan or construct bespoke accommodation for caretaker use. It is also in keeping with the 7 year extension which was granted to the Seventh Day Adventists.

 

OPTIONS

 

1.            The Council could resolve not to offer any extension of time and seek the removal of the on-site van immediately from the coastal setback zone. 

 

2.            The Council could resolve to offer an extension of time for a different time period.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Documentation outlining the agreement to extend the period for compliance will be presented to the Scouts and the Minister of Lands within 14 days of the council decision.  It is anticipated that formalities would be finalised by the end of 2014.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council grant the Scout Association of Australia (Western Australian Branch) an additional 5 years in which to remove the existing caravan and associated annexe from the coastal setback zone on their leased premises at Locke Estate and amend the lease to require this work to be completed no later than 30 November 2018.

 

 

  


Council                                                                                      119                                                      24 September 2014

15.             Chief Executive Officer's Report

15.1           COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

SUBJECT INDEX:

Councillors' Information

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Governance systems that deliver responsible, ethical and accountable decision-making.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Executive Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Executive Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Reporting Officers - Various .

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Report Detailing Planning Applications Received

Attachment b    Report Detailing Planning Applications Determined

Attachment c    Report Detailing Current Status of State Administrative Tribunal Appeals with the City  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report provides an overview of a range of information that is considered appropriate to be formally presented to the Council for its receipt and noting.  The information is provided in order to ensure that each Councillor, and the Council, is being kept fully informed, while also acknowledging that these are matters that will also be of interest to the community.

 

Any matter that is raised in this report as a result of incoming correspondence is to be dealt with as normal business correspondence, but is presented in this bulletin for the information of the Council and the community.

 

 

INFORMATION BULLETIN

15.1.1    Thank you letter from GeoCatch – Recent meeting with Geographe Catchment Council

 

Correspondence has been received from David Kemp GeoCatch Chair:

 

 “Dear Mayor Stubbs

 

Thank you for meeting with members of the Geographe Catchment Council (GeoCatch) at the City of Busselton Offices on the 13th of August 2014.

 

This meeting provided GeoCatch with a valuable opportunity to present GeoCatch's current position to Mr Mike Archer, Mr Paul Needham and yourself, and to explore potential projects our organisations can achieve together in the future.

 

Thank you for taking the time to meet with GeoCatch, we sincerely appreciate the support provided to our organisation and look forward to working with the City of Busselton into the future.”

15.1.2    Planning & Development Services Statistics

 

Planning Applications

 

Attachment PDS1 is a report detailing all Planning Applications received by the City between 1 and 29 August, 2014.  Forty six formal applications were received during this period.

 

Attachment PDS2 is a report detailing all Planning Applications determined by the City between 1 and 29 August, 2014.  A total of thirty nine applications (including subdivision referrals) were determined by the City during this period with all approved / supported.

15.1.3    State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Appeals

 

Attachment PDS3 is a list showing the current status of State Administrative Tribunal Appeals involving the City of Busselton as at 31 August, 2014.  Two appeals were received during August, 2014. 

15.1.4    Current Active Tenders (Creation Date: 10/09/2014)

 

RFT08/14             Airport Specialist Consultants Panel

 

The City of Busselton invited tenders for Airport Specialist Consultants in order to assemble a panel of suitable consultants to provide advice and assistance in relation to the proposed Airport expansion plans. It is anticipated that the contract will commence on or about November 2014  and the panel contracts will run for three (3) years with the option of two (2) one (1) year extensions. The tender was advertised on 19 July and closed on 14 August 2014. The City received thirty three (33) submissions from consultants in a range of speciality areas. Evaluation is underway and it is anticipated that a report to Council recommending preferred consultants to be appointed to the panel will be presented for consideration by Council at a meeting in late October or early November.

 

RFT09/14             Busselton Regional Airport – Detailed design and construction of additional apron area

 

The City of Busselton invited tenders for the design and construction of additional apron area at the Busselton Regional Airport. It is anticipated that the contract will commence on or about 1 November 2014 and will be completed within 6 months. The tender was advertised on 19 July with an original expiry date of 21 August 2014, which was extended to 9 September due to requests for further time by a number of potential respondents. It is anticipated that a report to Council recommending a preferred contractor will be presented for consideration by Council at the meeting on late October.

 

 

RFT10/14             Barnard Park Redevelopment – Supply and Install Sports Lighting Equipment

 

The City of Busselton invited tenders for a contractor to supply and install sports lighting at Barnard Park. It is anticipated that the contract will commence on or about 24 September 2014 and be completed by 30 November 2014. The tender was advertised on 26 July and closed on 12 August 2014. A report to council recommending a preferred tenderer has been prepared and is included in the report for the current Council meeting (24 September).

 

 

RFT11/14             Provision of Cleaning Services to City Buildings

 

The City of Busselton invited tenders for the provision of cleaning services to City Buildings. The City intends to appoint a number of contractors to provide the required services. It is anticipated that the contracts will commence on or about 1 October 2014 and the contracts will run for two (2) years with the option of two (2) one (1) year extensions. The tender was advertised on 26 July and closed on 22 August 2014 A report to council recommending preferred tenderers has been prepared and is included in the report for the current Council meeting (24 September).

 

 

RFT12/14             Design and Construction: Jetty Foreshore – New Compound

 

The City of Busselton is inviting tenders for the design and construction of a new compound at the jetty foreshore. The tender was advertised on 30 August 2014 and will close on 16 September. It is anticipated that the contract will be able to be awarded under CEO delegation and that the contract will therefore commence on or around 1 October 2014 with the proposed date of practical completion is 30 January 2015.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the items from the Councillors’ Information Bulletin be noted:

·    15.1.1              Thank you letter from GeoCatch – Recent meeting with Geographe Catchment Council

·    15.1.2              Planning & Development Services Statistics

·    15.1.3              State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Appeals

·    15.1.4              Current Active Tenders (Creation Date: 10/09/2014)

 

 

  


Council                                                                                      128                                                      24 September 2014

16.             Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given

Nil  

17.             Confidential Reports  

 

Nil

 

18.             Public Question Time

 

Nil

19.             Next Meeting Date

Wednesday, 8 October 2014

20.             Closure

 

The meeting closed at <time>.

 

THESE MINUTES CONSISTING OF PAGES 1 TO 128 WERE CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD ON Wednesday, 8 October 2014.

 

 

DATE:_________________              PRESIDING MEMBER:             _________________________