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 10 December 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors. 4

2....... Attendance. 4

3....... Prayer. 4

4....... Public Question Time. 5

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice. 5

Public Question Time. 5

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

Announcements by the Presiding Member. 5

Announcements by other Members at the invitation of the Presiding Member. 5

6....... Application for Leave of Absence. 5

7....... Petitions and Presentations. 5

8....... Disclosure Of Interests. 5

9....... Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes. 5

Previous Council Meetings. 5

9.1          Minutes of the Council  held on 26 November 2014. 5

Committee Meetings. 6

9.2          Minutes of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee held 11 November 2014. 6

9.3          Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee held 20 November 2014. 7

9.4          Minutes of the Audit Committee held 26 November 2014. 7

Adoption by Exception Resolution.. 8

En Bloc Motion. 8

10..... Reports of Committee. 9

10.1        Policy and Legislation Committee - 20/11/2014 - REVOCATION OF COUNCIL POLICY 225 - FARMLAND RATING CONCESSION.. 9

10.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 20/11/2014 - REVOCATION OF COUNCIL POLICY 027: FINANCIAL PLANNING - FUNDING RATIO.. 12

11.3        HOLIDAY HOMES - UPDATE AND REVIEW OF REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. 30

11..... Engineering and Work Services Report. 34

12.2        TENDER RECOMMENDATION - 17/14 BUSSELTON FORESHORE COASTAL DEFENCES CONSTRUCTION.. 35

12..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 40

13.1        2014/15 COMMUNITY BIDS - SECOND ROUND ALLOCATION.. 40

13.2        BUTTER FACTORY UPPER FLOOR. 46

13..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 59

14.1        LAND MANAGEMENT NGILGI CAVES. 59

14.2        MARRI RESERVE - FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES LEASE SITE. 66

14..... Chief Executive Officer's Report. 71

15.1        COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2015. 71

15.2        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 75

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY. 77

10.3        Policy and Legislation Committee - 20/11/2014 - BUSSELTON CITY CENTRE FACADE REFURBISHMENT SUBSIDY PROGRAMME APPLICATION: VASSE BAR AND CAFE. 77

10.4        Policy and Legislation Committee - 20/11/2014 - BUSSELTON CITY CENTRE FACADE REFURBISHMENT SUBSIDY PROGRAMME: REQUEST TO EXTEND THE PROGRAMME TO THE DUNSBOROUGH CBD.. 82

12.1        TENDER RECOMMENDATION - RFT 16/14 LOCKE ESTATE PHASE 2 COASTAL WORKS. 88

items for debate. 94

10.6        Audit Committee - 26/11/2014 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUDIT REGULATION 17 - RISK MANAGEMENT. 94

15..... Planning and Development Services Report. 102

11.1        AMENDMENT 5 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME 21 - INTRODUCTION OF A SPECIAL PROVISION AREA TO PERMIT AN UNRESTRICTED LENGTH OF STAY - WYNDHAM RESORT - CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION FOR COMMUNITY CONSULTATION.. 102

11.2        DA14/0479 - MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AFFECTING A CATEGORY 1 HERITAGE PLACE (YOONDERUP) - LOT 154 (NO.71) KENT STREET, BUSSELTON.. 110

16..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 119

Nil

Late items. 119

10.7        Finance Committee - 4/12/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 OCTOBER 2014. 119

10.8        Finance Committee - 4/12/2014 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – OCTOBER 2014. 127

10.9        Finance Committee - 4/12/2014 - BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REPORT - SCHOOL FOOTPATHS SWDC UNSPENT GRANT FUNDS. 129

10.10      Finance Committee - 4/12/2014 - GEOGRAPHE LEISURE CENTRE - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST AIR HANDLING.. 133

10.11      Finance Committee - 4/12/2014 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM RATING - BUSSELTON GOSPEL CHAPEL INC. 137

10.12      Finance Committee - 4/12/2014 - EXCAVATION OF NEW CELL AT DUNSBOROUGH WASTE FACILITY. 141

10.13      Finance Committee - 4/12/2014 - FOOTPATHS AND CYCLEWAYS FUNDING POLICY. 146

10.14      Finance Committee - 4/12/2014 - GEOGRAPHE LEISURE CENTRE - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST SPA PUMP REPLACEMENTS. 152

17..... Confidential Reports. 155

17.1        Finance Committee - 4/12/2014 - APPLICATION FOR RATE EXEMPTION - SOUTH WEST REFUGE INC. 155

18..... Questions from Members. 156

19..... Public Question Time. 156

20..... Next Meeting Date. 156

21..... Closure. 156

 


Council                                                                                      5                                                             10 December 2014

MINUTES

 

MINUTES OF A Meeting of the Busselton City Council HELD IN the Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 10 December 2014 AT 5.30pm.

 

1.               Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors

The Presiding Member opened 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:

 

9

3.               Prayer

The prayer was delivered by Captain Claire Watson from the Busselton Salvation Army.

4.               Public Question Time

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice 

Nil

Public Question Time

Nil

5.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member 

The Mayor presented a plaque which was presented to City representatives during the visit to the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship.

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

9.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes 

Previous Council Meetings

9.1             Minutes of the Council  held on 26 November 2014

COUNCIL DECISION

C1412/315    Moved Councillor T Best, seconded Councillor R Bennett

That the Minutes of the Council  Meeting held 26 November 2014 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED 9/0

 


 

Committee Meetings

9.2             Minutes of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee held 11 November 2014

COUNCIL DECISION

C1412/316    Moved Councillor G Bleechmore, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

 

 1) That the minutes of a meeting of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee      held on 11 November 2014 be received.

 

2)  That the Council notes the outcomes of the Meelup Regional Park Management    Committee meeting held on 11 November 2014 being:

     

      a)        The Committee endorsed the Meelup Regional Park Trails Master Plan and                     recommended that the Council notes the Master Plan as the basis for                                      implementing future trail development within the Meelup Regional Park.

 

      b)        The Committee requests for the CEO to commence discussions with                                   Dunsborough Police regarding management of Australia Day gatherings in                              Meelup Regional Park to increase Police & City Ranger presence in the                                  early morning to deter revelry style gatherings from establishing within the                             Park   and for traffic management planning to mimimise traffic congestion at                       popular beach locations within the Park. To arrange advertising in a local                             paper and through other media prior to Australia Day, emphasizing the                                requirement for emergency access, and environmental and social impacts.                      To  inform the Department of Transport of the large numbers of people                                  travelling to isolated locations in the Park by boat and for the provision of                                    additional bins being provided at the Park over the 2015 Australia Day                                   weekend. The Committee will implement mitigating measures to minimize                                impacts on the park’s environment and visitors, including additional signange                    encouraging participants to use bins and pick up litter, to be installed within                          the Park at large gatherings and by providing litter bags to be handed out to                    participants throughout the day.

     

      c)         The Committee received the Meelup Ragional Park Environment Officer’s                               report. 

 

Note from CEO:      In relation to point 2 (b) above, it should be noted that demands on Police                             and Ranger time are very high throughout the State and City respectively                                 across the whole of the Australia Day long weekend period resources are not                   able to be allocated to intensive management on one area. It will certainly                                     not      be possible to have traffic management in place this Australia Day at                                      Meelup. City officers will, however, undertake patrols at Meelup as                                                 resources and priorities allow. Additional time will, however, be put in place,                   as they have in previous years.

CARRIED 9/0

 

 

 

 

 

9.3             Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee held 20 November 2014

COUNCIL DECISION

C1412/317    Moved Councillor G Bleechmore, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

 

1)    That the minutes of a meeting of the Policy and Legislation Committee held on 20 November 2014 be received.

 

2)    That the Council notes the outcomes of the Policy and Legislation Committee meeting held on 20 November 2014 being:

a)    Revocation of Council Policy 225 – Farmland Rating Concession is presented to Council at item 10.1 of this agenda.

 

b)    Revocation of Council Policy 027: Financial Planning – Funding Ratio is presented to Council at item 10.2 of this agenda.

 

c)    Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme Application: Vasse Bar and Café is presented to Council at item 10.3 of this agenda.

 

d)    Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme: Request to Extend the Programme to Dunsborough CBD is presented to Council at item 10.4 of this agenda.

CARRIED 9/0

 

9.4             Minutes of the Audit Committee held 26 November 2014

COUNCIL DECISION

C1412/318    Moved Councillor G Bleechmore, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

 

1)    That the minutes of a meeting of the Audit Committee held on 26 November 2014 be received.

 

2)    That the Council notes the outcomes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 26 November 2014 being:

 

a)      The Review of Organisational Systems and Procedures – Internal Control is presented for Council consideration at item 10.5 of this agenda.

 

b)      The Local Government Audit Regulation 17 – Risk Management is presented for Council consideration at item 10.6 of this agenda.

CARRIED 9/0

 


 

Adoption by Exception Resolution

En Bloc Motion

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C1412/319    Moved Councillor G Henley, seconded Councillor J McCallum

 

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

 

10.1        Policy and Legislation Committee - 20/11/2014 - REVOCATION OF COUNCIL POLICY 225 - FARMLAND RATING CONCESSION

10.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 20/11/2014 - REVOCATION OF COUNCIL POLICY 027: FINANCIAL PLANNING - FUNDING RATIO

10.5        Audit Committee - 26/11/2014 - REVIEW OF ORGANISATIONAL SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES – INTERNAL CONTROL

11.3        HOLIDAY HOMES - UPDATE AND REVIEW OF REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

12.2        TENDER RECOMMENDATION - 17/14 BUSSELTON FORESHORE COASTAL DEFENCES CONSTRUCTION

13.1        2014/15 COMMUNITY BIDS - SECOND ROUND ALLOCATION

14.1        LAND MANAGEMENT NGILGI CAVES

14.2        MARRI RESERVE - FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES LEASE SITE

15.1        COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2015

15.2        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN  

CARRIED 9/0

 


Council                                                                                      9                                                             10 December 2014

10.             Reports of Committee

10.1           Policy and Legislation Committee - 20/11/2014 - REVOCATION OF COUNCIL POLICY 225 - FARMLAND RATING CONCESSION

SUBJECT INDEX:

Rating Policy

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Rates

REPORTING OFFICER:

Rates Coordinator - David Whitfield

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Council Policy 225: Farmland Rating Concession  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 20 November 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

Council Policy 225 – Farmland Rating Concession (‘the Policy’) was adopted by the Council in May 2003. The purpose of the Policy was to provide a rating concession mechanism to farming properties where it was deemed that the value of the property, as determined Landgate Valuation Services, had been materially increased as a result of proximate higher order land developments.   

 

Records indicate that since adoption of the Policy, only one farmland rating concession has been approved, with this occurring in the 2010/11 financial year.

 

Based on the above, coupled with the minimal monetary value of any concession, should it be granted, this report recommends that the Policy be revoked.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The former Local Government Act 1960 included provisions for rating concessions in relation to rural properties whose valuations were materially affected by their proximity to land that is being, or has been, developed for urban use. However, these provisions were not carried over to the current Local Government Act 1995.

 

Resulting from a rural rating initiative review undertaken during 2002/03, the Council sought consideration of the establishment of a policy, and associated rating concession, to address any such anomalies. Subject to a number of conditions, the value of the rating concession was initially set at 10%, and has remained at this percentage since that time, with the concession being adopted as part of the annual budget.

 

A number of applications have been submitted for consideration since the introduction of the farmland rating concession, albeit not in recent years. However, records indicate that in most, if not all, cases, Landgate Valuation Services confirmed that the subject property valuation had not been impacted by proximate high order development.

 

Whilst one concession was granted in 2010/11 (in respect of that financial year only), no subsequent application was made by that property owner.  

 


 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 2.7 of the Local Government Act details the role of the Council, which includes, amongst others, the determination of a local government’s policies.

 

Section 6.47 of the Local Government Act permits a local government to grant concessions in relation to rates (absolute majority required).   

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Not applicable.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The Councils 2014/15 adopted budget makes a notional provision for farmland rating concessions to a total value of $1,200 (actual).

 

The average rates for (non-minimum) primary production properties in 2014/15 is in the order of $2,350. Based on a 10% concession, the maximum value of any single concession would therefore be (on average) $235.     

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The matter 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

 

The farmland rating concession has not been claimed in recent years and the budgeted amount is minimal. On this basis, a risk assessment is not considered relevant.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Recent consultation with Landgate Valuation Services has reaffirmed that due to the methodology undertaken in valuing rural properties, it is very unlikely that any valuation will be materially impacted by adjacent or proximate higher order development.   

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

As detailed in this report, since introduction of the Farmland Rating Concession policy, only one property has been successful in obtaining a concession. Moreover, the value of any single concession granted would be minor (based on the currently adopted 10% concession value).

 

In addition to the above, Landgate Valuation Services has reaffirmed that its valuation methodologies essentially preclude farming property valuations being impacted by nearby higher order developments. As the concession assessment process requires confirmation from Landgate Valuation Services that a valuation has been impacted (per clause [h] of the policy), this provides further support for the revocation of the policy.    

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is recommended that Council Policy 225 - Farmland Rating Concession, be revoked.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Policy and Legislation Committee may determine to refer this matter to the Finance Committee prior to formal presentation to the Council.

 

The Council may determine not to revoke the Policy.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should the Policy be revoked it would be effective immediately upon the resolution of the Council.

 

COUNCIL DECISION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1412/320    Moved Councillor G Henley, seconded Councillor J McCallum

 

That the Council:

1.    Revokes Council Policy 225: Farmland Rating Concession.

CARRIED 9/0

 


Council                                                                                      13                                                          10 December 2014

10.2           Policy and Legislation Committee - 20/11/2014 - REVOCATION OF COUNCIL POLICY 027: FINANCIAL PLANNING - FUNDING RATIO

SUBJECT INDEX:

Financial Plans & Strategies

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Finance

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   Council Policy 027: Financial Planning - Funding Ratio  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 20 November 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

Council Policy 027: Financial Planning – Funding Ratio (the ‘Policy’) was adopted by the Council in October 2010. The Policy has not been amended since its original adoption.

 

Resulting from the introduction of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework, which includes a number of ‘financial ratio’ related key performance indicators, it is considered that the Policy is no longer relevant.

 

This report therefore recommends that the Policy be revoked. 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Funding ratio was first presented to the Council as part of an organisational financial sustainability review undertaken by an external consultant (Mr. Ron Back) in late 2003. As part of the consultant’s report, reference was made to the ratio, which identifies the volume of funds required to be raised through rates and untied grants to meet recurrent operational funding requirements, and in turn, the volume of rates and untied grants notionally available for capital purposes.  The consultant recommended that the Council target a ratio of 60% as a five year objective. Whilst acknowledging receipt of the consultant’s report, the Council did not make any specific determination in respect of the report’s recommendations; pending a workshop with the consultant to discuss the report’s findings. It is not clear whether that workshop did in fact occur.             

 

The Funding ratio was subsequently considered by the Council in 2006 and 2007, as part of associated Five Year Financial Plan processes, albeit with a revised target ratio of 70%. The Funding ratio was also considered by the Council as part of its 2010/11 budget development, at which time a target ratio of 70% was reaffirmed.  

 

During September 2010, the Council’s Finance Committee requested that a draft policy be developed in relation to the Funding ratio. The draft Policy was to incorporate the basis for calculating the ratio, whilst also reflecting the Council’s desired target ratio of 70%. The draft Policy was adopted by the Council in October 2010.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the ratio has not been specifically referenced as part of any subsequent annual budget/ long term financial plan development processes.

 

Moreover, the statutory Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework includes a number of ‘financial ratio’ related key performance indicators, which are determined via the long term financial component of the Framework. The Funding ratio is not included in these ratios.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 2.7 of the Local Government Act details the role of the Council, which includes, amongst others, the determination of a local government’s policies.

 

Section 5.56 of the Local Government Act refers to a local government’s requirement to plan for the future of the district, in accordance with any associated regulations. 

 

Regulations 19C and 19DA of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations provide specific guidance to local governments in relation to planning for the future. 

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework is of direct relevance to this matter, and more particularly the Corporate Business Plan component thereof. The Corporate Business Plan requires the development of informing strategies, including a long term financial plan. The framework includes a number of ‘financial ratio’ related key performance indicators, which are determined via the long term financial plan component of the Framework.   

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no direct financial implications associated with the Officer Recommendation as detailed in 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’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The Funding ratio has not been specifically considered as part of annual budget/ long term financial planning determinations for a number of years now. Also, the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework includes a number of ‘financial ratio’ related key performance indicators, to guide and measure strategic (financial) decision making processes. Consequently, the risk associated in revoking the Policy is considered low.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Nil.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

One of the principal purposes of the Funding ratio was to measure the volume of a local government’s funds that could be allocated towards expenditure of a capital nature. Whilst relevant at a point in time, the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework has since introduced a more sophisticated methodology relating to capital expenditure, which places greater emphasis on robust Asset Management principles. This includes the institution of several ‘financial ratio’ related key performance indicators specifically relating to the funding of (capital) asset management expenditure. Other financial ratios included in the Framework also assimilate with the intent of the Funding ratio.

 

Each of the ratios included within the Framework are accompanied by guiding standards, to measure a local governments performance in respect of each ratio. The ratios are also required to be reported, and commented upon, as part of the long term financial plan component of the Framework.    

 

It is also worthy of noting that the Funding ratio is not included in the statutory financial ratios that are required to be incorporated within a local government’s annual financial report, per Regulation 50 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations.   

    

CONCLUSION

 

It is considered that the Funding ratio is no longer relevant, and as such, it is recommended that the Policy be revoked.                   

 

OPTIONS

 

The Policy and Legislation Committee may determine to refer this matter to the Finance Committee prior to formal presentation to the Council.

 

The Council may determine to not revoke the Policy.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The status of the Policy will be effective immediately upon the Council’s associated determination.

 

COUNCIL DECISION/ COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1412/321    Moved Councillor G Henley, seconded Councillor J McCallum

 

That the Council:

1.    Revokes Council Policy 027: Financial Planning – Funding Ratio.

CARRIED 9/0

 


Council                                                                                      15                                                          10 December 2014

 10.5   Audit Committee - 26/11/2014 - REVIEW OF ORGANISATIONAL SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES – INTERNAL CONTROL

 

SUBJECT INDEX:

Financial Compliance and Advice

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Financial Services

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   Key Control and Monitoring Activities Worksheet  

 

This item was considered by the Audit Committee at its meeting on 26 November 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

Regulation 17 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations requires the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local governments systems and procedures in relation to several matters, including internal control. The results of the review are to be reported to the Audit Committee for review and deliberation, prior to formal presentation to the Council.

 

This report presents the Audit Committee with the results of a review of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the City’s systems and procedures in respect of internal control.     

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

In February 2013, several amendments to the Local Government (Audit) Regulations (the Regulations) were mandated. At this time, a new Regulation (number 17) was effected, requiring the CEO to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local government’s systems and procedures in relation risk management, internal control and legislative compliance; the results of which are required to be reported to the Audit Committee. The new Regulation is detailed as follows:   

 

17.       CEO to review certain systems and procedures

 

(1)  The CEO is to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local government’s systems and procedures in relation to –

 

(a)  risk management; and

(b)  internal control; and

(c)   legislative compliance.

 

(2)  The review may relate to any or all of the matters referred to in subregulation (1)(a), (b) and (c), but each of those matters is to be the subject of a review at least once every 2 calendar years.

 

(3)  The CEO is to report to the audit committee the results of that review.   

 

In addition to the new regulation, a further subregulation was also introduced as part of existing Regulation 16, further clarifying the Audit Committee’s actions upon receipt of the aforementioned report from the CEO. This addition is detailed as follows:       

 

16.       Audit committee, function of 

 

(c)  is to review a report given to it by the CEO under regulation 17(3) (the CEO’s report) and is to –

(i)   Report to the council the results of that review; and

(ii)  Give a copy of the CEO’s report to the council

 

In order to be compliant with the new review and reporting requirements, the initial reviews on risk management, internal control and legislative compliance are all required to be presented to the Audit Committee on or before 31 December 2014 (i.e. within 2 calendar years from the effective date). 

 

To provide guidance to local governments in the completion of the new review requirements, in September 2013, the Department of Local Government and Communities (the Department) released an updated version of Local Government Operational Guideline 9 – ‘Audit in Local Government’. This guideline includes a section specifically relating to the review, and exemplifies the types of activities that could potentially be undertaken as part of the review process.

 

Whilst the review of internal control has been informed by the aforementioned guideline, the guideline also makes reference to the Local Government Accounting Manual; a document also developed by the Department. As the Manual provides a more comprehensive framework relating to internal control, this review has been more specifically guided by that document, with particular focus on a list of internal control related activities as detailed in the Manual. This list forms the basis of the attachment to this report. 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

§ Section 7.1A of the Local Government Act requires a local government to establish an Audit Committee.

 

§ Regulation 16 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations details the functions of an Audit Committee.

 

§ Regulation 17 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations requires the CEO to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local government’s systems and controls in relation to risk management, internal control and legislative compliance, and report the results of the review to the Audit Committee. 

 

§ Regulation 16 (c) of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations states that the Audit Committee is to review the report on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the local government’s systems and controls, and report the results of that review to the Council.

 

§ The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations incorporate a number of regulations specifically relating to a range of internal control functions.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

A number of Council Policies guide activities which have been incorporated within the review. These include, but are not limited to, the Investment Policy, the Purchasing Policy and the Salary Packaging Policy.  

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations as detailed within this report. However, should the Audit Committee or the Council determine that future reviews are to be undertaken externally, appropriate budget allocations will be required to be raised in relevant financial years.   

 

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

 

The Local Government Operational Guideline – ‘Audit in Local Government’, suggests that strategies to maintain sound internal controls are based on risk analysis of the internal operations of a local government. Risk assessments have previously been completed on overarching internal control matters including, but not limited to, statutory and legislative compliance, financial deception, and the incorrect use of business software. As the associated risks have been accepted with existing treatments, it is not considered necessary to assess the risk of individual activities against current processes and procedures. Experienced and skilled staff at the City are tacitly aware of where the most significant individual risks lie, and internal processes and procedures, coupled with adequate segregation of duties, have been established to mitigate the associated risks to the organisation.                    

 

CONSULTATION

 

Not applicable.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The Local Government Operational Guideline – ‘Audit in Local Government’, states that internal control systems involve policies and procedures that safeguard assets, ensure accurate and reliable financial reporting, promote compliance with legislation and achieve effective and efficient operations. The guideline further suggests that aspects of an effective internal control framework will ideally include the following:

 

§ Delegation of authority;

§ Documented policies and procedures;

§ Trained and qualified employees;

§ System controls;

§ Effective policy and process review;

§ Regular internal audits;

§ Documentation of risk identification and assessment; and

§ Regular liaison with auditor and legal advisors.

 

The guideline does however acknowledge that the extent to which internal controls are implemented, monitored and reviewed will be impacted by, amongst others, the size and nature of individual local governments.

 

Similarly, the Local Government Accounting Manual notes that an effective system of internal controls provides a level of assurance that financial information is reliable and the local government is meeting compliance with applicable regulations and internal procedures. The Manual also infers that the achievement of regulatory compliance should be viewed as the fundamental goal of an effective internal control system with further enhancement being ongoing as part of an overall organisational risk management process.

 

With regards to regulatory compliance (from an internal control perspective), the Manual highlights a range of regulations that local governments are presently required to comply with. Many, if not all, of these regulations are reviewed and tested annually as part of existing statutory compliance processes, namely the financial audit and the compliance audit.

In addition to the above, local governments are also required to undertake periodic reviews of financial management systems and procedures, in accordance with Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations, which states:

 

5.(2)   The CEO is to –

 

(c)  Undertake reviews of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government regularly (and not less than once in every four financial years) and report to the local government the results of those reviews.

 

This requirement, commonly referred to as the Financial Management Systems Review (FMSR), is completed every four years, by the City’s appointed Auditor. Whilst there is no regulatory requirement prohibiting the review from being undertaken internally, having it performed by a qualified external party ensures thoroughness in review, independence, transparency and objectivity.            

 

The last FMSR was conducted in March 2012, with the findings presented to the Audit Committee and the Council during August 2012. At this time, the Auditor stated that in the context of Council’s overall operations, it is considered that operating procedures and systems are adequate. Furthermore, testing indicated that internal procedures and controls are appropriate, compliant with statutory requirements, with supporting reconciliations of key accounts being completed on a timely basis. Whilst nine matters were specifically identified as part of the review wherein processes could be strengthened, of these, seven were rated as having a low risk rating, with the other two having a medium risk rating. All of the matters raised in the 2012 FMSR have been addressed.       

 

The FMSR process closely aligns with the intent of the new review requirements; particularly in respect of the internal control component. It is therefore reassuring that the most recent external review of the City’s financial management systems and procedures did not identify any areas whereby current systems and processes are considered to be inadequate.              

        

As previously mentioned, the review of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the City’s systems and procedures in relation to internal control has been guided by both the relevant Local Government Operational Guideline and the Local Government Accounting Manual. Whilst more descriptive, the Operational Guideline provides an example list of the types of internal controls that could be typically reviewed. However, the Local Government Accounting Manual incorporates more specific detail in this regard, and particularly in relation to key control activities and monitoring activities.

 

Key control activities represent those processes and procedures that should be in place to ensure the proficiency of internal control, whilst monitoring activities represent the processes and procedures required to review and monitor the effectiveness of the primary key controls. The Manual lists a range of key control and monitoring activities which local governments should be reviewing on an ongoing basis. In the absence of any specific guideline pertaining to how the review of internal control is to be undertaken by local governments, a review the City’s performance against each of the listed control and monitoring activities has been considered as a reasonable basis for carrying out the initial review.

 

Assessing the City’s current internal control systems and procedures against the listed key control and monitoring activities has been invaluable in informing those areas in which current processes and procedures could be further improved. The attachment to this report lists each activity, provides a synopsis of the City’s current processes and procedures, and importantly, highlights further actions required where identified. It is believed that the range of activities reviewed fully encompasses the principal internal controls applicable to the City, and as such forms a solid platform upon which the overall effectiveness of the City’s current internal control environment can be reasonably assessed.

    

The associated regulation requires the CEO to report the results of the review to the Audit Committee. As such, and whilst providing summary comments as appropriate, the following section of this report will more specifically discuss those activities whereby the review has identified that further actions are required. For ease of review, the results have been grouped by similar action requirements, and where possible, in line with the internal control summary areas as reflected in the Local Government Accounting Manual.

 

Documented Procedures – Control Documentation

 

The Accounting Manual states that appropriate control documentation has the effect of clarifying the control activity and creating the appropriate control environment by improving the awareness and actions of staff. At the City of Busselton, formal control documentation generally takes the form of Council Policies and to a greater extent, Operational Practices and Procedures (OPP’s). Whilst Council policies ordinarily set the strategic decision making framework, OPP’s detail the processes, procedures, compliance requirements and authority levels in relation to operational matters.

 

The above control documents generally relate to matters of relevance to the organisation as a whole. As such, it would not be expected that OPP’s would need to be developed, authorised and published in respect of specific work instructions. However, from an internal control perspective, it is important to recognise those work instructions which ideally should be documented, and those which, due to their nature or organisation wide ramifications, may be worthy of formally documenting as an OPP.   

 

The key control and monitoring activities review identified numerous instances whereby current internal controls could be augmented by the development of associated control documentation. These activities are discussed as follows:  

 

1.(ii)

All journal entries require supporting documentation. Any non-routine entries require documented approval prior to posting.

 

As part of the review, it was identified that this control activity is presently lacking is relation to control documentation. The current internal processes are adequate, insofar as supporting documentation is always attached to journal entries. However, this can be is attributed to the current staffing complement within the Finance Department, who are very experienced and fully aware of the need to provide supporting documentation for audit purposes.

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is appropriate that this procedural requirement be formally documented by way of a Finance work instruction. It is also relevant that the instruction provides clarity as to what constitutes a ‘non-routine’ journal entry, and the level of approval required to enable these types of journals to be posted.     

 

4.(vii)

All receipts, cash and cheques, deposited on a regular and timely basis.

 

 

The City’s processes and procedures in relation to the receipting and banking of deposits (including electronic payments) are considered to be adequate. Additionally, banking of deposits, particularly in relation to operational revenues (administration and outstation based), is timely, which promotes efficiency in the associated bank reconciliation processes. As part of this review however, several instances were identified whereby monies collected at selected outstations were not being banked on a regular basis (for valid reasons). As these payments related solely to bonds and deposits, the financial implications are considered immaterial. Notwithstanding this however, documented procedures relating to the administration and security of the funds whilst being held, along with associated approval for the subject processes, are not held. It is considered essential that the aforementioned matters are documented and appropriately authorised, preferably as part of an Accounting Procedures Manual to be developed by each function/ outstation directly dealing with financial transactions.      

 

4. (viii)

Reconciliation of daily deposit total to receivable posting and cash sales is prepared and reviewed.

 

The review did not identify any specific areas whereby current processes and procedures are considered to be significantly lacking. However in most instances, associated processes, procedures, and review/ reconciliation practices are not formally documented. For instance, whilst deposits made to the bank are reconciled against deposit listings, there is no documented evidence that independent checks are being made against cash till listings (primarily for outstations). Analogous with the previous finding, it is considered essential that all functions and outstations dealing with cash deposits develop formal Accounting Procedures Manuals, which not only document relevant processes and procedures, but also address internal control and monitoring activities.      

 

5. (vi)

Spending limits are set by budget or individual levels of authority. These limits are monitored by the system or manually.

 

The City’s internal controls in relation to ‘purchasing authorisation limits’ (spending limits) are considered adequate. The ability to raise purchase requisitions in the system, and the associated value of the same, is controlled by system parameters. Any request to establish or amend a purchasing authority limit must be in writing, and authorised by a staff member authorised to do so. With regards to expenditures raised outside of the purchase order system, any payment must be authorised by an officer with the necessary purchasing authorisation limit (in dollar value). Verification of this authority is undertaken by Finance staff (at multiple levels) prior to the associated payment being processed.

 

Whilst the current processes are working well, there is currently no overarching control documentation detailing the required processes to be undertaken, including the purchasing authorisation limit approval process. As part of this review, it has been identified that an OPP should be established for this purpose, due to its ‘whole of organisation’ implications.

 

As part of the review process, it has also been identified that there is presently no dual approval mechanism in place with regards to the loading and verification of purchasing authority limits in the corporate software system, albeit only authorised Information Technology staff have access to this functionality. This matter is further discussed in the following ‘segregation of duties’ section.        

 

5. (viii)

Controls exist to ensure corporate buying cards/credit cards are only issued to authorised staff and personal purchases are not allowed.

 

The City has a comprehensive OPP in relation to corporate credit cards. The OPP details all associated processes and responsibilities, including approval levels. The OPP also requires cardholders to sign an acknowledgement in relation to acceptable card use prior to provision of a card. 

 

Conversely, no control documentation was, until recently, held in relation to store cards (e.g. Coles/IGA cards). However, as part of this review process, the need to establish formal control documentation was identified, and a comprehensive OPP was subsequently endorsed by the Acting CEO in September 2014. 

 

Whilst no further (immediate) action is required in respect of this control activity, it has nonetheless been included in this report to demonstrate that actions have already been undertaken as a result of the review process.     

 

 

5. (xxiii)

The accounting policy for when goods should be capitalised is documented and clearly understood by accounting personnel.

 

Accounting personnel dealing with the capitalisation of assets are fully aware of the associated thresholds. However, there is no currently no endorsed control documentation available for the wider organisation, other than that issued as part of the draft budget compilation process.  This can be problematic for staff when developing annual budgets, insofar as budget allocations may be unintentionally misallocated between capital and operational accounts.

 

A comprehensive (draft) OPP in relation to asset capitalisation has been under development for some time now. Consultation is presently occurring with the Engineering and Works Services Directorate in respect of the OPP, as this area will be most significantly impacted. Consequent to this input, the draft OPP will be finalised and submitted to the CEO for consideration and approval.

 

19. (i)

All journals are independently reviewed (including checks to ensure correct account allocation) and contain sufficient support information.

 

This activity is similar in its intent to activity 1.(ii) above; particularly in respect of the supporting documentation requirement. As previously mentioned, it is appropriate that procedural requirements relating to support documentation be formally documented by way of a Finance work instruction.

 

With respect to the independent review of all journals, this does not always occur. Finance staff have varying levels of authority to process and post journals; which form part of their ‘day to day’ functions. Notwithstanding this however, from an internal control perspective, consideration has been given to the implementation of workflow processes to ensure that all journal entries require dual approval prior to final posting to the ledgers. Whilst this may have an impact on efficiency (albeit not significant), it is nonetheless considered worthy of investigation (from a system perspective). This matter is further discussed in the following ‘Segregation of Duties’ internal control summary area.              

 

20. (i)

Regular IT audits performed focusing on data accuracy, retention, recovery and security. Results of these IT Audits reviewed by management and action plan promptly implemented.

 

This activity is discussed in more detail in the following Information Technology Controls (General and Application) summary area. Whilst robust internal controls are existent at the City, in some instances these are not formally documented. From an internal control perspective, it is important that all material controls are recorded and regularly reviewed/ updated; to ensure consistency in approach.     

 

Summary – Documented Procedures

 

The internal control review has identified several instances whereby the formal documentation of associated processes and procedures needs to occur. As previously mentioned, appropriate control documentation has the effect of clarifying the control activity and creating the appropriate control environment by improving the awareness and actions of staff. Based on the above key control and monitoring activity anomalies identified, the following provides a summary of identified actions to be undertaken:

(a)    The establishment of work instructions pertaining to the processing and approval of journal entries

(b)    The establishment/ formalisation of ‘Accounting’ Procedures Manuals for all City outstations that are involved with the processing of financial transactions (to include the administration and security of bond and deposit funds being held for extended periods)

(c)     The establishment of an Operational Practice and Procedure (OPP) detailing the processes, procedures and approval requirements in relation to the establishment/ amendment of staff purchasing authority limits

(d)    The formalisation and approval of an OPP in respect of asset capitalisation thresholds

(e)    The establishment/ formalisation of processes and procedures in relation to Information Technology internal controls (also refer Summary – Information Technology Controls)         

 

Segregation of Duties

 

The Accounting Manual states that a fundamental application of internal control is the segregation of duties, which relies on the premise that the risk of two or more officers making the same error or colluding to defraud the local government is less likely than an individual act. Due to its size, the City of Busselton has the capacity to implement segregation of duties as a key component of its overall internal control provisions.

 

As part of its 2013/14 financial audit Management Letter, the Council’s Auditor has acknowledged the sound internal control environment present at the City of Busselton, which is in part attributable to the “appropriate levels of segregation of financial duties and independence checks which are in place”. Whilst this comment supports the City’s view that adequate segregation of duties are in existence, the internal control review has identified two areas in which existing controls could potentially be further supplemented. These are discussed as follows:           

 

5. (vi)

Spending limits are set by budget or individual levels of authority. These limits are monitored by the system or manually.

 

This activity is discussed as part of the aforementioned ‘Documented Procedures’ area. As mentioned therein, it is considered that the City’s internal controls in relation to ‘purchasing authorisation limits’ (spending limits) are considered adequate. However, the internal control review identified that, due to ‘whole of organisation’ implications, an OPP requires development to formalise associated processes and procedures.

 

As part of the review process, it has also been identified that there is no dual approval mechanism in place with regards to the loading of purchasing authority limits in the corporate software system. Whilst only authorised Information Technology staff have the necessary access to establish/ amend individual purchasing limits in the system (upon the receipt of duly signed documentation), the current singular process for loading approved limits is not ideal from an internal control perspective. Consequently, as an outcome of this review, the establishment of a dual approval process (via a system workflow) is to be investigated for implementation.

 

It is worthy of noting however that a purchasing authorisation limit has limited risk implications for the City. Numerous other internal controls exist to mitigate the impact of the misuse (intentionally or otherwise) of purchasing authorisation limits; including several involving established segregation of duties.            

 

19. (i)

All journals are independently reviewed (including check to ensure correct account allocation) and contain sufficient support information.

 

This activity is also discussed as part of the aforementioned ‘Documented Procedures’ area. Whilst current procedures, particularly in relation to support information, are considered adequate, the need to formally document associated procedures (by way of a Finance work instruction) has been identified. 

 

Notwithstanding the above, with respect to the independent review of all journals, this does not always occur. Finance staff have varying levels of authority to process and post journals; which form part of their ‘day to day’ functions. However, as a consequence of the internal control review, it is felt that an independent review of all journals should ideally occur, with system generated workflow processes established to ensure that all journal entries require dual approval prior to posting. Whilst this may have an impact on efficiency (albeit not significant), it is nonetheless considered worthy of investigation (from a system perspective).

 

Summary – Segregation of Duties

 

The internal control review has identified several instances whereby current processes and procedures could be further augmented by the introduction of a higher level of segregation of duties. Based on the above key control and monitoring activity anomalies identified, the following provides a summary of identified actions to be undertaken:

(a)    The investigation and proposed implementation of a system workflow process to ensure that authorised purchasing authority limits entered into the corporate system are subject to dual  approval prior to activation

(b)    The investigation and proposed implementation of a system workflow process to ensure that journals are subject to independent review and approval, prior to posting

      

Information Technology Controls (General and Application)

 

The Accounting Manual identifies two controls within the Information Technology (IT) environment; general controls and application controls. General controls relate to a local government’s wider IT environment and include items such as virus protection, backups, and system password and access controls. Application controls are more specific and relate to items such as application password and access controls, data field validations, processing restrictions and reporting restrictions. The Manual does highlight that a lack of control in either of the above areas can undermine the effectiveness of established controls in the other. Consequently, the implementation and review of IT related internal controls need to be considered at multiple levels.                     

 

The key control and monitoring activities as reviewed include a range of activities that have a relationship with associated IT controls, albeit to differing extents. Whilst the above summary area (Segregation of Duties) includes recommendations directly relating to IT controls, for the purposes of this review, the review of IT controls is based on the following monitoring activity:        

             

20. (i)

Regular IT audits performed focusing on data accuracy, retention, recovery and security. Results of these IT Audits reviewed by management and action plan promptly implemented.

 

The traditional approach to IT administration sees a system administration function performed by a person or groups of persons who have access and control over both the general and application controls within the IT environment. However at the City of Busselton this is not the case. The IT controls have been allocated to two separate teams, namely the Business Services team and the IT Operations team. The Business Services team have administrative access to the application controls but do not have administrative access to the general controls. These are the domain of the IT Operations team, who in turn do not have access to the application controls.

 

This intentional separation of duties ensures City officers have to work together in the administration of the IT systems, which leads to automatic auditing of access between the teams. That said the IT audits required for each type of control is different and therefore will be addressed separately.

 

General Controls

These controls currently reside in the domain of the City’s IT Operations team; with some lower level components delegated to the City’s IT Helpdesk team. The City’s current approach to the review of the various IT infrastructure and security components is tied into the asset management cycle of each component. As part of the asset replacement cycle each component being replaced is assessed in the IT scheme and appropriate control requirements are raised for the replacement equipment. Generally the replacement program also includes an external party review and report on the effectiveness of the equipment.

 

Additionally the City’s IT Coordinator commissions an external security review in the form of penetration testing every 24 months. This task is aimed at highlighting the City’s security exposures and risks. The next review is set to be completed during the 2014/15 financial year and the results will be summarised and presented to Senior Management for information and determination as may be necessary.

 

Application Controls

The City utilises a variety of corporate software packages to support the myriad of service deliverables required. Unlike private sector companies, who may engage a limited number of software services, the nature of a local government’s functions necessarily requires a more significant range of software services.

 

Within the domestic software market there is no singular product that can support all of the services that the City requires. Consequently, application controls have to be applied at a higher level than would be the case in normal private sector business (which may have a single system, leading to single point of control). At the City, all application control originates within the City’s Active Directory, and is then further refined within each of the software packages, administered by a variety of administrative staff that may or may not be part of the IT team. It is the task of the City’s Business Services team to audit the access and controls being applied by non-IT administrators to ensure appropriate system access, data controls and data backups are in place.

 

Within the Business Services unit itself the team members are expected to review each other’s access and data controls. That said the most critical application access would be the products in control of the financial and document management components of the City. These products are both provided by Technology One Corp and have an extensive user access and control component, which include a highly configurable audit logging module. This audit logging module is used to monitor and control changes within these core products.

 

The product consists of various components which are asset managed utilising regular upgrades. As per the general controls, each time a system component is upgraded, extensive work is performed to assess the module before the upgrade occurs. The City also engages vendor consulting services on a regular basis to perform health checks on components of the core software products (i.e. rates, human resources, payroll, etc.).

 

Summary – Information Technology Controls

 

As discussed above, there are a variety of controls in place within the general and application IT environments, which include a number of officers reviewing each other’s controls and external resources performing reviews over a longer period of time. That said however, it is noted these reviews and controls are mostly undertaken in isolation and at component level. This review has identified the need to review and centralise the IT controls and associated audit functions into a singular control document. The City’s IT Coordinator has been assigned the task of reviewing and consolidating the City’s IT related Operational Practices and Procedures during the 2014/15 financial year, which will represent an ideal opportunity to also address the IT controls documentation requirements. Consequently, the following provides a summary of actions to be undertaken:

(a)  The review of general and application IT controls, and associated audit functions, as part of a review of existing Operational Practices and Procedures

(b)  The development of a singular control document pertaining to general and application IT controls, which details the nature of control activities to be undertaken, their frequency, and by whom 

 

CONCLUSION

 

From a financial perspective, the City’s internal controls have historically been reviewed every four years in line with the requirements of Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations. The last such review was undertaken in 2012 by the City’s appointed auditor, with the outcomes presented to the Audit Committee and the Council during August 2012. At this time, the Auditor stated that in the context of Council’s overall operations, it is considered that operating procedures and systems are adequate. Furthermore, testing indicated that internal procedures and controls are appropriate, compliant with statutory requirements, with supporting reconciliations of key accounts being completed on a timely basis.

 

Whilst certainly not to the same extent, the annual financial audit process does include a review of principal internal controls; primarily to satisfy the Auditor that the annual financial report is free from material misstatement. With regards to the 2013/14 financial audit, the Auditor has stated that the sound financial control environment present at the City of Busselton has been adequately maintained throughout the 2013/14 financial year.                    

 

Notwithstanding the above, this initial review of internal control, as is now required to be undertaken biennially, has identified a number of areas in which existing internal control processes can be further augmented. Whilst the identified anomalies in current processes and procedures are all considered minor in nature, it is felt that their rectification will further strengthen the City’s overall internal control processes. 

 

In closing, whilst limited guidance has been provided to local governments as to how the review of internal control is to be undertaken, it is felt that the methodology utilised in compiling this initial review is sound.   

 

OPTIONS

 

This report does not propose to make any specific recommendations to the Audit Committee, other than to receive the report and note the results of the review. The identified actions as comprised within the report are operational in nature and will be addressed accordingly. Notwithstanding, the Audit Committee may determine to:

 

§ Seek a formal update report on the progression of identified actions as comprised within this report

§ Identify any additional actions it wishes to have specifically reviewed from an internal control perspective

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

All identified actions will be investigated, and implemented where possible, prior to the next biennial review of internal control; due by 31 December 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1412/322    Moved Councillor G Henley, seconded Councillor J McCallum

 

That the Council:

 

1.    In accordance with Regulation 17 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations, receives this report pertaining to a review of organisational systems and procedures – internal control, and notes the results of the review.   

CARRIED 9/0

 


Council                                                                                      27                                                          10 December 2014

 


Council                                                                                      27                                                          10 December 2014


Council                                                                                      29                                                          10 December 2014


Council                                                                                      29                                                          10 December 2014

11.3           HOLIDAY HOMES - UPDATE AND REVIEW OF REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

SUBJECT INDEX:

Planning Policy

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Services and Policy

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Statutory Planning

REPORTING OFFICER:

Statutory Planning Coordinator - Joanna Wilson

Environmental Health Coordinator - Tanya Gillett

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Local Planning Policy 7C Holiday Homes  

  

PRÉCIS

 

In December 2012 the Council adopted Local Planning Policy 7C Holiday Homes, this was the final step in the introduction of a regulatory regime for holiday homes in the City.  Since this time 640 planning applications have been approved for holiday homes.

 

This report provides an update on progress with implementing the new regulations and also reviews their effectiveness and appropriateness, recommending some minor changes.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Prior to the adoption of the holiday home framework the City did not have any provisions to regulate or manage the use of holiday homes. The informal nature of this tourist accommodation meant that there was an uncertain legal environment, land use conflict, impacts on neighbouring residential amenity, and uncertainty about how the City could act when management problems/complaints arose.

 

The holiday home framework introduced by the City is a complementary approach that utilises the strengths of both the planning approval process and the local law registration.

 

Officers advised Councilors that an update of the effectiveness of the planning policy and local law would be provided once 12 months of determining planning applications and registrations have lapsed and we have been able to monitor the effectiveness of the controls.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key statutory environment is set out in the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and City of Busselton Holiday Homes Local Law.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Local Planning Policy 7C Holiday Homes sets out the guidance to determine an application for a holiday home. A copy of the policy is provided as Attachment A.

 

Western Australian Planning Commission Planning Bulletin 99 (PB99) sets out the aims for local governments when drafting Scheme Amendments or Local Planning Policy on Holiday Homes, the Policy was generally consistent with the aims of PB99.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There will be no direct financial implications arising from the staff recommendation in this report.

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendation of this report reflects Community Objective 2.2 of the Strategic Community Plan 2013, which is; “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 identifies ‘downside’ risks only, rather than ‘upside’ risks as well.  Risks are only identified in Council reports where the residual risk, once controls are identified, is ‘medium’ or greater. No such risks have been identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

No consultation was undertaken in the preparation of this report. Consultation regarding the proposed change to local planning policy, if that is supported by the Council, will require public consultation.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Since the introduction of the new regulations, the City has determined 640 development applications and registrations required by the local law.  Research has been undertaken by officers and it is thought that approximately 96% of the City’s stock of holiday homes has been granted approval. The City continues to monitor advertising sites for unregistered holiday homes, and will consider action against unapproved holiday homes as and when necessary.

 

The City’s Health Department has dealt with very few neighbour complaints about holiday homes since their registration, a number of the complaints have related to neighbourly dispute and only as small proportion have been as a result of a noise complaint or anti-social behaviour.  At the end of the financial year the City’s Health Department distributed the renewal notice for all holiday homes, all of the registered holiday homes have been renewed, officers have not been required to decline the renewal of any holiday home.

 

Councillors may recall that since the holiday home framework was introduced, only two holiday homes have been refused (one subsequently approved after an appeal was lodged to SAT) these were both  located within Dunsborough Lakes.  Dunsborough Lakes is identified as ‘Preferred Area 2’ within the policy; the policy states that in Preferred Area 2 “the approval of holiday homes will be

considered in the Rural Residential Zone but not the Residential Zone”. Given the substantive meaning, however, it is considered appropriate that the word ‘Preferred’ be deleted, such that the two areas identified in the policy (‘Preferred Area 1’ and ‘Preferred Area 2’) are simply identified as ‘Area 1’ and ‘Area 2’. No substantive change is proposed in that regard, but that change would mean that the names of the two areas makes more intuitive sense – as holiday homes are not ‘preferred’ in some parts of what is now referred to as ‘Preferred Area 2’, which is somewhat confusing. Because of the nature of this change, it is not seen as necessary to undertake consultation regarding that particular change.

 

The rationale for excluding Dunsborough Lakes was to achieve a reasonable balance between the protections of residential character and support existing and established holiday homes where appropriate. This is broadly consistent with Planning Bulletin 99 which recommends, that to reduce conflict between ordinary residential dwellings, holiday homes should not necessarily be supported in all residential areas, but instead located in areas of high tourism amenity and close proximity to key tourism attractions such as the beach, town centre or rural areas.  Officers have considered amending the policy to allow holiday homes within Dunsborough Lakes, and are of the view that would be appropriate. In coming to that position officers have considered the fundamental rationale for originally not supporting holiday homes in the new estates such as Dunsborough Lakes and Vasse and are of the view that holiday homes should be broadly supported in Dunsborough Lakes.

 

It was suggested to officers that the definition of ‘Holiday Home (Grouped Dwelling)’ should be amended to allow for more than six occupants; in our experience the majority of objections that are received during the publicity period of a development application are from Grouped Dwellings proposed to be used as Holiday Homes; the most common objection is noise and inadequate car parking.  The majority of grouped dwellings have common property and restricted parking areas, in particular those that have been created as a result of Clause 58; officers are of the opinion that the definition should remain as a maximum of 6 people.  Furthermore, in order for the definition to be amended it would require an amendment to the Scheme.  The definition of the Scheme is broadly in line with the Planning Bulletin and officers do not consider that it would be appropriate to recommend changing this definition. In particular, changing the definition would create the potential for SAT applications if a grouped dwelling was proposed to be used as a holiday home for more than six persons, whereas presently there is no such potential, or at least no potential for successful SAT applications, as the limit on the number of occupants is a clear, prescriptive standard that the City does not have the discretion to vary.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Overall, it is considered that the implementation of the new regulatory regime has been successful and no substantive change in the approach is proposed at this time. It is proposed, however, that a further and more comprehensive review be undertaken following the 2014/15 summer period, including consultation with residents, and with holiday home owners and managers. That is reflected in the officer recommendation.

 

OPTIONS

 

There are fundamentally three options the Council may wish to consider: (1) Not include Dunsborough Lakes in what is proposed to now be called ‘Area 1’, which would mean that holiday homes would continue to not generally be supported there; (2) Amend the definition of ‘Holiday home (grouped/multiple dwelling)’ so that the City has the discretion to approve a holiday home for more than six persons in a unit, flat or apartment; and (3) undertake consultation before completing this first review of the regulatory regime.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The further review is proposed to be completed by the end of the 2015 calendar year.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1412/323    Moved Councillor G Henley, seconded Councillor J McCallum

 

That the Council resolve to -

1.         Remove the word ‘Preferred’ from the area titles set out in Local Planning Policy 7C Holiday Homes;

2.         Adopt as draft for consultation amendments to Local Planning Policy 7C Holiday Homes so that Dunsborough Lakes is incorporated into ‘Area 1’, and holiday homes would therefore be generally supported; and

3.         Undertake a further review of the holiday homes regulatory regime, including through consultation with residents, and with holiday home owners and managers, prior to the end of the 2015 calendar year.

CARRIED 9/0


Council                                                                                      33                                                          10 December 2014

12.2           TENDER RECOMMENDATION - 17/14 BUSSELTON FORESHORE COASTAL DEFENCES CONSTRUCTION

SUBJECT INDEX:

Busselton Foreshore

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Engineeering and Works Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Engineering and Facilities Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Confidential Attachment A - Tender Evaluation Report

Attachment b    Construction Plans - Busselton Foreshore Coastal Defences  

  

 

Attachment A is confidential under section 5.23 - 2(c) of the Local Government Act 1995 in that it deals with “a contract entered into or which may be entered into, by the local government”. Copies have been provided to Councillors, the Chief Executive Officer and Directors only.

 

PRÉCIS

 

The City of Busselton invited RFT 17/14 Busselton Foreshore Coastal Defences Construction and received 4 submissions. This report summarises the tender responses and makes recommendation to award the tender.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The objectives of this Request for Tender are to appoint a suitably qualified contractor for the construction of the Busselton Foreshore Coastal Defences at the Busselton Foreshore for the City of Busselton as part of Busselton Foreshore East Project.

 

This Request for Tender specified the requirements of the City and invited suitably qualified and experienced respondents to submit bids to enter into a Contract for the construction of the Busselton foreshore coastal defences from the Busselton jetty abutment east to Brown Street, in accordance with the detailed design and specification set out in the request for tender.

 

The requirements of for the new coastal defences include:

 

·    Supply and installation of PVC sheet piling

·    Supply and installation of exposed aggregate reinforced concrete paths, steps, ramps and other associated coastal infrastructure which has been designed to meet specific elements of the overall foreshore landscape design.

·    Supply and installation of a geotextile sand bag sea wall

·    Modifications to the Scout Road Jetty abutment, which consisted of two options for either a granite sea wall abutment similar to the Busselton jetty (Option A) or the extension of the existing Scout Rd Jetty (South) with a concrete sea wall abutment (Option B).

·    Specific timelines for the completion of works

 

The successful tenderer will be reporting to the Director of Engineering and Works Services to fulfil the requirements as described in this report

 

The contract will be a construction contract only. Previously the City of Busselton engaged GHD consultants to complete the detailed design of the foreshore coastal defences. GHD will continue to be employed to sign off on portions of the work at specific hold points to ensure the work has been completed in accordance with the detailed design.

 

Subsequently, the request for tender for the construction of the Coastal Defences was advertised from 1 November 2014 for a period of four (4) weeks, closing on the 28 November 2014. The tender advertising period of four weeks included an extension of one week to allow interested tenderers to complete their site, design and quantity investigations to provide accurate costings in their tender submissions.

 

The City received 33 requests for the tender documents and received four (4) tender responses. A tender evaluation panel was formed to evaluate all tenders submissions and prior to the evaluation meeting, each panel member was provided with a copy of each submitted tender and a copy of the Evaluation Score sheet and Panel Guide. Each panel member then scored each tender, with the scores being averaged to determine a final score.

 

The Evaluation Panel met on 1 December and 2 December to discuss and evaluate each tender submission.  The basis for the scoring and rationale for each score was discussed and final comments for the averaged scores agreed upon.

 

A rating scale of zero to five (0 – 5) was used for evaluating each Tender Submission in accordance with the Qualitative Criteria, with 0 being lowest and 5 being highest.  The scoring has taken place in accordance with the RFT – Evaluation Scoring Guide and Procedural Fairness Guidelines as published by WALGA.

 

A comprehensive summary of these responses and pricing schedules has been included in the confidential attachment.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 3.57 of Local Government Act 1995 requires “A local government to invite tenders before it enters into a contract of a prescribed kind under which another person is to supply goods and services”.

 

Part 4 (Tenders) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 require that tenders be publicly invited for such contracts where the estimated cost of providing the total service exceeds $100,000.

 

Compliance with the Local Government Act 1995 section 3.57 is required in the issuing and tendering of contracts. 

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The City’s Busselton Foreshore Master Plan includes construction of additional coastal defences to the East of the Busselton Jetty in this phase 2 of the Busselton Foreshore Development.

 

The City’s purchasing, tender selection criteria, occupational health and safety and engineering technical standards and specifications, were all relevant to this tender and have been adhered to in the process of requesting and evaluating tenders.

 


 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The total budget for the construction of the Busselton Foreshore coastal defences is $3 million. The budget forms part of the $6.8 million loan for the overall Busselton Foreshore east upgrade.

 

To date $94,737 has been spent on the detailed design leaving a balance of $2,905,263.

 

As indicated in the background section of this report, tenderers were requested to price two (2) options.  Option A was for the reconstruction of the Scout Road Jetty abutment using a granite seawall (similar to the Busselton Jetty abutment).  Option B was for the extension of the existing Scout Road Jetty (south) using a concrete seawall abutment.

 

The tender panel has evaluated Option B only of the submissions, as this was the overall preferred outcome for the aesthetics of the foreshore. In all submission received, Option B was in fact the cheaper of the two options.  

 

The tender contract value will be $ 2,170,703.58 (exc GST) which is under budget.

 

There will, however, be additional costs for GHD consulting engineers and other supervisory works which will be required to be spent against this budget. This figure cannot be specified at this point but is expected to be in the region of $60,000.

 

The above figure does not include any provisional sums or variations. Due to the nature of these works there is the potential of an unforseen element which may require a variation to be paid to the contractor.

 

It is expected that any variation will be paid from the $3 million budget line item, but will not exceed the budget.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Foreshore Coastal Defences are consistent with following the City of Busselton’s strategic Objectives:

 

2.         Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Places;

 

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officers 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 are included below;

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

The contractor fails to complete the defences by the end of the financial year

Weekly project meetings to monitor progress. Liquidated damages to be impose for delays that cause loss to City

Medium

Likely

Medium

The contractor causes delays or losses to other contractors working on the Busselton Foreshore project

Monitor contractors’ compliance with requirement to work/co-ordinate with other contractors

Medium

Likely

Medium

The costs associated with the construction is over the Council endorsed budget due to variations to the contractors scope of work

Tender contract terms & conditions;

Weekly project meetings to monitor progress and any variations to scope.

Medium

Likely

Medium

The contractor fails to construct the defences in accordance with the design

Designer has been contractor to provide sign off on construction in accordance with design and specified hold points

High

Unlikely

Medium

 

CONSULTATION

 

Nil

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The tender assessment was carried out by a tender review panel consisting of Oliver Darby, Director of Engineering and Facilities Services, Daniell Abrahamse, Manager of Engineering Services and Mark Tyler, Contract and Tendering Officer. Tender submissions were received from the following organisations:

 

•          Advanteering

•          BMD Construction

•          ERTECH

·         SIME Construction            

 

All tenders were found to comply with the terms and conditions and mandatory requirements of the RFT. Accordingly, each tender was scored according to the qualitative criteria endorsed by Council and included in the tender documentation as follows:

 

Criteria Weighting

(a)       Relevant Experience                                  20%

(b)       Key Personnel Skills and Experience    20%

(c)       Tenderer’s Resources                                20%

(d)       Demonstrated Understanding               20%

 

The net tendered price was scored using the ‘Average Based Scoring Method’ recommended by WALGA in the ‘Local Government Purchasing and Tender Guide’.

 

The panel members individually assessed the compliance and qualitative criteria and then applied an average to provide a final rating. The scores were then added together to indicate the rankings for the tender. The Confidential report attached provides further detail in relation to the relative merits of each of the individual tenderers. Following this evaluation, ERTECH is the preferred tenderer for the reasons outlined in the confidential report.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The tender evaluation panel have completed their assessment in line with the City’s tender process and Officers now recommend the Council award RFT 17/14 Busselton Foreshore Coastal Defences Construction to ERTECH. 

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may consider the following alternate options:

 

1.    The Council choose not to accept the Officers Recommendation and award the Tender to an alternate tenderer. In the view of the Officer’s this could result in a Tender being awarded to a tenderer that has not presented the “best value” for money offer.

 

2.    The Council may choose not to accept the Officers Recommendation and not award the tender. This would mean going back out to tender, resulting in significant delays to the contract award and potential significant delays to the Busselton Foreshore Development project

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The award of the tender can be made immediately after the Council has endorsed the Officer’s recommendation. Subject to finalisation of a number of minor contractual points, the successful tenderer will receive formal written notification within seven (7) days of the resolution. All unsuccessful tender applicants will also be notified at this time.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Award tender RFT 17/14 – Busselton Foreshore Coastal Defences Construction to ERTECH for the total contract sum of $ 2,170,703.58 (exclusive GST).

 

 

 

  


Council                                                                                      37                                                          10 December 2014

12.             Community and Commercial Services Report

13.1           2014/15 COMMUNITY BIDS - SECOND ROUND ALLOCATION

SUBJECT INDEX:

Donations,Contributions and Subsidies

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Community Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Community & Commercial Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Community Development Officer - Naomi Davey

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Register of Community Bids Applications - Minor Bids Round 2 2014/15  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

Each year the City of Busselton provides financial assistance to community groups and not-for-profit organisations through the Community Bids process. This assistance is provided for specific activities           or projects proposed to be undertaken by that group or organisation within the forthcoming financial        year.

 

This report provides a summary of the officer recommendations which were discussed with Council at a workshop on 12 November 2014, and seeks formal endorsement regarding the community bid submissions to be funded in the second round of the 2014/15 financial year.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The City of Busselton has historically invited community groups and not-for-profit organisations to apply for funding through the City’s annual budget development process. In April 2010 Council resolved to restructure the process under which external organisations applied to the City for financial assistance. This included the following changes to the various funding application schemes:

·   Amalgamation of the Community Environment and Minor Sporting, Recreational and Community Grants schemes into a consolidated scheme;

·   Development of a two tiered scheme for major and minor projects, with a capping of the overall budget allocations for each tier (resolved by Council);

·   Discontinuation of Small Local Project fund of Councillors to be replaced by a Sponsorship and Donations fund (administered by officers).

 

In August 2010 Councillors considered that a number of established community organisations, who apply for funding each year, warranted ongoing support of Council across a number of financial years.  This would therefore provide organisations with secured financial support over a longer planning period and alleviate the necessity to submit an annual application. These activities / events would become part of the future ‘multi-year agreement process’ and would not form part of the future annual Community Bids process.

 

In March 2011 the Council resolved to allocate funding to the Community Bids program as follows:

 

C1103/097    Moved Councillor Henley, seconded Councillor Hanran Smith:

 

1.            Council allocate a total of 0.5% of estimated rates to be levied to

Major Project Assistance Grants to be determined as part of the

Community Bids assessment process advertised in the first quarter of

each year.

 

               2.                Allocate a total of $50,000 to Minor Project Assistance Grants to be

determined twice each year, once as part of the Community Bids

process, and once again in September each year.

 

               3.                Increases the maximum amount of Minor Project Assistance Grants

              from $3,000 to $5,000 for any one project.

 

In September 2014 City officers prepared and distributed a ‘Community Bids Information Pack’ to interested parties which contained general guidelines for applications and eligibility. The guidelines reflected direction provided by Council during previous Community Bids Councilor workshop sessions.

 

The guidelines indicate eligibility for Community Bids as follows:

·    Not for profit groups and organisations located in the City of Busselton, except in circumstances where a proposed project, program or activity will take place in the City or have significant regional benefit;

·    Project/ program delivery within the 2014/15 financial year;

·    One application per category, per organisation;

·    Completion of the application form provided;

·    ABN and Incorporation required.

 

The guidelines also provided the following as considerations for funding:

Supported

·    Programs/ projects providing benefit to the broader community;

·    One off projects or activities;

·    Equipment grants for durable equipment only;

·    One-off program related operational expenses.

Not supported

·    On-going operational expenses;

·    Consumable equipment;

·    Retrospective funding/ projects already commenced;

·    Projects that are an event (separately funded);

·    Training;

·    Facility maintenance;

·    Programs, projects and services considered the responsibility of other government departments, individuals and private for-profit groups;

·    Activities that do not relate to the Key Result Areas in the City’s Strategic Community Plan;

·    Proposals not complementary to the services and functions of local government.

 

In August 2014, Council resolved to allocate the following amounts to Round 1 of this funding scheme for the 2014/15 financial year:

·   $30,080   Minor Projects (Under $5,000)

·   $165,000 Major Projects (Over $5,000)

 

The remaining funding available for the second round of the 2014/15 Community Bids program is, $19,920 for minor projects. The second round of Community Bids funding for the 2014/15 financial year was opened during October 2014 and a total of ten (10) applications were received (See Attachment A). Applications were called for Minor Bids (under $5,000) only.

Applications were assessed by an officer working group, in accordance with the Community Bids guidelines. Officer recommendations were discussed with Councillors at a workshop held on 12 November 2014, and are included  in this report.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Nil

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Nil

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The proposed funding detailed in the officer recommendation of this report, as discussed with Councillors at a workshop held on 12 November 2014, includes a total of $19,920 to be awarded to minor bids

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Places:

2.1  A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, leisure 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

Applicants do not obtain relevant and adequate insurances such as Public Liability exposing the City and/or applicant

Ensure conditions of funding are clear and copies of relevant insurances are obtained

Moderate

Rare

Medium

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

The Community Bids process was advertised in the local community newspaper on 26 September, 8 & 15 October 2014, via the Council for the Community page. Recognised Community Groups and Sporting Clubs in the City of Busselton were also notified of the Community Bids process via email. A hard copy of the Community Bids application form and guidelines were available at the City

 

Administration Building, Dunsborough Library and the Busselton Library.

 

A workshop was held with Councillors on 12 November 2014 to discuss Officer comments related to the submissions, with this feedback used to inform the final Officer recommendations in this report. 

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Applications were initially assessed by an officer working group, who considered the following criteria:

·    Does the project, program or activity meet the Community Bids criteria?

·    Has the applicant outlined why the projects, programs or activities are needed by the community?

·    Is there an expectation or risk to the community if the project, program or activity does not proceed?

·    Did the organisation or group state the level of cash or in kind contribution they will make to the project, program or activity?

·    Has the applicant demonstrated attempts at seeking funding from other sources?

·    Has the applicant been successful in previous community bids applications and what was the funded amount?

·    Does the project align with the City of Busselton’s Strategic Plan?

 

Officers presented the following recommendations to Councillors at a workshop on 12 November 2014:

 

Minor Bids - up to $5,000

 

 

Applicant

Project Title

Recommendation

Specific Conditions of Funding

1

 

Busselton Bowling Club

First Aid Upgrade

$1,090

Nil

2

Busselton Football Club

 

New Goal Posts for Bovell Oval

$5,000

Nil

3

Busselton Senior Citizens Centre

Compliant Dining Room Exit Door

$1,639

Nil

4

Busselton Population Medical Research Institute

Equipment

$5021

Nil

5

St Mary’s Nurture Works

 

Assets for Buz program

$1,488

Nil

6

The Woodturners Association of WA Inc.

Woodturners Workshop Visibility

$682

Nil

7

Eagle Bay Community Hall Association Inc.

Construction of a ramp and stairs from the Eagle Bay Hall to the Beach

Nil

n/a

8

Jobs South West Inc.

 

Angry Bryds

Nil

n/a

9

Busselton Community Garden

BCG Nature Space for Everyone Project

Nil

n/a

10

Dunsborough Touch Football Club Inc.

First Year Start Up Costs

Nil

n/a

 

 

Total

$14,920

 

 

 

Remaining Funds

($5,000)

 

 

Options for the remaining $5,000 were discussed, one of which was an enquiry received on behalf of the Busselton Trade Training Centre. Allocation of the remaining $5,000 to the Busselton Trade Training Centre was generally supported, subject to the facility being available, where practical, to the City for purposes such as its Youth Service activities and trade functions. $5,000 would be a contribution towards the operational and development costs of the Busselton Trade Training Centre. The City has identified youth education, training and employment as a strategic priority going forward, this therefore aligns with the City’s Social & Aging Plan 2012-2020.

Notification of Applicants:

Successful and unsuccessful applicants of round two funding will be individually notified of the Council’s decision. Successful applications will be required to sign a grant agreement with the City and meet any specific conditions of funding.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Community Bids application and Councillor assessment panel process is constantly evolving and aims to match community needs with the funds available within priority areas identified in the City of Busselton’s Strategic Community Plan (2013).

 

It is recommended that Council adopts the round two Community Bids funding allocations as discussed at the Councillor Workshop held on 12 November 2014.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may wish to consider re-assessment and differing levels of funding proposed for all or some of the community bid applications. In pursuing this option the Council needs to consider budget availability and the immediacy for some funding items and the effect this delay could have on organisations being able to finalise their plans and budgets for the 2014/15 year.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

All Community Bids applicants will be individually advised in writing of the outcome of the Council decision within 21 days. Successful applications will be required to sign a grant agreement with the City and meet any specific conditions of funding.

 

City officers will continue discussions with the various applicants regarding eligibility for other grant funding opportunities.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

1.        

That the Council:

 

1.    Endorses the provision of funding for round two of the 2014/15 Community Bids programme as outlined in the table below, subject to the specific conditions as stated:

a)         Minor Bids

 

 

Applicant

Project Title

Recommendation

Specific Conditions of Funding

1

 

Busselton Bowling Club

First Aid Upgrade

$1,090

Nil

2

Busselton Football Club

 

New Goal Posts for Bovell Oval

$5,000

Nil

3

Busselton Senior Citizens Centre

Compliant Dining Room Exit Door

$1,639

Nil

4

Busselton Population Medical Research Institute

Equipment

$5,021

Nil

5

St Mary’s Nurture Works

 

Assets for Buz program

$1,488

Nil

6

The Woodturners Association of WA Inc.

Woodturners Workshop Visibility

$682

Nil

7

Eagle Bay Community Hall Association Inc.

Construction of a ramp and stairs from the Eagle Bay Hall to the Beach

Nil

n/a

8

Jobs South West Inc.

 

Angry Bryds

Nil

n/a

9

Busselton Community Garden

BCG Nature Space for Everyone Project

Nil

n/a

10

Dunsborough Touch Football Club Inc.

First Year Start Up Costs

Nil

n/a

 

 

Total

$14,920

 

 

2.   Subject to an agreement of practical access arrangements between the Department of Education and the City of Busselton, endorse the funding allocation of $5,000, from Round 2 of the 2014/15 Community Bids programme towards the Busselton Trade Training Centre for operational and development costs.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      43                                                          10 December 2014

13.2           BUTTER FACTORY UPPER FLOOR

SUBJECT INDEX:

Old Butter Factory

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Community Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Community Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Community Services - Maxine Palmer

Legal Services Coordinator - Cobus Botha

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Building Report - Old Butter Factory

Attachment b    Conservation Management Plan - Old Butter Factory  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

A structural assessment report of the Old Butter Factory identified certain risks associated with the continued use of the upper floor of the Old Butter Factory as a museum display area for public access. This report details options for the City’s mitigation and management of these risks and the potential impacts of these measures on the operations of the lessee of the building, the Busselton Historical Society, who is using the part of the building as a museum.

 

It is recommended that the Council requires from the Busselton Historical Society to restrict the use of the upper floor of the Old Butter Factory to storage and a workroom for personnel.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The City of Busselton is the registered proprietor Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 238, located at 76 Peel Terrace, Busselton (Land). Over the span of many years a complex of buildings have been constructed on the Land, including the main building used as a butter factory (Old Butter Factory) and other detached buildings used, among other things, as a boiler house and blacksmith shop. Historical records indicate that the Old Butter Factory was constructed as long ago as 1918. However since approximately 30 years ago (and ever since) the Old Butter Factory has been used as a museum, currently under the auspices of the Busselton Historical Society (BHS).

 

In 1996 the City of Busselton entered into a 10 year lease of the Old Butter Factory with BHS and the Busselton Pottery Group, which expired in June 2015. At that stage the Busselton Pottery Group entered into another 10 year lease with the City, which expires on 30 June 2015. Due to land title issues in relation to portions of the Land, BHS’s lease was not renewed and BHS has since been occupying the Old Butter Factory and surrounds under a holding over provision on a month-by-month basis (BHS Lease).  With the expiry of the Busselton Pottery Group lease approaching, a report to Council will be prepared during the first half of 2015 to address the land title issues and to provide Council with options and recommendations on the future leasing of the Land. 

 

The Old Butter Factory is a double storey building which is used in main as a museum operated by BHS, with a section at the western end used as premises for the Busselton Pottery Group. The total building area is 750m3, with 580m3 at the lower floor and 170m3 in the upper floor. BHS currently use the upper floor as museum exhibition area and as such makes it accessible to the general public. Access to the upper floor is provided by two sets of stairs, both designated as fire escape exits:

 

·    A set of timber stairs to the west of the main entry which is normally used for public access to the upper floor; and

·    A set of steel stairs from the rear of the upper floor.

BHS indicated that the use of the upper storey as museum display area which is open to public, forms an integral part of their museum operations. Based on floor area the upper floor has capacity for approximately 40 persons at a time. The current upper floor museum display consists mainly of a variety of household artifacts including kitchenware, radios, china and clothing. BHS also indicated that the existing ground floor area is insufficient to accommodate the upper floor museum display and, should upper floor public access be disallowed, will have to be replaced by construction of a new building.

 

Under the BHS Lease the permitted use of the Old Butter Factory is for “ANY USE CONSISTENT WITH THE LESSEE’S CONSTITUTION”. The use of the building as a museum and for pottery activities are considered to be consistent with the permitted use under the BHS Lease. The BHS Lease does however also stipulate that:

 

·    BHS, at its own expense, must comply with the requirements of all acts, local planning schemes, by-laws or regulations or requisitions or orders thereunder applicable to the building or the use of occupation thereof (clause 3.9);

·    BHS shall not be liable to effect any structural alterations of the building unless the same is necessitated or occasioned by the reason of any act or default of BHS (clause 5.5); and

·    The City of Busselton as lessor does not warrant that the building is or will remain suitable or adequate for the purposes of the lease (clause 5.8).

 

In 2012 the City of Busselton engaged the services of Cotan Engineers to assess the condition of the Old Butter Factory and to present the City with recommendations in relation to refurbishment work and maintenance required to achieve Australian Standard and Building Code of Australia compliance and to preserve the structural condition of the building frame in order to prolong its life (Building Report). A copy of the Building Report is attached as Annexure 1. The City also commissioned a Conservation Management Plan, of which a copy is attached as Annexure 2 (Conservation Plan). This plan was funded by Lotterywest and developed by a Heritage conservation specialist. Included in the scope of works for the plan was a specific requirement to verify the advice provided in the Cotan Building Report. The Conservation Management Plan (Section 8.5.2.1) concurred with Cotan’s conclusion that “the level of intervention required to achieve fire standards and access requirements for continued public access would have a major adverse impact on the heritage fabric of the main factory building.” Policy 5.3, Section 8.5.2.1 of the Conservation Management Plan recommends “…. careful design of all necessary works to ensure the minimum possible impact on the heritage values of the fabric and setting of the place, “ and Policy 5.4 suggests that “Subject to further analysis of the fire safety and floor loading requirements it is suggested the first floor  could be adapted to alternative uses that do not require public access”.

 

Pursuant to the Building Report and the Conservation Plan a number of recommended works/alterations have been implemented at the Old Butter Factory. These include:

 

·    Car parking and driveways

·    Removal and replacement of defective weatherboards

·    Roof repairs

·    Electrical works

·    Modifying exit and emergency lighting

·    Sub soil drainage works

·    Replacements gutters and downpipes

·    Fire hydrant installation

·    New entry porches

 

In addition the City has in the last four years also undertaken asbestos remedial works at the Old Butter Factory, constructed a new storage shed and attended to ongoing maintenance of the buildings and infrastructure on the Land. The total cost of implementing abovementioned recommendations and undertaking these additional works is $464,545.

 

However, due to ongoing concerns about fire safety issues at the Old Butter Factory, City officers briefed Council on 10 September 2014 on certain recommendations in the Building Report and the Conservation Management Plan, informing Council of the following key issues outlined in these reports:

 

·    The Building Report identified that, in its current state, use of the upper storey of the Old Butter Factory as a museum poses a fire safety risk. This is due to the load-bearing parts of the lower floor (timber framed walls, steel columns and suspended floor structure) not having the required fire resistance construction and the fire escape exits not being compliant with the relevant fire safety requirements.

·    To up-grade the existing structure to achieve the required fire resistance would require those components to be lined with fire resistant materials which will impact on the heritage value of the building (‘the level of intervention required to achieve the fire standard and access requirements for continued public access would have a major adverse impact on the heritage fabric of the main factory building.’).

·    The cost of fire resistance improvements which would allow use of the upper level for public purposes were significant (approximately $295,000). This costs estimate also does not include or provide for any heritage considerations. 

·    The engineers recommended changing the use of the upper level to prevent public access to the second storey.

·    Further detailed structural assessment is required to consider using part of the upper floor for storage of museum goods that are not in public display. Calculations do however indicate that the structures supporting the upper floor are suitable for live loads up to 200kg/m2. Such use may also require minor upgrade to the existing upper floor fire escapes.

 

Based on the information provided at the briefing session Councilors indicated their support for City officers to work with BHS to close the Old Butter Factory’s upper storey to public access and restrict the use thereof to storage.

 

City officers have since met with BHS representatives and also facilitated assistance from the WA Museum to help the BHS to review their Collection Policy and provide training in relation to issues such as how to review and reduce the collection, exploring different display options in the remaining spaces if the upper floor display area was closed and to develop an Interpretation Plan. The BHS had also previously been provided a copy of the Building Report and Conservation Plan and were therefore aware of the issues raised in those reports. Initially BHS indicated that they understand the fire safety issues and were supportive of working towards closing the Old Butter Factory’s upper floor to public access. However BHS has since indicated that they object to the proposed change of use of the upper level, and queried the City’s ability to enforce such a requirement.

 

On 29 October, 2014 the Regional Heritage Advisor for the South West, Annabel Wills, visited the Old Butter Factory and met with the BHS President, Vice President and City Officers to see firsthand the level of intervention required for purposes of using the upper level of the Old Butter Factory for public purposes (as recommended in the Building Report). The outcome of that meeting was that the State Heritage Office recommended that the City engage a heritage consultant to review the Building Report in line with Policy 5.4 of the Conservation Plan and to work with a fire engineer to consider alternative solutions and to prepare a Heritage Impact Statement, outlining the impact of any proposed works on significant building fabric.

 

In the meantime Council has to resolve whether to require from BHS to change the use of the Old Butter Factory to prevent public access to the second storey. In the process Council has to assess the risks associated with the continued use of the upper floor as a museum display area for public access, consider the options for mitigation and management of these risks and also consider the potential impacts of these measures on the operations of BHS and the heritage value of the building.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Under the Health Act 1911 the City has the ability to close or cause the closing of public buildings or to exclude persons from entering public buildings which are considered to be unsafe or unsuitable for the use it is being put. Section 179(3)(dd) stipulates:

 

(3) If it appears to an authorized person that –

 

(aa) …

(bb) …

(cc) …

(dd) whether or not a valid certificate of approval is issued in respect of a public building, the public building is unsafe or is unsuitable for the use to which it is being put, or is about to be put,

 

then the authorised person may do any one or more of the following –

 

(a) close or cause the closing of, the doors of the public building;

(b) exclude any person or cause any person to be excluded from entering the public building;

(c) direct any person to leave the public building;

(d) direct the occupier, owner or person in charge of the public building to comply with one or    both of the following requirements – 

 

i)          to close the public building;

ii)         to refuse to allow any person to enter or remain in the public building 

 

The Building Code of Australia (BCA) is a uniform set of technical provisions for the design and construction of buildings and other structures in Australia. The BCA is produced and maintained by the Australian Building Codes Board on behalf of the Australian Government and State and Territory Governments and as such has been given the status of building regulations by all States and Territories.  At present the public access to the upper floor of the Old Butter Factory requires fire resistance of all lower floor building walls, lower floor columns and upper floor external walls in accordance with the BCA to be a Type B construction. This means that loadbearing walls and columns must have a specified resistance and external walls must be non-combustible. The Old Butter Factory is not a type B construction, and work required to meet this standard will be extensive and expensive (as is outlined in the Building Report). The fire safety requirements under the BCA assist with determining the level of risk associated with using a building which potentially poses a fire safety risk.

The Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 is applicable in that the Old Butter Factory is a heritage listed building and any work that interferes with the structure or appearance of the building requires the written approval of the Heritage Council of WA.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

It is a goal of the City’s Social and Ageing Plan (2010-2020) that our culture is celebrated, valued and retained. The Corporate Plan which underpins the achievement of the City’s Community Strategic Plan also has a priority action to “progressively implement the social and aging plan initiatives to support the provision and delivery of cultural services and programs.”

 

The Butter Factory building is a unique, heritage listed asset that is a legacy to the region’s dairy industry history. The Museum collection displayed within the Butter factory preserves the rich history of the Busselton district. Both support achievement of goals within the Social and Aging Plan and Corporate Plan.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

In the last four years the City has invested $464,545 in the Old Butter Factory and surrounding land on the works outlined in the BACKGROUND section of this report. The City has also paid $11,600 + GST for Cotan’s Building Report in 2012.

The following options in relation to the Old Butter Factory upper floor have been identified, with a breakdown of the costs associated with each option specified below:

 

1.    Allow the upper floor to be used as museum display area open to public access.

2.    Use of the upper floor for storage and a work room – no public access.

3.    Use of the upper floor for storage only – no public access.

4.    Construction of a new Type C single storey building with public access to replace lost floor space.

5.    Engage a heritage consultant and fire engineer to review the Building Report in line with Policy 5.4 of the Conservation Plan and to investigate alternative solutions providing for public use of the upper floor and the impact of associated works on significant building fabric.

 

Option 1 – Keep the upper floor open to the public

 

Should the upper floor continue to be used as a display area that is open to the public the following works were advised to be undertaken as specified in Appendix B to the Building Report:

 

Work advised to keep upper floor open to the public

Estimated cost (2012) excl. GST

Upgrade fire resistance of structure to meet type B construction

$292,000

Asbestos remedial works - upper floor (internal works)

$63,200

Asbestos remedial works - upper floor (external works)

$9,500

Replace internal stairs, reconstruct and extend fire exit external stairs, ramps, indicators and push bars

$11,300

Maintenance to upper level floors

$1,400

Modifications to exit and emergency lighting and smoke detectors and associated electrical cabling

$4,000

TOTAL

$381,400

 

Note:

·    Asbestos removal works within the City are funded from the Asbestos Removal Reserve. For the 2015/16 financial year $125,000 is likely to be budgeted for asbestos remedial/removal works for all City buildings. Abovementioned asbestos removal at the Old Butter Factory can be funded from this allocation, which will leave the City with  approximately $50,000 for other asbestos removal projects.

·    The costing of $381,400 does not include what it would cost for the whole building to become a Type B construction – only to upgrade the section of the building under the upper floor. For the whole building to become a TYPE B construction, other sections have to be upgraded (e.g any wall within 18m of a boundary needs a 120/-/-  FRL; 2 hour structural integrity fire resistance).

Works to upgrade to a fire resistant structure would require Heritage advice and approval and a further detailed structural assessment is also recommended. Costs associated with these requirements are detailed in option 5.  

Option 2 – Use upper floor for storage and a workroom

 

Should the upper floor be closed to the public and used for storage and a work room for volunteers, the following renovations/work is recommended:

 

 

 

Work advised if upper floor is to be used for storage and a work room

Estimated cost (2012) excl. GST

Asbestos removal in upper floor (internal works)

$63,200

Asbestos removal in upper floor (external works)

$9,500

Reconstruct and extend fire exit external stairs, ramps, indicators and push bars

$6,300

Maintenance to upper level floors

$1,400

Modifications to exit and emergency lighting and smoke detectors and associated electrical cabling

$4,000

TOTAL

$84,400

 

Note:

·    Asbestos removal works within the City are funded from the Asbestos Removal Reserve. For the 2015/16 financial year $125,000 is likely to be budgeted for asbestos remedial/removal works for all City buildings. Abovementioned asbestos removal at the Old Butter Factory can be funded from this allocation, which will leave the City with approximately $50,000 for other asbestos removal projects.

·    Depending on the type of storage and the associated the level of risk, a further detailed structural assessment may be required to consider using part of the upper floor for storage. Based on the cost of the Building Report the cost of such a report is estimated to be $15,000.

 

Option 3 – Use upper floor for storage

 

Should the upper floor be closed to the public and used for storage only, none of the above expenses would be incurred. Upper level asbestos removal may not be required. However depending on the type of storage and the associated the level of risk, a further detailed structural assessment may be required to consider using part of the upper floor for storage. Based on the cost of the Building Report the cost of such a report is estimated to be $15,000.

 

Option 4 – Construction of a new Type C single storey building with public access

 

To replace the lost museum display area from the upper floor (which would be lost should Options 2 or 3 be implemented) a new Type C single storey building with public access can be constructed. The 2012 Building Report estimated construction cost of approximately $330,000. However with cost escalations, contingency and architects designs total costs are now estimated at approximately $500,000 to build a new display area.

 

Option 5 – Further investigations

 

The State Heritage Office recommended that the City engage a heritage consultant to review the Building Report in line with Policy 5.4 of the Conservation Plan and to work with a fire engineer to consider alternative solutions and to prepare a Heritage Impact Statement, outlining the impact of any proposed works on significant building fabric. This is in an attempt to allow for the upgrade of the building in order to maintain the current use of the upper floor without impacting on the building’s heritage value.

 

The Regional Heritage Advisor is contracted to the City and could be utilized to work with a Fire Engineer to prepare the Heritage Impact Statement recommended by the State Heritage Office. Preliminary research indicates that it would involve about 2 – 3 days of work which, under the Regional Heritage Rates contracted with the City ($120.00 per hour), will cost the City $2,880 for 3 days’ work. Should the City’s annual budget for heritage advice be insufficient the Heritage Advisor quoted hourly rates of $200 per hour, which could result in an estimated cost of $4,800 for 3 days’ work.

 

Preliminary research also indicates that the services of a suitably qualified and experienced Fire Engineer could be retained for $6,750 plus GST. The Fire Engineer would work with the appointed Heritage Consultant to inspect the Old Butter Factory, assess the Building Report and all relevant information, determine whether alternative design/upgrade solutions exist and, if, provide the same to the Heritage Council and the City for further consideration.

 

A further detailed structural assessment may be required to consider using part of the upper floor for public access as part of the museum operations. Based on the cost of the Building Report the cost of such a report is estimated to be $15,000.

 

Therefore the total cost for further investigations could range between $24,630 - $26,550.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendations in this report support the City’s following Strategic Community Objective:

 

Infrastructure Assets are well maintained and responsibly managed.

 

In addition, BHS’s activities at the Old Butter Factory provide a much needed opportunity for community engagement. BHS has over 100 members who go the Museum as volunteers to restore exhibits, learn skills from each other, share stories and life experiences and morning tea. Many of these members live alone and most are senior citizens. The Old Butter Factory has been a community hub for over 30 years and supports the City’s goals to “provide a City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen social connection,” and “to support healthy, active, ageing and services to enhance quality of life as we age.”

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the risk of current usage of the upper floor for public access and exhibition displays has been conducted, using the City’s risk management framework, which identified the risk level as high. This is based on the unlikely event of a fire but a consequence of death or injury. Although a fire is unlikely, due to the structure of the upper level floor, walls and supporting walls and columns in the room below, a fire would take hold quickly and cause a full or partial collapse of the upper story before exit could be achieved through the one fire escape.

 

The treatment options to mitigate this risk or accept it with no controls are detailed in the table below. The table describes identified risks where the residual risk level is assessed as ‘medium’ or greater, once treatments have been implemented,;

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

In the event of a building fire the risk of injury or death in the upper floor of the Butter Factory building.

 

 

In the event of a building fire the reputational risk to Council to a volunteer being harmed or killed in a Council building with reported safety compliances issues.

Close the upper floor and use the area for storage only.

Moderate - Serious injury/disease causing hospitalization

 

 

Moderate – Substantiated public embarrassment, moderate impact, moderate news profile

Unlikely

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlikely

Medium 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

Medium 9

In the event of a building fire the risk of injury or death in the upper floor of the Butter Factory building.

 

 

 

In the event of a building fire the reputational risk to Council to a volunteer being harmed or killed in a Council building with reported safety compliances issues.

Close the upper floor and use the area for storage and a partial workroom located nearest to the emergency exit.

 

 

 

Moderate - Serious injury/disease causing hospitalization

 

 

 

Major - Substantiated public embarrassment, high impact, high news profile, third party actions.

 

 

Unlikely

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlikely

Medium 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High 14

In the event of a building fire the risk of injury or death in the upper floor of the Butter Factory building.

 

 

 

In the event of a building fire the reputational risk to Council to a public person/volunteer being harmed or killed in a Council building with reported safety compliances issues.

Continue to allow the upper floor to be used for display and public access.

Major - Death or life threatening injury or multiple serious injuries causing hospitalization

 

 

Major - Substantiated public embarrassment, high impact, high news profile, third party actions.

 

Unlikely

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlikely

High 14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High 14

Potential liability for failure to address known fire safety issues in the event of loss of life or injury due to upper floor combustion or collapse.

Continue to allow the upper floor to be used for display and public access and/or workroom for volunteers.

Major - $1m to $5m

Possible

High 18

 

 

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

The City of Busselton engaged the services of Cotan Engineers to assess the condition of the Old Butter Factory and to present the City with recommendations in relation to refurbishment work and maintenance required to meet relevant safety requirements and to preserve the structural condition of the building frame in order to prolong its life.

 

City officers also consulted with BHS for purposes of developing the Old Butter Factory conservation plan. In addition several meetings have taken place between City officers and BHS representatives to discuss the fire safety issues raised in the Building Report and the various options to implement the recommendations under the report.

 

The Heritage Council and Regional Heritage Advisor have also been consulted to discuss the potential impact of any structural changes mentioned in the Building Report on the heritage value of the Old Butter Factory. City officers also engaged WA Museum to provide advice and training to BHS with the view of improving their museum collection management.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The City of Busselton, as owner and lessor of the Old Butter Factory, has a duty of care to ensure that the building is safe and healthy for its occupants and the community and fit for the purpose for which it is being used. The City also has a statutory duty to close a public building or exclude persons from entering public buildings which are unsafe or is unsuitable for the use to which it is being put.

 

The Building Report identified that the current use of the upper floor of the Old Butter Factory (as museum display area to which the public has access) is inconsistent with fire safety requirements under the BCA. The BCA requirements not only have legislative status but also assist with determining the level of risk associated with using a building which potentially poses a fire safety risk.

 

In the BCA the “Class” of a building is used to reference its use, for example, an office is Class 5; a shop Class 6; storage is Class 7; a house is Class 1; a Hall Class 9b. The number of stories, floor area and volume dictate the level of construction required. The level of construction informs the fire ratings, fire walls and fire resistance levels (FRLs) of the design of the building. Fire walls and FRLs are in place to reduce the spread of a fire, and increase the time that a building stays structurally sound for safe evacuation, and to reduce the risk to fire fighters of a building collapse. Essentially, the top floor is the basis to determine the ‘fire resisting Type’ for the whole building, i.e. the top story is applied to all stories of the building.

 

The Old Butter Factory is a two storey building, with the upper level currently used as a museum open to the public. Because of this use the Old Butter Factory’s use under the BCA is classified Class 9 (public building use) and as such should be a Type B construction, meaning all lower floor building walls and lower floor columns shall have a fire resistance unless they are greater than 18 m from a fire source. The Old Butter Factory and in particular the current use of its upper level does not comply with this requirement. However the Building Report indicates that, if the use of the building is changed to restrict public access to the ground level of the building, then a Type C construction is required which does not require the walls and columns to be a fire resistant construction. It is however noted in the Building Report that the Heritage Council indicated that they prefer that personnel retain access to the upper floor in order to view and undertake ongoing maintenance.

 

Use of the upper level as museum display area to which the public has access should therefore not be allowed by the City. The issue is that, from BHS’s perspective, the upper floor displays are ‘the heart’ of the museum with a strong emotional attachment to them. Apart from some additions, the displays in the upper floor have remained unchanged for many years. City officers are however of the view that none of the items in the upper floor display have any specific connection with the Old Butter Factory itself (or the local dairy industry) and could therefore be displayed as attractively in alternative locations. It is however acknowledged that the collection is enhanced by the old building as a back drop and that any change to the upper floor use or even structural works to make it compliant with fire safety requirements will have a huge impact on the museum operations and potentially be very unsettling for many of the BHS members and volunteers. Therefore various options to resolve the issue have been identified:

 

1.    Allow the upper floor to be used as museum display area open to public access. This option will require significant renovations and up-grades to the building to achieve fire safety compliance and may impact on the heritage value of the original structure.

2.    Use of the upper floor for storage and a work room – no public access. This option may require asbestos removal works and minor structural modifications. From a risk perspective it may also be necessary to limit the number of BHS staff/volunteers who will be allowed upper level access and also require from them to implement a formal fire safety induction process. Depending on the type of storage and associated level of risk, a further detailed structural assessment may be required to consider using part of the upper floor for storage.

3.    Use of the upper floor for storage only – no public access. The conditions of use will basically be the same as under Option 2  above, with the exception that the number of people with access to the upper level could be further limited and the requirement in relation to asbestos removal reconsidered.

4.    Construction of a new Type C single storey building of approximately 180 m2 on the Land, with public access to replace lost floor space.

5.    Engage a heritage consultant and fire engineer to review the Building Report in line with Section 8.5.2.1 of Policy 5.3  of the Conservation Plan and to investigate alternative solutions providing for public use of the upper floor of the Old Butter Factory and the impact of associated works on significant building fabric.

 

The extent of works required to achieve compliance with the fire safety requirements under the BCA in relation to Options 1 – 3 above are detailed in the Building Report. The estimated costs associated with Options 1 – 5 are outlined in the FINANCIAL IMPLCATIONS section of this report.

 

A risk assessment was conducted using the City Risk Management Framework to determine the likelihood of a fire, its consequences and the City’s potential liability for allowing the current non-compliant use of the Old Butter Factory’s upper level. The risk level is considered to be high based on a fire being unlikely to occur but the consequence of a fire being major as fire is likely to result in death or injury to persons. There is also a substantial risk to the Council’s reputation and the City could potentially be held liable for failing to address known fire safety issues in the event of loss of life or injury or damage to property as a consequence of a fire.

 

Option 1 is considered not to be a viable solution. To comply with fire safety requirements the City will have to spend a significant amount of money - probably in excess of $380,000, which will secure the use of only approximately 170m2 of upper floor museum space. Even if asbestos removal is paid for from the Asbestos Removal Reserve, it could still not be justified to spend such a significant amount of money on upper floor museum space. Any major renovations to upgrade the upper level to make it fit for public access will impact on the heritage value of the building as a whole and will therefore be subject to approval by the Heritage Council of WA. Should such approval be obtained, it will in all likelihood be subject to conditions relating to preserving the heritage value of the building which in turn could result in increased renovation costs.

 

BHS has at some stage indicated that Option 2 may be acceptable, using the upper floor area closest to the fire escape as a work room and the rest of the upper floor for storage. That would allow space to be freed up downstairs to allow some of the collection currently housed upstairs to be displayed in the lower floor. By limiting the number of BHS staff/volunteers who may access the upper floor, specifying maximum load levels (200kg/m2 as outlined in the Building Report) and requiring implementation of a formal fire safety induction process for staff/volunteers using this area, a further detailed structural assessment may not be required and risk levels could potentially be mitigated to fall within acceptable parameters. Subject to meeting the necessary floor loading requirements, the upper floor displays could remain in situ until the BHS were able to review and implement changes to their collection and determine how to optimize use of the remaining space.

 

As some of the upper level floor space will be used as a workroom, asbestos remedial works will be required at a cost of approximately $73,000. Asbestos remedial/removal works within the City are funded from the Asbestos Removal Reserve. The balance of the City’s 2014/15 asbestos removal is insufficient to undertake all the remedial works within this financial year, but should allow for the asbestos remedial works to commence. For the 2015/16 financial year $125,000 is likely to be budgeted for asbestos remedial/removal works for all City buildings. The asbestos remedial works required under this option can be funded from abovementioned budget allocation, which will leave the City with approximately $50,000 for other asbestos removal projects. Relevant City officers indicated that asbestos remedial works for the upper level of the Old Butter Factory is in any event currently a priority, disregarding whether the permitted use of the upper level is changed or not. If asbestos removal works can be staged and paid for from the City’s Asbestos Removal Reserve approximately $11,700 will be required for further minor modifications to allow for a permitted use of storage and workroom. It is considered that, given the circumstances, this option will be striking a balance between BHS’s operational requirements and expectations, renovation costs to be incurred by the City and mitigating the risk associated with the use of the upper floor.

 

Option 3 is to use the upper floor for storage only and also allow for personnel access for purposes of ongoing inspection of the building structure and maintenance. This will allow for asbestos removal to be scheduled (and paid for) over a period of time as part of the City’s ongoing asbestos removal program. By requiring from BHS to limit the upper level floor load to the threshold as mentioned in the Building Report (200kg/m2) a further detailed structural assessment may not be required. From a cost perspective this will be least expensive solution which could be implemented in a relatively short period of time. This is also considered to be the preferred option from a risk management perspective, reducing the risk associated with using the upper floor to acceptable levels. This option will however have an adverse impact on BHS’s museum activities, as outlined earlier in this report and is therefore not recommended.

 

Option 4 option is to replace the lost museum display area from the upper floor (which would be lost should Options 2 or 3 be implemented) with a new Type C single storey building of approximately 180m2 which will provide public access. The 2012 Building Report estimated the construction cost of such a new building at approximately $330,000. With cost escalations, contingency and architects designs this amount is now estimated to be in excess of $500,000.

 

Option 5 is to engage a heritage consultant and fire engineer to review the Building Report in line with Section 8.5.2.1 of Policy 5.3  of the Conservation Plan and to investigate alternative solutions providing for public use of the upper floor of the Old Butter Factory and the impact of associated works on the heritage value of the building. The scope of such further investigation and associated costs (estimated to be in the region of $ 26,000) are discussed under the FINACIAL IMPLICATIONS section of this report. The Building Report clearly indicates that the renovations/works required to make the upper floor fit for purpose (i.e to be used as museum display area to which the public will have access) will in all likelihood have an unacceptable impact on the Old Butter Factory’s “significant fabric” – in other words its heritage value – and is therefore unlikely to be approved by the Heritage Council WA. Even if alternative solutions can be found, the cost of implementing such a solution may render the whole project financially unviable. However Council may want to consider implementing this option in combination with abovementioned options 2 or 3.

 

BHS is currently occupying the Old Butter Factory and surrounds under a holding over provision in the BHS Lease on a month-by-month basis. In terms of the Lease BHS is permitted to use the Old Butter Factory for any use consistent with the lessee’s constitution. The current use of the building as a museum and associated activities and for pottery activities are considered to be consistent with the permitted use under the Lease. The City is also in the process of negotiating a new lease of the Old Butter Factory with BHS which, subject to resolving certain land title issues, could be finalised within the first half of 2015. 

 

It is however recommended that the City in the interim take appropriate action to mitigate the risk associated with use of the upper level as a museum display with public access by allowing the upper floor to be used as a workroom for members/volunteers and storage (as outlined in Option 2 above).

It is also recommended that such a decision be implemented by replacing the current holding over BHS Lease with a new “holding over” lease whereby:

 

·    The permitted use of the Old Butter Factory’s upper floor will be restricted to “workroom and storage”; and

·    Such permitted use to be subject to conditions in relation to safety and statutory requirements (e.g loading thresholds, limited access to members/volunteers and compulsory fire safety induction).

 

Except for the proposed change to the current use of the upper floor, this strategy will provide BHS with security of tenure to continue its current operations and activities at the Old Butter Factory on basically the same terms and conditions which currently apply pending negotiations for a new lease,.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The City of Busselton has a duty of care to ensure that the Old Butter Factory is safe and healthy for its occupants and the community and fit for the purpose for which it is being used. The City also has a certain statutory obligations in relation to public buildings which are unsafe or is unsuitable for the use to which it is being put.

 

Use of the upper floor of the Old Butter Factory as museum display area which is accessible to the public is inconsistent with relevant fire safety requirements under the BCA and creates unacceptable levels of risk for the City. The City should therefore require from BHS to change the use of the Old Butter Factory to prevent public access to the upper floor.

 

The adverse impact of preventing use of the upper floor on BHS’s museum operations and its members’ expectations is acknowledged. Therefore various options to resolve the issue have been investigated. Use of the upper floor area closest to the fire escape as a work room and the rest of the upper floor for storage seem under the circumstances to be the preferred option, striking a balance between BHS’s needs and expectations and the City’s duty of care and statutory obligations. City Officers should continue to work with the BHS and other professional resources to mitigate the impact of the implementation of changes.

 

OPTIONS

 

In addition to the OFFICER RECOMMENDATION Council may consider the following options:

 

Option 1 (see Option 1 under OFFICER COMMENT)

 

In order to allow safe  and compliant use of the upper floor as museum display area open to public access commission, subject to approval from the Heritage Council,  the major structural renovations as outlined in the Building report. For the reasons discussed in this report this option is not recommended.

 

Option 2 (see Option 3 under OFFICER COMMENT)

Use of the upper floor for storage only with no public access. The conditions of use will basically be the same as those in the OFFICER RECOMMENDATION with the exception that the number of people with access to the upper level could be further limited and the requirement in relation to asbestos removal reconsidered. For the reasons discussed in this report this option is not recommended.

 

Option 3 (see Option 4 under OFFICER RECOMMENDATION)

 

Investigate construction of a new Type C single storey building of approximately 180 m2 on the Land, with public access to replace lost floor space. For the reasons discussed in this report this option is not recommended.

 

Option 4 (see Option 5 under OFFICER RECOMMENDATION)

 

Engage a heritage consultant and fire engineer to review the Building Report in line with Section 8.5.2.1 of Policy 5.3  of the Conservation Plan and to investigate alternative solutions providing for public use of the upper floor of the Old Butter Factory and the impact of associated works on significant building fabric. For the reasons discussed in this report this option is not recommended.

 

Option 5

 

As a further alternative Council may want to consider allowing the current use of the upper floor as museum display area with public access to continue without any structural changes to the building (and in effect accept the associated risk as outlined in this report). Council should however consider imposing conditions in relation to floor loading, maximum number of persons to be allowed on the upper level at a time and to make modifications to the building structure (e.g rectification of trip hazards, changes to compliant door locking mechanisms and accessibility of fire escapes). For the reasons discussed in this report this option is not recommended.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should Council resolve to endorse the OFFICER RECOMMENDATION BHS will be notified immediately of the Council’s decision and a meeting established to coordinate implementation of the decision.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council resolve:

 

1.    Not to allow public access to the upper floor of the Old Butter Factory;

2.    Subject to resolution 3, to allow the lessee, Busselton Historical Society, to use the upper floor of the Old  Butter Factory for storage and a workroom for members/volunteers;

3.    To authorize the Chief Executive Officer to determine and impose conditions in relation to the use of the upper floor to ensure compliance with safety and statutory requirements;  

4.    To authorize the Chief Executive Officer to alter the current monthly tenancy arrangements with the Busselton Historical Society in relation to the Old Butter Factory for purposes of  implementing resolutions 1, 2 & 3 above.

 

  


Council                                                                                      57                                                          10 December 2014

13.             Finance and Corporate Services Report

14.1           LAND MANAGEMENT NGILGI CAVES

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:

Finance and Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Property Coordinator - Ann Sanford

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

In 2010, as part of a land rationalisation process, the Department of Lands (DoL) revoked in error the City’s management order (joint with National Park Board of WA) over the land leased to the Geographe Bay Tourism Association (GBTA) for the Ngilgi Cave site.  The land is now included in the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park (National Park) and vested direct to the Conservation Commission of Western Australia.  The City and the DoL are currently in discussions as to the current and future status of land tenure for the site noting that the GBTA are seeking to remain in occupation, either by lease or by being provided with direct management of the land from the State of WA.

 

This report is to inform the Council of the process undertaken to resolve the land title and to make recommendations on the future management of the Ngilgi Cave site such that Council may formally resolve a position.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

In 1996 the City entered into a lease with the then Cape Naturaliste Tourism Association Inc., now referred to as the Geographe Bay Tourism Association Inc. (“the GBTA”), for a portion of Reserve 8427, Lot 311 Caves Road Yallingup (“the Land”), commonly known as the Ngilgi Cave site.  The lease is for a term of 21 years with an expiry date of 28 February 2017.

 

At the commencement of the lease the land was crown land jointly vested with the City and the National Park Boards of WA for the purpose of “Protection & Preservation of Cave & Flora & for Health & Pleasure Resort”.  In 2010 however action was taken by the DoL to rationalise the land tenure for the National Park, combining numerous reserves and titles to form one national park reserve.  Through this process, Reserve 8427 was cancelled and the land now forms part of A Class Reserve 8428, vested direct to the Conservation Commission of Western Australia (“the Commission”).  During the rationalisation process the City’s interest in the Land, as indicated in Attachment A, was overlooked. 

 

The City were not aware of the change to the management order until 2011 when the GBTA began researching opportunities to develop adventure activities on the Land as a way of promoting interest and repeat visitation to the site.  Concept plans were developed for a proposed Yallingup Adventure Park.  With the viability of constructing additional infrastructure being dependent on the GBTA obtaining a longer tenure arrangement, GBTA approached the City to negotiate new lease terms.   It was at this point that the City became aware of the changes. 

 

With the new management order being vested directly with the Commission, the lease between the City and the GBTA automatically transferred to the Commission and thus the City is not in a position to negotiate or enter into any new tenure arrangements.  The City sought clarification from the DoL and was advised that the management order for the Land had been revoked in error and that they would look to rectify the error. 

 

Whilst the process of rectifying the error is complex DoL have recently advised City officers that this can be achieved under current legislation allowing rectification of a statutory action.  This, combined with the power vested in the Minister for Lands to redescribe boundaries of an ‘A’ class reserve by order, presents the following options:

 

a)    The Land can be set aside as a new ‘A’ Class reserve for the purpose of ‘National Park’ with joint vesting in the City and the Commission and a management order issued to the City with power to lease. A purpose including ‘Cave Management’ may also be appropriate.  The support of the Minister for Environment will be required before approval can be sought from the Minister for Lands;

 

b)    The Land can remain as is in the national park primary reservation (under the Conservation Commission) subject to securing satisfactory arrangements with the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) to enter into a new lease (on appropriate terms) with the GBTA. (DPaW are the department which provides support to the Conservation Commission to carry out its functions);

 

c)    The Land can be placed under the direct management of the GBTA.  To achieve this DoL would effectively have to rectify the past error by placing the reserve under a joint management order with the City and the Conservation Commission (i.e as it was before the rationalisation in 2010) then seeking the approval of the City and the Conservation Commission to revoke that management order by agreement and transfer it to the GBTA.

 

These options are discussed in more detail in the Officer Comment section of this report. 

 

It is worth noting that in February 2014, as part of the City’s Strategic Land Review project and following discussions with (DPaw), proposed changes to crown land tenure in and around the Yallingup town site were presented to Council with recommendations for additional parcels of land surrounding Ngilgi Cave to be included within the National Park.  The Ngilgi Cave site was not discussed in that report.  The Land does however sit adjacent to Reserve 27062 which has been recommended for relinquishment to National Park.   DoL have confirmed that as part of the process mentioned above the National Park re-description will include this land but, in the event of the joint vesting being reinstated, exclude the ‘cave lots’ subject to the lease.

 

The GBTA remain interested in obtaining further long term tenure of the Land.  In April 2014, staff presented Council with a number of options for the future management of the Land and how the GBTA may be able to obtain tenure prior to the management order being rectified.  Since then the GBTA and the Augusta Margaret River Tourism Association Inc have amalgamated to become the Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association. Although not yet confirmed with the new entity, it is very likely that they would want to remain in occupation of the Land. 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The land leased to GBTA is Lot 311, Caves Road, Yallingup which is crown land that forms a part Reserve 8428, being the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park.  The vesting of State Forest is subject to the requirements of section 7 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984.  Additionally the National Park is a Class A Reserve bound by the requirements of section 41 of the Land Administration Act 1997. 

 

Whilst the City’s interest in the Land has been erroneously revoked, the leasehold interest of the GBTA is preserved by virtue of the provisions of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 and the Commission would effectively replace the City as Lessor.

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

n/a

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The City currently has no interest over the Land.  This means that the annual rent amount applied to the lease with the GBTA is not recoverable by the City.   There is minimal financial impact on the annual budget in this regard, as this amount only equates to $10.00 per annum.   If the management order was to remain as is, the City would have no further obligations in relation to maintenance or administering the lease, or in relation to ensuring the land is well managed. This would in effect result in a saving to the City, both in the cost of staff time and in potential future capital and reserve maintenance costs.    

 

If the management order is to return to its original standing, these management obligations would again fall to the City and require resourcing.  There would however be the potential to negotiate a new lease with the GBTA more in line with current lease conditions for not for profit organisations.  For instance the current annual rent charged to not for profit organisations is $200.00 per annum inclusive of GST with the lessee being responsible for all maintenance and running costs associated with the Land. 

 

The other options being presented would have no financial impact on the City.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This report presents options consistent with the following City of Busselton Strategic Priorities:

 

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

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. 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

Reputational –

The GBTA may be unhappy with seeking a lease direct from the Commission due to it being unlikely that the rent charged will of a peppercorn nature

 

Minor

Likely

Medium

Reputational –

In the event that the Commission does not provide a commitment in writing to enter into a lease with GBTA or the new Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association, security of tenure for them cannot be offered by the City until the management order is rectified

Officers will seek the Commission’s agreement to enter into a lease as soon as possible and will continue to lobby the DoL in the event that they are unwilling to provide such a commitment. 

 

The GBTA or the new association can at any stage enter into a new lease with the Commission

Minor

Possible

Medium

 

CONSULTATION

 

Discussions with the DoL regarding the revocation of the management order have resulted in the presentation of various options as outlined in the Background section of this report.  The GBTA have approached both the City and the DoL seeking clarification on the future management of the Ngilgi Caves and have expressed an interest in having a direct vesting of the management order.   DoL have indicated that if the City are supportive of this happening it may be achieved but it would require the reinstatement of the joint management order followed by revocation of the order by agreement.  It would also be subject to similar agreement on the part of the Conservation Commission and discussions with DPaW who, have indicated that this may not be their preferred option. 

 

Unfortunately until the management order is revoked by the DoL the City are not in a position to amend or enter into any new agreement with the GBTA or the new Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association.  The option of DPaW entering into a lease directly with GBTA has therefore been discussed with GBTA’s CEO who has indicated that they would be happy with this as an alternative.  The GBTA have a good working relationship with DPaW as a result of other sites they lease from DPaW.   That said, GBTA’s preference would be to have an indication of such things as the length of term DPaW would be willing to grant and what rent and conditions would be imposed.  City staff have made enquiries of DPaW on the subject and they are in the process of providing the City with broad heads of terms for contemplation by the GBTA.  The initial feedback from DPaW was that the grant of a lease would be consistent with other commercial arrangements already in place with GBTA.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The DoL have been working for the past two years to reinstate the management order and provide again for a joint vesting between the City and the Commission.  They have indicated that it is likely to take some time to resolve, but anticipate that it could be achieved before the end of 2015 and certainly prior to expiry of the GBTA’s lease in 2017.  

 

The GBTA are concerned about the future of their tenure and have indicated to the City and DoL a preference to take on the vesting of the land themselves, direct from the DoL.  Officers acknowledge the GBTA’s interest in the Land, with Ngilgi Caves being an integral part of their operations, and are supportive of this proposal.  It is not clear however whether the DoL and / or the Commission will support a direct vesting with GBTA, or whether the matter will be resolved prior to the expiry of the GBTA’s leasehold, and so various alternative options have been explored and outlined below. 

 

Option 1:  Leave the Management Order with the Commission

 

One option is for the management order to remain with the Commission and for the GBTA to negotiate a new lease term direct with them.  The DoL have stated that the City could, if they wish, provide support to allow the Land to remain reserved and vested as it is now, conditional upon the GBTA securing satisfactory arrangements with the Commission to enter into a new lease.  This would be similar to the arrangement the parties have for the Cape Naturaliste Lighthouse. The City could liaise direct with DPaW concerning the GBTA lease in parallel with providing support for the Commission to retain the sole vesting. 

 

The parcels of land which surround the caves and the lighthouse at Cape Naturaliste are managed by the Commission and all form a part of the National Park.  The majority of the Land leased to the GBTA is parkland, which the Commission has the expertise to manage and maintain, such as fire controls, dieback management and conservation matters. 

 

Additionally the current concept plans for the Yallingup Adventure Park would require the GBTA to enter into a lease with the Commission in any event as the infrastructure is proposed to straddle the Land and the adjoining lot.  GBTA having a lease direct with the Commission for both parcels of land, as opposed to the City for one, would resolve any disputes as to which party is responsible for enforcing the lease obligations.

 

The DoL are supportive of this option as it would resolve any outstanding matters relating to land management.  It would also provide the GBTA with security of tenure, assuming the Commission are prepared to commit to a new lease of the Land to the GBTA.  This option is only recommended on the basis that the Commission is prepared to make such a commitment so that the GBTA can continue to run Ngilgi Caves as a premier tourist destination for the region.  It should be noted that annual rent terms imposed by the Commission are likely to be higher than those typically imposed by the City for not for profit organisations.  This is something GBTA are likely aware of through their existing lease for the lighthouse. 

 

Option 2:  Revert back to Joint Management Order (Commission and City of Busselton)

 

The management order for the Land could be returned to a joint management arrangement between the Commission and City.  DoL have indicated that this is the most appropriate way of rectifying the error.  The City would then have the power to enter into a new lease for any term not exceeding 21 years, noting general lease terms for not for profit organisations are 5 years with a further 5 year option. 

 

Although currently the option which is being progressed, it may be that it is not the best or most suitable option given that the GBTA are now seeking longer term security of tenure and when considering the proposed plans for the Yallingup Adventure Playground.  A direct vesting, or alternatively leasing direct from the Commission, may be more appropriate in these circumstances.  

 

With this option comes the responsibility for the City to ensure that the leased premises is managed and well maintained.  Additionally the City would have some responsibility, in conjunction with the Commission, to ensure the Land is managed appropriately. With the Land being a part of the National Park there are risks associated with fire management and conservation controls, which could be better controlled in entirety by the Commission given their particular expertise and knowledge on these issues.    

 

Option 3:  Joint Management Order (Commission and GBTA)

 

The GBTA could seek a joint management order for the Land with the Commission.  The obligations of each party and use of the Land would be negotiated between the two parties and the City would have no further role or responsibility in managing the Land.   This option, whilst for consideration by Council, is not a DoL preferred option.

 

Option 4: Management Order (GBTA)

 

The GBTA have indicated their preference for the Land to be vested direct to them.  The direct vesting to the GBTA would likely be subject to the GBTA demonstrating to the DoL the appropriate management capability, for example ensuring that fire risk is able to adequately managed. 

 

This could be facilitated by the reversion of the management order to a joint vesting in the City and the Commission followed by a revocation by agreement.  DoL are prepared to include this as an option in their proposal but whilst the City would be supportive of relinquishing the management order it has no control over whether the Commission would be willing to do the same.  Given that the Land forms part of the National Park there is a significant likelihood that the Commission would not be willing to relinquish their interest in the joint vesting.  Discussions with DPaW at an officer level indicate that this would not be their preferred option.  Hence the recommendation does not reflect this option.  Notwithstanding, if all other parties are agreeable to the land being directly vested with GBTA, it is recommended that this be supported by Council. Should circumstances change such that this becomes the preferred option, a further report would be put to Council.  

 

CONCLUSION

 

The DoL is currently working to reinstate the City’s joint management order with the Conservation Commission for the Land, such that the City has the power to lease the Land.  In the interim the lease between the City and the GBTA has transferred to the Commission and the GBTA, with an expiry date of February 2017.   

 

GBTA are seeking security of tenure over the Land. The purpose of this report is to outline to Council the various options available to achieve this such that Council can formally resolve a position.  It is noted that GBTA’s preference is for the Land to be vested direct to them.  Council may be supportive of this option but it is not clear whether it would receive equal support from the Commission, given the Land is part of a Class A Reserve and part of the National Park.   

 

For this reason, and for reasons outlined in the Officer Comment, it is recommended that Council, subject to the Commission agreeing to enter into a future lease agreement with GBTA on fundamental terms acceptable to both parties, support as an alternative the management order being maintained with the Commission and advise the DoL that they no longer seek the rectification of the revoked management order. The issues about which agreement would be sought are the term of the lease, the annual rent and the land area involved.

 

OPTIONS

 

The options for the future management of the Land are presented above in the officer comment section of this report.  Council may choose to support any of these options.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

If the Council endorse the officer recommendation, then the City would seek the Commission’s agreement to enter into a lease agreement with GBTA or the newly formed Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association on terms acceptable to the GBTA. It is anticipated that this process could take up to a further 6 months.  If fundamental terms are agreed then any further negotiations would be between the two parties and the City would have no further involvement. 

 

If any of the alternative options are supported by Council it is difficult to determine a timeframe for completion given the complexity of the associated land management arrangements.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Subject to the Conservation Commission of Western Australia agreeing in writing to enter into a lease agreement with the GBTA or the Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association, including agreements as to the leased area, term and rent; advise the Department of Lands that the City of Busselton no longer requires the Department of Lands to reinstate the Management Order for Lot 311, Caves Road, Yallingup.

 

2.    In the absence of securing written agreement from the Commission to enter into a lease with the GBTA or the Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association agree to pursue the reversion to a joint vesting to the City and the Commission with power to lease vested in the City thereby enabling the City to enter into a new lease with the GBTA or the entity that GBTA are associated with.

 

 

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      63                                                          10 December 2014

14.2           MARRI RESERVE - FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES LEASE SITE

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 Corporate Compliance

REPORTING OFFICER:

Property Management Officer - Vaughan Williams

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Reserve 28683 Plan

Attachment b    Survey of Lease Plans  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The purpose of this report is to seek Council support to create new two lots being lots 501 and 502 on Deposited Plan 65896 for the two lease areas occupied by, respectively, the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) and St. Johns Ambulance Association in WA (St Johns).  It is also recommended that Council resolve to enter into a lease with the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) for a term of 21 years.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Reserve 28683 Dunsborough being Lot 172 on Deposited Plan 210521 contained in Certificate of Title Volume LR3004 Folio 135 Marri Drive Dunsborough is currently vested with the City of Busselton with the power to lease for any term not exceeding 21 years for the designated purpose of ‘Community and Cultural Centre & Recreation’, subject to the consent of the Minister for Lands.  It is bounded by Cape Naturaliste Road, Naturaliste Terrace and Marri Drive as indicated on Attachment A and known as Marri Reserve (“the Reserve”).

                                                                                                                                

Located on the Reserve is the St Johns Ambulance Association in WA (St Johns) building.  In 1999, the City entered into a 21 year lease agreement with St Johns for their premises shown on the plan, Attachment A which has an area of approximately 3400m2.  The lease contains a clause reflecting the shared use of the access way between their lease area and the adjacent DFES site. 

 

In 2000 DFES constructed a building for the Dunsborough co-located Fire Station adjacent to the St Johns building also shown on Attachment A.  The two buildings are separated by a shared access way.

 

The development on the Reserve for St Johns and DFES raised some concerns among the community with regard to the protection of the remainder of the Reserve.  In response, the City undertook extensive community consultation and engaged a consultant to develop a management plan for the Reserve.

 

As a result of this consultation and the recommendations of the consultant, on 8 September 2004 Council adopted the draft Management Plan (‘the Management Plan’) for Marri Reserve 29683, Council resolution CO409/288 in part:

 

“Adopt the draft Management Plan (The ‘Management Plan’) for Marri Reserve (28683) only, prepared by Green Iguana (Environmental Consultants) subject to the following modifications:

 

·    That the section 5.1.3 be modified to reflect the current situation with regard to insurance for volunteers and; to include mention of the Volunteers (Protection from Liability) Act 2002 and to encourage membership to the relevant community group, Dunsborough Coast and Landcare Group (DCALC).

 

·    That the fire history section be modified to include; “anecdotal evidence suggests both reserves have had a fire as recent as 1996”.

 

·    Inclusion of reference to the possible need for an area to be set aside for SES facilities (max 2000m2).” and    

 

·    “Request the CEO to undertake appropriate processes to change the status of the reserve from ‘C’ to ‘A’ Class and the purpose from ‘Community Cultural Centre and Recreation’ to ‘Landscape protection and Drainage’ as recommended in the draft Management Plan.”  

 

The recommendations of the draft Management Plan and the processes relating to reclassification of the reserve status are being undertaken by Environmental Services who are working progressively through the task. There are a number of complexities associated with a change of reserve classification which Environmental Services are addressing.  The Department of Lands have indicated that movement to “A” Class Reserve status requires evidence of significant environmental values and thus Environmental Services are reviewing whether it is still appropriate to progress the 2004 resolution. 

 

It was always intended to lease portions of the Reserve to DFES and St Johns regardless of the classification of the Reserve as “A” class or “C” class.  Indeed both sites have been developed for some time.  Thus it was proposed, as a means of taking this matter forward, that separate lots be excised from the Reserve which reflect the sites currently occupied by DFES and St Johns. 

 

The City and the Department of Lands (DoL) have obtained a survey for the creation of separate lots for the lease areas and for the balance of the Reserve.  The plan showing the areas already occupied by St Johns and DFES as separate lots within the Reserve is shown on Attachment B.  Included in the survey DP65896 is an easement to protect the shared accessway between the DFES and St Johns lease areas.  The balance of the Reserve is shown as Lot 500.

 

In 2012, DFES were given approval to extend their facility.  This included the construction of a garage to house two fire trucks for the Dunsborough Volunteer Fire and Rescue Brigade (‘the Brigade‘) adjoining the existing facility on this Reserve.  This was funded through the Emergency Service Levy.  Prior to construction of the extension, the City and DFES entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the establishment, delivery and maintenance of the Capes enhanced service delivery project arrangements. 

 

The MOU details each party’s obligations in relation to the use and on-going maintenance also acknowledging the need to formalise their tenure and commit to management obligations for both the Yallingup and Dunsborough facilities.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

When disposing of property whether by sale, lease or other means, a Local Government is bound by the requirement of section 3.58 of the Local Government Act.  However 3.58 (5)(d) provides exemptions to this process under Regulation 30 (2)(b)(i)(ii) of the Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations.

 

This section states “disposal of land to incorporated bodies with objects of benevolent, cultural, educational or similar nature and the member of which are not enlisted to receive any pecuniary profit from the body’s transactions, are exempt from the advertising and tender requirements of section 3.58 of the Local Government Act”.  The constitution of the DFES and of St Johns is such that this exemption applies.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Management Plan for Marri Reserve (28683) was prepared by Green Iguana (Environmental Consultants) was adopted on 8 September 2004 and is currently scheduled for a review and update.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There will be costs associated with the issuing of new titles of approximately $178.00.  There are sufficient funds allocated in this financial year’s budget.  The annual rent to be charged to DFES is $200 per annum with the rent to be increased annually at CPI.  The cost of maintaining the DFES building will be borne equally by the lessee and the City in accordance with the MOU referred to in the background section of this report.  This is reflective of the fact that the site is jointly used by a volunteer brigade and a DFES brigade.  The City’s maintenance costs will be paid for utilising emergency services levy funds.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The request for this lease is consistent with the following City of Busselton Strategic Priorities:

 

Key Goal Area 2: Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Places:

 

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework.  The table below describes identified risks where the residual risk, once controls have been identified, is identified as ‘low’.

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

Potential environmental damage to Marri Reserve by the proposed Lessee DFES.

 

Limiting the land use and current development by DFES in accordance with the Management Plan. 

Environmental and conservation damage to the landscape of the site.

Unlikely

Low

 

CONSULTATION

 

Negotiations have taken place with DFES for the lease and they are in agreement with the general terms as set out in the recommendation.  The lease will formalise the existing occupation of the site by DFES.  

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

DFES is now keen to formalise a lease agreement with the City over the land they currently occupy.  There is no conflict with this and the potential to change the classification of the reserve in the future as the Management Plan always contemplated the long term occupation by both St Johns and DFES.  Both parties have been operating out of the sites they occupy for some time and the identification of the two new lots and the creation of a new lease for DFES is the correct way to formalise the situation.

 

The new lots being created will formalise the areas already developed by DFES and St Johns and which have been in existence for many years.  The result will be that the new lots 501 and 502 will remain as a “C” Class reserve allowing the balance of the reserve (lot 500) to be reclassified if deemed appropriate.

 

St Johns and DFES perform critical roles in coordinating emergency services in our community.  The centralised location of their premises is valuable when responding to services in the Dunsborough district.  It is proposed that the DFES lease compliment the adjacent St John’s lease, and in particular that it be for a similar 21 year term, given the essential role both organisations perform.

 

CONCLUSION

 

In making the recommendations in this report officers are looking to strike a balance between the interests of the parties already using the part of the reserve and the level of preservation and protection required in the Management Plan.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may resolve not to approve the lease to DFES, however, the new lease will formalise the existing occupation of the site.

 

Council may resolve to enter into a term of lease with DFES which is less than 21 years.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

A draft lease with DFES will be forwarded to the Minister for Lands for preapproval immediately together with the request to excise the two parcels of land for lease from Marri Reserve, to create two new titles.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Support the creation of the new lots 500, 501 and 502 on Deposited Plan 65896.

 

2.    Enter into a lease with the Department of Fire and Emergency Services for the portion of Reserve 28683, being Lot 501 on DP65896 as indicated on Attachment B subject to the following:

.                

 

a)         The lease will be consistent with the City’s standard community and sporting group lease agreement;

b)        The term of the lease to be 21 years to commence on 1 January 2015 and expire on 31 December 2036;

c)         The annual rent to be the nominal rental of $200.00 per annum inclusive of GST and is to be increased annually by CPI;

d)        All costs for the preparation of the lease are to be met equally by the lessee and the City; and

e)        The inclusion of provisions formalising the shard occupation of the facility with the Dunsborough Volunteer Fire and Rescue Brigade and reflecting the current arrangements outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services dated 18 October 2012.

 

 

  


Council                                                                                      67                                                          10 December 2014

14.             Chief Executive Officer's Report

15.1           COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2015

SUBJECT INDEX:

Governance Services

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Governance Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Governance Support and Inter-Council Relations

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Governance Services - Lynley Rich

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report is presented to enable the Council to determine its Ordinary Meeting dates for 2015.  In accordance with the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, a meeting schedule for the next 12 months must be advertised at least once each year. 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The proposed meeting schedule generally continues with the Council's adopted approach to Council meetings ie: two Council meetings per month with briefing sessions and Community Access Sessions on two other occasions (with the exception of January and December when one meeting per month is proposed). 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

It is up to each Council to set its own meeting cycle, dates and procedures, provided that the Council meets at least once every three months in accordance with Section 5.3 of the Local Government Act 1995.

 

Local Government (Administration) Regulation 12 requires a Council to give local public notice of the dates on which and the time and place at which the Ordinary Council meetings are to be held in the next 12 months.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Nil.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Nil.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This report seeks to establish a meeting cycle to contribute to governance systems that deliver responsible, ethical and accountable decision-making.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

Over-regular meeting cycle resulting in minimal matters for consideration and inefficient use of time

Review of meeting cycle at regular intervals with potential for re-setting and cancellations

Insignificant

Possible

Low

Under-regular meeting cycle resulting in unnecessary delays to matters requiring Council decision

Review of meeting cycle at regular intervals and potential for special meetings

Minor

Possible

Medium

 

CONSULTATION

 

Following Council's decision to adopt a meeting cycle, its proposed meeting dates for the next 12 months must be advertised for public information.  This will occur prior to the end of 2014.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

There is one Council meeting in the proposed schedule for both January and December and there would normally be two for every other month of the year.  The official meeting days are generally recommended to remain as the second and fourth Wednesday of the month between February and November with the first and third Wednesdays for Community Access Sessions, Councillor briefings and other Councillor planning sessions where required.  In 2014, two other Council meetings were dropped, however, it is the view of Officers that this wasn’t necessarily a successful strategy.

 

There was no ability to foresee those times of the year that may be less busy than others and there were still meetings with very few items available.  It is proposed that the Council returns to the previously established meeting cycle, of one meeting in January and December and two every other month.

 

Exceptions

 

The dates of the 10 Western Australian public holidays for 2015 have been checked and none of the holidays coincide with a proposed meeting date.  It has been the usual practice for the Councillors to have a week without meetings on any month that includes five Wednesdays.  For 2015, April, July and September are the five Wednesday months.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The dates of the meetings for the next 12 months need to be advertised in advance.  It is considered appropriate to return to the conduct of 22 Council meetings per annum.

 

OPTIONS

 

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, there are a wide range of options available to the Council with regard to its meeting schedule, subject to a meeting occurring once every three months at the least.

 

Should the Council be of a mind to reduce the meeting regularity the concept of two mid-year recesses (effectively cancelling one meeting on each occasion) was trialled in 2014 and could be continued.

 

The Council could also of course reduce its meeting cycle to three-weekly, monthly, every second month or quarterly with the requirement simply to meet every three months as a minimum.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The advertising would necessarily occur prior to the end of the year. 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the following dates and venues for the Council's ordinary meetings for the next 12 months (2015) be adopted and advertised in accordance with Local Government (Administration) Regulation 12:

 

 

DATE 2015

 

VENUE

 

TIME

Wednesday, 28 January

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 11 February

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 25 February

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 11 March

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 25 March

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 8 April

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 22 April

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 13 May

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 27 May

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 10 June

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 24 June

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 8 July

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 22 July

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 12 August

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 26 August

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 9 September

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 23 September

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 14 October

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 28 October

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 11 November

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 25 November

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

Wednesday, 9 December

Council Chambers, Southern Dr, Busselton

5.30pm

 

 

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      71                                                          10 December 2014

15.2           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   Thank you letter from CinefestOZ   

Attachment b    Planning Applications Received 1 to 15 November, 2014

Attachment c    Planning Applications Determined 1 to 15 November, 2014

Attachment d   South West Regional Blueprint  

  

 

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

15.2.1 Thank you letter from CinefestOZ – Support and Contribution towards the 2014 Festival

 

Attachment A is a copy of correspondence from David Barton, Chairman for Geographe French Australian Festivals Inc and Malinda Nixon, CEO at CinefestOZ, thanking the City for its support and contribution towards the 2014 Cinefest Festival.

15.2.2 Thank you card from Jeff and Laurel Colley

 

A Thank you card has been received from Jeff and Laurel Colley of Noranda:

 

“Just wanted to say congratulations  and thank-you for the excellent facility you provide in the Busselton Foreshore at the end of Queen St.

 

The beauty and cleanliness is outstanding and a credit to you all.

 

Happy Travellers”

15.2.3 Planning & Development Services Statistics

 

Planning Applications

 

Attachment B is a report detailing all Planning Applications received by the City between 1 and 15 November, 2014.  Thirty four formal applications were received during this period.

 

Attachment C is a report detailing all Planning Applications determined by the City between 1 and 15 November, 2014.  A total of twenty two applications were determined during this period with all applications approved.

15.2.4 South West Regional Blueprint

 

A copy of the South West Regional Blueprint has been received. The Blueprint highlights the action needed to ensure that as the region’s population grows, there are enough jobs to go around and residents continue to enjoy quality lifestyles. A copy of the blueprint is provided at Attachment D.

15.2.5 Temporary Extension to Retail Trading Hours in Busselton - 2014 Christmas/New Year Period

 

The Minister for Commerce has approved a permit to allow a temporary/short term extension of retail trading hours in Busselton for “General Retail” shops for the period Monday 1 December 2014 to Saturday 31 January 2015 as follows:

·    Monday to Sunday and public holidays: (8.00am – 9.00pm)

·    Christmas Day: CLOSED

 

Traders may choose when they open within the specified trading hours.

 

The City has also applied to the Minister for these temporary extended trading hours to be permissible on a permanent basis and is awaiting a decision.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the items from the Councillors’ Information Bulletin be noted:

·    15.2.1   Thank you letter from CinefestOZ – Support and Contribution towards the 2014 Festival

·    15.2.2   Thank you card from Jeff and Laurel Colley

·    15.2.3   Planning & Development Services Statistics

·    15.2.4   South West Regional Blueprint

·    15.2.5   Temporary Extension to Retail Trading Hours in Busselton - 2014 Christmas/New Year Period

 

 

  


 

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

10.3           Policy and Legislation Committee - 20/11/2014 - BUSSELTON CITY CENTRE FACADE REFURBISHMENT SUBSIDY PROGRAMME APPLICATION: VASSE BAR AND CAFE

SUBJECT INDEX:

City Centre Facade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Services and Policy

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Statutory Planning

REPORTING OFFICER:

Policy Planner, Statutory Planning - Carly Rundle

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Existing Vasse Bar and Cafe facade

Attachment b    Proposed facade upgrade works

Attachment c    Busselton City Centre Facade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 20 November 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

Council is asked to determine an application received for the City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme in accordance with the programme guidelines adopted.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Council resolved on 13 March 2014 to trial a programme for the 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial years by allocating $20,000 in the 2013/14 financial year and $50,000 in the 2014/15 financial year towards a façade refurbishment subsidy programme. On 29 January 2014 Council adopted the Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme (Attachment C) and resolved to commence an expression of interest process for applications. Applications would then be assessed by officers and recommendations provided in a further report to Council via the Policy and Legislative Committee. An application has been received from the Vasse Bar and Café, which is the subject of this report.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme and application for subsidy funding is consistent with the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme is a document for the City and Council to consider when assessing applications received for the subsidy funding. It provides clarification and transparency to the public on what will be considered acceptable for an application.

 

In determining applications the City is to assess in accordance with the following criteria:

 

·    Consistency with the adopted Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme (including whether the works are ‘eligible’ for funding);

·    Compliance with the City’s Town Planning Scheme and Building Code of Australia;

·    Consistency with the objectives and recommendations of the Busselton City Centre Urban Design Policy;

·    The degree to which the applicant is financially contributing to the project;

·    The extent to the which the project contributes to the visual improvement of the façade and is visible from the public domain;

·    Integration of the proposed works with the streetscape, adjoining buildings and degree to which the project contributes to the established character of the street; and

·    The degree to which the proposed works promote interaction with the streetscape, including the provision of frontages which are inviting, provide points of interest for pedestrians and allow for an efficient use of space, are functional, attractive and pedestrian friendly.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

A budget of $50,000 is available for subsidy programme funding in the 2014/15 financial year. Should this application be supported in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, $6,662.75 will be drawn from this fund with a remaining $43,337.25 available for future applications.

 

One application was received from this expression of interest round. Applications will continue to be accepted until allocation of the budget has been exhausted.  

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendation in this report reflects Community Objective 2.2 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 – ‘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, and no risks identified where the residual risk, once controls are considered, is medium or greater.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Expressions of interest were sought from the 23rd April to 16th May 2014. One application for upgrades to the Vasse Bar and Café facade has since been received.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The Vasse Bar and Café façade fronts Queen Street, and is located within the area which the City has identified as a priority for upgrades. The programme identifies works which will be considered as eligible for the funding and excludes works such as general maintenance which should be occurring regularly without the programme as ‘ineligible’ for subsidy funding.

 

The applicant has applied for a subsidy contribution for the works summarised below (Attachment A):

 

Works Proposed

Quotation (ex GST)

Eligible or Ineligible works

Amount

(ex GST)

1.    Painting

$6,027.30

Eligible - Repainting of building façade and windows are considered eligible works when they are included as part of other works to upgrade the façade. This is not considered general maintenance as the works are being undertaken in accordance with works that would not occur regularly.

$6,027.30

2.    Installation of 12 new outdoor lights

$4,116.40

Eligible – the installation of new lighting are eligible works and encouraged to provide for public safety and interest to the facade at night.  

$4,116.40

3.    Café Blinds (6 new clear blinds)

$8,181.80

Eligible – infrastructure associated with alfresco areas are not generally considered as eligible works as they are by nature temporary and may not provide a lasting benefit to the public and the streetscape. The Vasse bar and cafe has a permanent extended awning and the installation of new café blinds is a feature that will be affixed to this. Whilst they will be removable the City has reasonable assurance that this will be a structure that will be permanent structure to remain with the building should the business be sold and will provide a lasting benefit to the public. The new café blinds are eligible works.

$8,181.80

4.    Project Management

$500.00

Not eligible – No quotations have been provided to support this cost, and the cost of project management will not result in a physical benefit to the public. This is a cost that should be incurred fully by the owner and will not be considered for subsidy funding. 

-

Total Expenditure (ex GST)

$18,325.50

Potential subsidy contribution (50% of total expenditure (ex GST) above $5,000)

$6,662.75

 

The works proposed meet the assessment criteria of the programme as they will:

 

·    Comply with the City of Busselton Town Planning Scheme 20 and Building Code of Australia;

·    The works proposed as part of the façade upgrade will visually improve the façade and view of the building from the streetscape, will promote interaction with the streetscape, improve safety and interest at night time and enhance the façade and alfresco area as a space which is functional, attractive and pedestrian friendly.

·    The applicant is completing other works not eligible for the subsidy funding which will further enhance the appearance of the façade by installing new outdoor tables and chairs in the alfresco area and replacing signage which are not part of this application.  

 

At the time of submission of the application, the works had not been commenced. Since the application date (May 2014) the café blinds and painting were completed between July and September (77% of the proposed works in a financial sense).

 

The programme however identifies that works that have been completed or commenced are to be considered as ineligible works that are not eligible for grant funding. The intent of this clause is to ensure that the programme does not result in the City receiving retrospective applications for works that are already completed and would have occurred regardless of the programme.  The objective of the programme is to encourage upgrading works which would have otherwise not occurred.

 

The applicant has now provided further justification for commencing the works including:

·    Internal works for the building were required to be completed prior to the tourist period over summer by the same contractor and the quotations provided as part of the application were on the basis of the works being completed at the same time;

·    The internal works, not subject to the subsidy funding needed to be completed prior to the tourist season, and it was not cost effective to segregate the works; and

·    Additional works for the upgrading were proposed to comply with the City’s façade programme guidelines, including the café blinds and installation of new lighting, these works would not have been undertaken without the incentive of the façade programme, and the new lighting remains outstanding.

Following discussions with the applicant City officers are satisfied that program did achieve its intended purpose to bring forward work that may not have otherwise been done “It converted a like to do, to a possible”.

 

The Vasse Hotel is an exemplar in terms of presentation and street activation.  It potentially serves as a valuable example for the program, and as a champion to hopefully encourage others. It is recommended that the subsidy funding of up to $6,662.75 be provided.

 

In the first round a number of businesses did express interest in the programme but provided feedback that the timing was not right for them.  It is envisaged that the next round may generate more applications. There is a need to persist with the programme, even if the take up is initially low.  The certainty of the programme importantly provides the confidence and timeframe for owners to plan and then apply.  However given the objective is to bring forward work a sense of urgency to participate in it must also be balanced and maintained; possibly by rotating areas or focusing upon certain items, themes at a time.

 

The City will commence a further expression of interest round in November 2014, which for any applications received will allow sufficient time for works to be completed prior to the tourist season in 2015.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is considered by officers that the proposal complies with the Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme and it is recommended that the subsidy funding of $6,662.75 be provided.

 

OPTIONS

 

Should the Council consider that the works or part of the works is not consistent with the programme guidelines objectives and assessment criteria, it may resolve to:

 

1.            Not provide subsidy funding for the works identified to upgrade the façade of the Vasse Bar and Café.

2.            Provided subsidy funding for a portion of the works identified to upgrade the façade of the Vasse Bar and Café only.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The officer recommendation if supported will require the applicant to enter into a legal agreement with the City to complete the works and arrange for the subsidy funding to be paid prior to the end of the 2014/15 financial year.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIO AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council resolve:

 

1.    That the application to upgrade the façade of the Vasse Bar and Café is consistent with the objectives and assessment criteria of the Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme and contribute up to $6,662.75 towards the work.

 

2.    To enter into a legal agreement with the owners to provide for the payment of funds once the works are completed to the City’s satisfaction and find costs substantiated.

 

 


Council                                                                                      79                                                          10 December 2014

10.4           Policy and Legislation Committee - 20/11/2014 - BUSSELTON CITY CENTRE FACADE REFURBISHMENT SUBSIDY PROGRAMME: REQUEST TO EXTEND THE PROGRAMME TO THE DUNSBOROUGH CBD

SUBJECT INDEX:

City Centre Facade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Services and Policy

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Statutory Planning

REPORTING OFFICER:

Policy Planner, Statutory Planning - Carly Rundle

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Busselton City Centre Facade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme

Attachment b    Proposed Dunsborough 'Eligible Area' for inclusion in Facade Subsidy Programme  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 20 November 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The City has received a request from the Dunsborough Yallingup Chamber of Commerce and Industry requesting the City to consider extending the Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme (referred to herein as the Facade Subsidy Programme) to the Dunsborough CBD and specifically to properties fronting Naturaliste Terrace and Dunn Bay Road.

 

Officers recommend that Council consider including the Dunsborough CBD within the Façade Subsidy Programme. 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Council resolved on 13 March 2014 to trial a programme for the 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial years by allocating $20,000 in the 2013/14 financial year and $50,000 in the 2014/15 financial year towards a façade refurbishment subsidy programme. On 29 January 2014 Council adopted the Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme (Attachment A) and resolved to commence an expression of interest process for applications. One application has been received as part of this process and a second round for expressions of interest will commence shortly.

 

The Busselton Town Centre and specifically Queen Street and Prince Street were identified as the focus area for the Façade Subsidy Programme as Busselton is the major retail centre for the City and with a number of other major commercial centres proposed to be implemented over the next 5 years, it was seen as important to reinforce and build upon the Busselton CBD’s function as the major centre for the City. 

 

The City has now received a request from the Dunsborough/Yallingup Chamber of Commerce on the 23 September 2014 to include the other major centre (Dunsborough CBD) within the Façade Subsidy Programme, on the basis that this would complement the Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plan, and proposed enhancements works recommended in this plan and increase the appeal of Dunsborough as a tourist destination.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme and application for subsidy funding is consistent with the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme

 

The Façade Subsidy Programme provides incentives in the form of grants to landowners within the Busselton City Centre to undertake works to improve/upgrade the appearance of their façade (Attachment A). The objectives of the Façade Subsidy Programme are to:

 

·    Beautify the city centre by improving the streetscape, which will in turn provide benefits to the broader community by making places more attractive, including for business and investment;

·    Improve the experience of pedestrians to encourage more people to live, work, play and do business in the City Centre;

·    Reinforce and build upon the Busselton City Centre as the major retail, social and cultural hub of the City of Busselton and broader region.

·    Enhance the physical quality and established character of the City Centre’s built environment through sensitive and innovative design of buildings and spaces; and

·    Supporting building owners and business operators to improve the public impression of their buildings and businesses respectively.

 

The Façade Subsidy Programme aims to develop stronger partnerships between the City and local businesses and will complement the City’s investment of resources into developing strategies and undertaking capital works to improve the function and appearance of the Busselton City Centre.

 

The Façade Subsidy Programme is a document for the City and Council to consider when assessing applications received for the subsidy funding. It provides clarification and transparency to the public on what will be considered acceptable for an application. The upgrade works that are expected to be achieved from the Façade Subsidy Programme are dependent on the ideas of the individual landowner, and may include; modification or construction of awnings, restoration of facades, improved lighting, modification or creation of new windows to interact with the streetscape and provide interest and the provision of disabled access. Applicants are also encouraged to contact the City with any ideas of works such as landscaping they would like to see in front of their property for consideration in our capital works programmes. 

 

The identification of Prince and Queen Street as the ‘eligible area’ within the CBD where applications will be considered, was on the basis that these streets are the main pedestrian thoroughfares that have the potential to provide the most benefit to the pedestrian experience and business, and also coincides with capital works programmes being undertaken by the City to beautify the streetscape. However, it is also identified within the Façade Subsidy Programme that these ‘eligible’ areas are to be reviewed over time to reflect the City’s priority areas for improvement and may also correspond with capital works improvements on streetscapes within the City Centre.

 

Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plan

 

The Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plan was finally adopted by Council on the 29 January 2014. It outlines a number of recommendations including:

 

•          Redevelopment of the entry Dunsborough Place entrance and centre of the town centre;

•          Connection of Clark Street to Cape Naturaliste Road;

•          Acquisition of car parking land on Leslie Pearce Court;

•             Progression of various rezoning proposals in and around the town centre to increase residential and commercial development opportunities;

•          Progression of detailed planning and design guidance for identified areas in the town centre.

 

The City is currently progressing a priority action identified in the conceptual plan regarding the reconfiguring of the entry to the town centre via Dunsborough Place, and is currently progressing detail designs following earlier release of two options for public consultation. The detailed designs will be for streetscape redevelopment in the area of Dunsborough Place and Seymour Boulevard, including the central roundabout at Dunn Bay Road/ Naturaliste Terrace. These works will be scheduled to occur over the next 3 years, with further improvements to Naturaliste Terrace and Hannay Lane to be further investigated during this period.

 

It should also be noted that the City is considering preparing Design Guidelines for the Dunsborough Town Centre, which may provide additional guidance on future buildings and facades of businesses although no timeline has been proposed for this.

 

Busselton Local Commercial Planning Strategy (LCPS)

 

The LCPS is a strategic document which provides an analysis of existing commercial centres and provides recommendations for the future of commercial centres in the City of Busselton. The strategy provides a commercial hierarchy which identifies Busselton as a ‘Regional’ Town Centre and Dunsborough as a ‘District’ centre.  A key objective of the strategy is to reinforce the role of Busselton and Dunsborough as the primary commercial centres and ensure a high standard of urban design and community safety. The strategy recognises that a weakness of Dunsborough’s built form is that it is ad hoc and does not have a cohesive architectural theme.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

A budget of $50,000 is available for subsidy programme funding in the 2014/15 financial year. Should the corresponding application for the Vasse Bar and Café be supported in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, $6,662.75 will be drawn from this fund with a remaining $43,337.25 available for future applications.

 

The uptake of the Façade Subsidy Programme has been slow with only one application received to date.  However, based on experience of staff with involvement of similar façade subsidy programmes in other local governments, this is not unusual and after businesses see other examples of those who have taken advantage of the subsidy, the application process becomes more competitive as time progresses.

 

It is also considered by officers that the nature of Dunsborough, with much more of a tourism function, seems to involve more innovation and desire to update and change buildings than the Busselton City Centre. There is a risk that the inclusion of Dunsborough CBD within the façade Subsidy Programme may result in an application round where only applications from the Dunsborough CBD are received.  A second round of applications will only be sought if there is funding left over from the first round and therefore there is a risk that the inclusion will only result in upgrades to the Dunsborough CBD, when an application within the Busselton City Centre may provide greater benefit but not be ready for that initial round.

 

Given the slow uptake of the programme and expected slow uptake for the programme in the 2015/16 financial year, it is recommended that the funding allocated to the Façade Subsidy Programme be shared between the Busselton CBD and Dunsborough CBD and allocated based on applications received in accordance with programme guidelines.

It is recommended that as the Façade Subsidy Programme becomes more competitive and that in the 2016/17 financial year, Council consider allocating an additional separate fund to be exclusively allocated to the Dunsborough CBD area, and that the funding initially allocated for the Busselton CBD be exclusively available the Busselton CBD.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendation in this report reflects Community Objective 2.2 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 – ‘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, and no risks were identified where the residual risk, once controls are considered, is medium or greater.

 

CONSULTATION

 

There is no statutory requirement for public consultation.

 

The request to include the Dunsborough CBD within the Façade Subsidy Programme was received from the Dunsborough Yallingup Chamber of Commerce, a key stakeholder in the area who has given support to the proposal.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The request to include the Dunsborough CBD within the Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme is consistent with the long term strategic direction of the City, and particularly the Local Commercial Planning Strategy where a key recommendation is to reinforce the role of Busselton and Dunsborough as the primary commercial centres and ensure a high standard of urban design. The strategy also recognises that the Dunsborough CBD’s built form is adhoc and does not have a cohesive architectural theme which is a weakness, and could be improved as a result of the inclusion with the façade subsidy programme.

 

There is significant planning and works being invested into the Dunsborough CBD area by the City and it is also considered by officers that the inclusion of the Dunsborough CBD within the façade subsidy programme will meet the same objectives used to establish the eligible area for applications in Busselton including:

 

·    It is a recommendation of the Local Commercial Strategy to strengthen Busselton and Dunsborough as the primary commercial centres and improve the urban design of the Dunsborough CBD;

·    The Dunsborough CBD area is undergoing a period of revitalisation and upgrading as a result of the final adoption of the Dunsborough Town Concept Conceptual Plan, and foreshore works which have recently been completed. The Conceptual Plan identifies a number of measures for revitalization of the CBD including potential rezoning of land along Dunn Bay Road and Naturaliste Terrace to allow for higher density and mixed revitalisation of Hannay Lane and reconfiguration of entry and connection to the Dunsborough Town Centre.

·    Capital program works are proposed to occur in the next 3-4 years and be concentrated along Dunsborough Place, Naturaliste Terrace and Hannay Lane. The inclusion of the Dunsborough CBD within the Façade Subsidy Programme will complement these works. 

·    It is an objective of the City to improve the connection from CBD to the foreshore, of which the Façade Subsidy Programme could provide an incentive and facilitate this through the improvement of the pedestrian experience.

 

The inclusion of the Dunsborough CBD within the façade subdsidy programme will meet the objectives of the programme and wider strategic objectives of the City and it is recommended that the Dunsborough CBD be included into the façade subsidy programme.

 

The Busselton CBD does contain older buildings which are in greater need of upgrading than the Dunsborough CBD, although the Façade Subsidy Programme is structured such that where a number of applications are received; priority will be given to the building which will provide the greatest benefit.

 

It is also noted the City is considering the preparation of Design Guidelines for the Dunsborough Town Centre, which may provide additional guidance on future buildings and facades of businesses. It is an option to wait until these guidelines have been adopted and revisit the idea of including the Dunsborough CBD within the façade subsidy at such time these have been prepared to prevent further ‘ad hoc’ and ‘incohesive architectural themes’ being established. However, no timeline has been established for preparation of the guidelines and the revitalisation and upgrading of an area is a slow process, and it is important to motivate landowners to think about upgrading works at this stage, particularly when there have already been substantial works such as the upgrading of the foreshore occur.

 

In accordance with the priority areas in Busselton being located along the main pedestrian thoroughfares and coinciding with capital works programs for streetscape improvements, It is recommended that the eligible area for Dunsborough be identified as Dunsborough Place, Naturaliste Terrace, Hannay Lane and the area east of the Roundabout of Dunn Bay Road, as identified in Attachment B. These are the main pedestrian areas, and will complement the short term capital improvement programs to occur in this area. It is however also recommended that works only be concentrated on areas with existing commercial developments/potential, as land that is currently zoned ‘Residential’ (with potential future rezoning to allow commercial under the Dunsborough Town Conceptual Plan) such as the eastern portion of Dunn Bay Road, will be required to undergo significant redevelopment to provide for commercial uses and will have no need for the Façade Subsidy Programme in the short term. The land along Dunn Bay Road to the west of the intersection with Naturaliste Terrace have also been excluded as upgrading in this area is either not required in the instance of the Dunsborough Centrepoint, will involve new development, or existing development is predominantly setback at a distance from Dunn Bay Road, that an upgrade would not provide significant benefits to pedestrians.

 

It is recommended that the area of the Dunsborough CBD, as outlined in Attachment B be included within the Façade Subsidy Programme. It is also recommended that Council consider additional funding being allocated for the 2016/17 financial year to be exclusively allocated to the Dunsborough CBD area, and that the funding initially allocated for the Busselton CBD be exclusively available the Busselton CBD from this period.     

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is considered by officers that the request to include the Dunsborough CBD within the Façade Subsidy Programme complies with the strategic objectives of the City and will achieve the broader objectives of the Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plan and Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme.  It is recommended that the Dunsborough Town Centre be included within the eligible areas and applications being prioritised on Dunsborough Place, Naturaliste Terrace, Hannay Lane and The eastern end of Dunn Bay Road from the central roundabout.

 

OPTIONS

 

Should the Council consider that the inclusion of the Dunsborough CBD within the Façade Subsidy Programme, as outlined in the officer’s recommendation, is not consistent with the strategic direction of the City, or require incentives via the programme to upgrade their facades, it may resolve to:

 

1.    Not include the Dunsborough CBD within the Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme.

2.    Include the Dunsborough CBD within the Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme, with modifications to the officer’s recommendation.

3.    Defer the request to include the Dunsborough CBD within the Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme, until such time that building design guidelines have been adopted. 

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should Council support the officer’s recommendation, the Façade Subsidy Programme will be updated within a 3 week period, and consultation of the inclusion of the Dunsborough CBD will occur in December.

 

A second round of applications for the Façade Subsidy Programme will commence in December.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATINON AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council resolve:

 

1.    To include the area of the Dunsborough CBD, as identified in Attachment B within the Busselton City Centre Façade Subsidy Programme and;

a)         Update Geographical references with the Programme, including the title to refer to the ‘Busselton and Dunsborough Centres’

 

2.    To consider the allocation of additional funding for the exclusive use of the Dunsborough CBD to the Façade Subsidy Programme in the 2016/17 financial year. 

 

 

 


 

12.1           TENDER RECOMMENDATION - RFT 16/14 LOCKE ESTATE PHASE 2 COASTAL WORKS

SUBJECT INDEX:

RFT Request for Tenders

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:

Engineering & Facilities Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Engineering and Facilities Services - Daniell Abrahamse

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Confidential Confidential Tender and Recommendation Report

Attachment b    SCR1206 Locke Estate Coastal Investigation and Management - Feb 2013 (Shore Coastal)

Attachment c    A copy of the plan for the proposed Locke Estate Works - Phase 2  

  

 

Attachments A is confidential under section 5.23 - 2(c) of the Local Government Act 1995 in that they deal with “a contract entered into or which may be entered into, by the local government”.  Copies have been provided to Councillors, the Chief Executive Officer and Directors Only.

 

PRÉCIS

 

The City invited tenders for the construction of the Phase 2 Locke Estate Coastal Works. Tender responses have been received and evaluated using standard set of selection criteria adopted by Council in January 2014. This report summarises the response and seeks a decision from the Council to award Tender – RFT16/14 Coastal Works at Locke Estate – Phase 2, in accordance with the Tender Evaluation panel recommendation.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Following construction of the Siesta Park Groyne and during the 1970’s and 80’s rapid erosion was experienced along the Locke Estate beachfront. During the 70’s and 80’s the Locke Estate was leased to a number of community groups to provide low cost holiday accommodation within the area. With the continued erosion the camp infrastructure became vulnerable and several buildings were lost to the sea.

 

In the early 1990’s a field of five (5) timber groynes was constructed in order to stabilize the foreshore and reduce the rate of erosion. The design life of these groynes was anticipated to be approximately 25 years, provided adequate maintenance was carried out. Over the last 5 years the condition of these timber groynes deteriorated and the Locke Estate foreshore underwent further erosion.

 

In order to provide some erosion buffer, and as part of works to remove out dated and obsolete infrastructure, over the last 2 years the camps have progressively removed all buildings within 10m of the vegetation line. Whilst this buffer afforded some protection, additional stabilisation works were required to ensure the camp infrastructure did not become vulnerable again in the future.

 

The loss of infrastructure and the degradation of coastal defences necessitated a detailed Coastal Investigation and Management Report. This includes background to the reasoning for the erosion at Locke Estate (Coastal Geomorphology), how this erosion can be managed and detail on the proposed groyne design to mitigate the current erosion problems experienced at Locke Estate.

 

A copy of the SCR1206 Locke Estate Coastal Investigation and Management – Feb 2013 (Shore Coastal) has been attached as Attachment “B”.

 

The proposed management approach recommended:

 

1.         New Groynes are constructed along the Locke Estate foreshore.

2.         A phased approach is considered, subject to funding.

3.         The three timber groynes in fair condition are maintained until replaced.

4.            Seawalls along the foreshore are maintained where practicable, utilising rock from the collapsed seawall adjacent to the Four Square camp.

5.            Sand nourishment is undertaken in conjunction with any groyne construction or maintenance.

6.            Piles from degraded timber groynes are removed to minimise the navigation hazard to mariners.

7.         A 10m buffer is progressively provided between the beach and coastal infrastructure.

8.         Detailed designs are developed for the preferred option.

9.            Funding is sought from the Department of Transports Coastal Protection Program for the preferred option.

10.          Baseline monitoring (beach profiles and aerial photography) is initiated to assess the performance and impacts of any new coastal protection works.

 

Following the recommendations outlined in SCR1206 it was decided that the works should be staged due to funding limitations. Department of Transport (DoT) Coastal Adaptation and Protection Scheme (CAPs) grant funding was obtained for Stage 1 of these works.

 

In May/June 2014 two (2) of the timber groynes were replaced with Geotextile Sand Container (GSC) and a new GSC groyne was constructed in front of the Legacy campgrounds. In addition a 300m section of rock seawall in front of the Anglican, Baptist and Four Square campgrounds was reworked to improve its condition. These works comprised Phase 1 of the Locke Estate Coastal Protection Works.

 

Additional DoT CAPs grant funding has been obtained for Stage 2 of the works, which involves:

 

1.            The construction of 3 Rock Groynes to replace three timber groynes that were not replaced during stage 1.

2.         Supply of rock to construct the groynes from either:

a.      City gravel pits

b.     Contractor source

3.         Placement and profiling of sand nourishment.

 

A copy of the plan for the proposed Coastal Protection Works at Locke Estate – Phase 2 is attached as Attachment “C”.

 

Tenders were advertised on 25th October 2014 using the standard selection criteria adopted by Council in March 2011 (C1103/079) and requesting a lump sum price for the stage 2 works outlined above. Tenders closed on 11th November 2014. Two (2) tender submissions were received and have been evaluated. These were from Busselton Civil and Plant Pty Ltd (BCP) and Advanteering Pty Ltd (Advanteering).

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 3.57 of Local Government Act 1995 requires “A local government … to invite tenders before it enters into a contract of a prescribed kind under which another person is to supply goods and services”.

Part 4 (Tenders) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 require that tenders be publicly invited for such contracts where the estimated cost of providing the total service exceeds $100,000.

 

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.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There is a budget of $568,000 for the Coastal Protection Works at Locke Estate – Phase 2 project. The available budget for RFT 16/14 is $520,655 ex GST, which includes all contingency funds.

 

Both submissions achieved similar scores against the qualitative criteria with BCP scoring slightly better against Relevant Experience as they completed Phase 1 of the Locke Estate Coastal Protection Works.

 

Both submissions for the construction and supply of rock from the City gravel pits were under budget. However only the BCP submission was under budget for the construction and supply of rock from the Contractor source. A comparison of the tendered value is as follows:

 

•          BCP

-      Rock supplied from the City gravel pits $426,180 ex GST.

-      Rock supplied from Contractor source $454,500 ex GST.

•          Advanteering

-      Rock supplied from the City gravel pits $463,517 ex GST.

-      Rock supplied from Contractor  $710,555 ex GST.

 

Shore Coastal inspected the BCP rock source in Ludlow Hithergreen on 20/11/14. There were large areas of surface rock observed. This source will require relevant approvals to be secured. It is not possible at present to determine if this source will yield the required armour quantities for this Contract in full.

 

The tender evaluation panel recommendation was to award a contract to BCP for the Coastal Protection Works at Locke Estate – Phase 2 including the provisional supply of rock from the Contractor source (subject to approvals and the test pits demonstrating the required rock quantities are likely to be available).

 

This would bring the cost of the works to $454,500 ex GST and supply of rock $66,155 ex GST under budget. This provides a contingency should the required rock quantities increase or the City be required to source rock from alternate sources.

The financial risks associated with the project include, but are not limited to:

 

•          Delay and increased costs due to adverse weather conditions and water levels.

•         

•             Contractor source does not have appropriate controls/approvals in place for the safe extraction of rock with minimal disruptions/damage.

•          Insufficient quantity of rock from Contractor source.

•          Approvals for Contractor rock source not secured.

•          Insufficient quantity of rock from Principal source (Chapman Hill and Piggots Rd).

•             Delay in award of the contract increases the risk of experiencing adverse water level and weather conditions, which could increase construction time and cost.

•          Removal of timber piles from existing groynes may be more complicated than anticipated.

•          Inexperienced operator resulting in poor placement of rock or increased construction time.

 

Measures that will be put in place to manage these financial risks include:

 

•          A contingency allowance to manage cost increases.

•             Alternative supplies of rock are also available through the City’s Quarry Products panel contract at reasonable though higher rates, should there be insufficient quantities from the City pits and/or the Contractor source.

•          Test pits at Contractor source to confirm rock layer thickness and potential quantities.

•             Conditions of use of any Contractor rock source will be put into the contract to ensure the Contractor uses appropriate controls for the safe extraction, carting and stockpiling of rock with minimal disruptions/damage.

•             An appropriate level of supervision will allow for correct placement of rock and construction of the groynes.

•             Appointment of a suitably experienced contractor and operator will also allow for correct placement of rock and construction of the groynes

•          Delegation of award for variations in excess of 10% of the contract value to the CEO.

•             Use of experienced contractors, suitable sources and sizes of rock with appropriate extraction controls and approvals and ongoing monitoring and repair of rock structures as part of the Busselton Coastal Management Plan.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This proposal is considered relevant to the City's Strategic Plan 2010 – 2020 and construction of the Locke Estate Coastal Works supports the following Community Objectives:-

 

Key Goals:

2.     Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Place.

Community Objectives:

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

 

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

Key Goals:

5.      Cared for and enhanced Environment.

Community Objectives:

5.1   Our natural environment is cared for and enhanced for the enjoyment of the community and visitors.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The key risk to the contract is the insolvency or inability of the Contractor to perform the contract. The objective of this tender is to appoint a suitably qualified Contractor who best demonstrates the ability to provide the scope of works.  Based on the findings of the Tender Evaluation Panel the risk of poor service or the Contractor going out of business is considered low. Please also refer to the summary of the financial risks of the contract above.

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation has been undertaken with the following organisations:

 

•          Department of Transport (Coastal Engineering Group).

•          City of Busselton Planning Department.

•             Department of Parks and Wildlife, Busselton Office (Approval for construction within a Marine Park).

•          Locke Estate Working Group.

•          Department of Transport (Marine Safety Group).

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The tender evaluation panel, consisting of the Manager Engineering and Facilities Services, the City’s Contract & Tendering Officer and the Consultant Project Manager, agreed to recommend the award of the contract for the construction of the Coastal Protection Works at Locke Estate – Phase 2, including provisional supply of rock, to Busselton Civil and Plant.

 

It should be noted that the original RFT included an item for the supply of rock from the City gravel pits and a schedule of rate for rock supplied from a Contractor source. Subsequent investigation has shown that there is limited quantity of suitably sized rock available from the City gravel pits. As such it is preferable to use rock from the Contractor source. The preferred tender price allows for the supply of rock from Contractor source without going over budget.

 

It should also be noted that the use of the Contractor rock source is contingent on the Contractor complying with conditions of use. These will be put in place to ensure appropriate rehabilitation works is undertaken following extraction, the rock can be extracted safely and with minimal disruptions/damage to infrastructure, the environment and private property.

 

It should further be noted that the volumes of rock outlined in the RFT are provisional and may be more than stipulated. The Construction Drawings will be updated based on a survey to be undertaken immediately prior to construction. This will allow for a revision to the volumes of rock required. It is possible that the volume of rock may increase and result in a cost increase that is more than 10% of the contract value but still within the budget.

 

CONCLUSION

 

This report seeks the Council’s endorsement of the officer’s recommendation to appoint a suitably qualified contractor as recommended by the Tender Evaluation Panel in accordance with the Terms and Conditions as specified in RFT16/14 Coastal Protection Works at Locke Estate – Phase 2.

 

The recommended Contractor – Busselton Civil and Plant has demonstrated the company’s ability to complete the contractual requirements to the standard required and within the time frames required at a competitive price.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may consider the following alternative options:

 

The Council may choose not to accept the officer’s recommendation to award RFT16/14 Coastal Protection Works at Locke Estate – Phase 2 to Busselton Civil and Plant and award it to the alternative tenderer.

 

The Council may choose not to accept the officer’s recommendation to award RFT16/14 Coastal Protection Works at Locke Estate – Phase 2 to Busselton Civil and Plant and seek alternative contractors by going back out to tender.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Works are planned to commence by 2nd February 2015 subject to the endorsement of Council. This timeframe targets low tides and good weather, which will be critical to the success of the works, with the aim of completing the works prior to the end of March 2015. An eight (8) week work program has been allowed for including 1 week for mobilisation and 1 week for demobilisation and site reinstatement.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

That the Council:

 

1.         Award the tender RFT16/14 Coastal Protection Works at Locke Estate – Phase 2 to Busselton     Civil and Plant to a value of $454,500 Ex GST.

2.         The award should be for all works specified in the RFT including the provisional supply of all       rock required for the construction of the groynes from the Contractor source.

            

 

items for debate

 

10.6           Audit Committee - 26/11/2014 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUDIT REGULATION 17 - RISK MANAGEMENT

SUBJECT INDEX:

Risk Management

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Employee Services and Risk

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Risk Management Policy

Attachment b    Risk Management Committee Terms of Reference

Attachment c    Risk Management Framework  

 

This item was considered by the Audit Committee at its meeting on 26 November 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report is provided with the aim of advising Council on the outcome of the review of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the City’s risk management systems and procedures and to meet the requirements of the risk management component of Local Government (Audit) Regulation 17 (3).  The Audit Committee is asked to note the contents of this report and thus finalise the review of the City’s risk management systems.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Regulation 17 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations states:

 

“17. CEO to review certain systems and procedures

(1)  The CEO is to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local government’s systems and procedures in relation to –

(a)  risk management; and

(b)  internal control; and

(c)   legislative compliance.

(2)  The review may relate to any or all of the matters referred to in subregulation (1)(a), (b) and (c), but each of those matters is to be the subject of a review at least once every 2 calendar years.

(3)  The CEO is to report to the audit committee the results of that review.”

 

It was inserted into the legislation on 08 February 2013.  The regulation requires a review to be conducted at least once every 2 calendar years, with the first review needing to be completed by 31 December 2014. 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Regulation 17 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations (1996), as detailed above.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The City of Busselton Organisation Wide Risk Management Policy (attached) was adopted by Council on 10 May 2006.  It was subsequently reviewed and the updates endorsed by Council on 27 July 2011. 

 

As required by the Policy, the Risk Management Committee (Terms of Reference attached) has developed the Risk Management Plan.  The Plan has undertaken continual improvement and was recently re-named as the Risk Management Framework (attached) to comply with the terminology of AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 the Australian Standard relating to Risk management – Principles and guidelines.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no financial implications associated with the review as such, although financial risks are often a significant consideration as part of the risk management process and so risk management can be an effective tool to manage financial implications more broadly.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The provision of this report as well as the City’s Risk Management System and Procedures further reflects Community Objective 6.3 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 – ‘An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of undertaking the review and preparing this report as required by the Local Government (Audit) Regulation 17, Risk Management component, found no material risks.

 

CONSULTATION

 

No specific external consultation has been undertaken in the development of this report as the requirement is for the CEO to conduct a review.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

A review of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the City’s formal risk management systems and procedures has been conducted.  This review looked at matters such as whether the City has a Risk Management Policy and Framework, the extent to which the Framework defines risk decision making criteria and risk tolerances, the effectiveness of the implementation and integration of risk management principles into organisational processes, and the level of organisational review undertaken of risks and risk management systems.  

 

As detailed above the City has a Risk Management Policy under which sits a Risk Management Framework.  This framework outlines the City’s formal risk management system and processes for the management of risks.  Specifically it outlines:

·    The definition of risk and risk management

·    The City’s risk reference tables

·    The risk tolerance levels

·    The risk management processes and procedures

 

The City has established an internal Risk Management Committee, made up of officers representing each directorate, which is responsible for overseeing the framework and for championing a risk management culture within the City of Busselton.  Risks are most commonly identified formally at an operational level either through the annual Business Unit Planning Processes or as they arise during the year, for example the risks associated with a proposed officer recommendation in a report to Council.  Risks may also be identified through organisational processes such as safety inspections or investigations or in the preparation of a project plan for significant projects. 

 

Additionally a risk management workshop was held in March 2014, which assisted in the identification of more strategic and key operational organisational risks.

 

Under the City’s Risk Management Framework risks are first identified and then assessed, at which time many are given an indicative risk rating based on the identifying Officer’s initial assessment.  A risk rating is determined by assessing the likelihood of an event occurring resulting in a specific consequence.  The consequence of the event is measured in terms of one or more of the following consequence categories:

·    Public Health

·    Occupational Safety and Health

·    Financial

·    Operational

·    Reputational

·    Environmental

 

The risk rating that is identified from the consequence and likelihood is either low, medium, high or extreme.  For example, an operational risk with a moderate consequence (significant delays in service delivery with unacceptable recovery time or inconvenient delays to major deliverables) and a possible likelihood (should occur at some time in the future, at least once in five years) would be assessed with a medium level of risk. 

 

That assessment is then further evaluated in conjunction with the risk team, with the risk being formally ‘accepted’ by the relevant Manager / Director as appropriate to the level of risk.  By ‘accepting’ a risk an officer is indicating that the risk is within acceptable tolerance levels once all reasonable and practical treatment options are considered.  Where a risk is not considered acceptable a treatment plan is generally approved and adopted to reduce the risk rating to within tolerance levels over a period of time.  It should be noted that given the City’s statutory responsibilities in a number of areas there is sometimes no choice but to ‘accept’ high risks and manage them in the most practical and reasonable manner available in the circumstances. 

 

A risk with a rating of medium which has adequate or excellent controls will usually be accepted, whilst a risk with a rating of low will usually be accepted, irrespective of the effectiveness of the controls.  High rated risks will usually have a treatment plan approved, but may be accepted by a Director if it has the best reasonably practicable controls in the circumstances.  Extreme rated risks could are accepted by the Senior Management Group. 

 

As at 20 October the City’s risk management systems and procedures have resulted in approximately 110 risks formally captured to date.  It is pleasing to note that the City does not have any risks with an extreme risk rating, as shown in the City’s current risk profile chart below.

 

 

This chart indicates that most risks, as shown by the green bars, have been assessed, evaluated and accepted and are now being monitored until they are due for a formal review.  The purpose of the review being to ensure that changing environmental factors have not impacted on the level of risk and that any controls identified continue to be in place and effective. 

 

The risks in the orange bars have been evaluated as unacceptable and a mitigating treatment plan has been approved in order to reduce the level of risk to an acceptable level.  Risks in the red bars are either:

·    Recently identified and their assessment is yet to be fully evaluated;

·    Had a treatment plan approved, whose implementation date has past and therefore need to be reviewed again; or

·    Previously accepted risks that are overdue for a formal review.

 

The City has currently identified five high level risks

·    Loss or injury at airport hangars;

·    Diminishing water resources;

·    Butter factory upper floor combusting and collapsing into lower floor;

·    Natural disaster affecting the provision of City services; and

·    Aviation accident.

 

In relation to the risk of loss or injury associated with the airport hangars, this is assessed as having a consequence of ‘catastrophic’ and a likelihood of ‘unlikely’ and hence is a high risk.  Two of the three hangers do not currently meet the required fire rating under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and hence in the event of a fire loss in relation to both hangars is of a high risk.  To bring the hangars into compliance in the most desirable manner including appropriate fire separation would be very expensive and not practicable for the lessees.  Additionally the issue is likely to be addressed with the airport expansion.  Hence in the interim a treatment plan has been approved which ensures hangar uses are managed appropriately and that the lessees and their members are made aware of the increased risk.

Diminishing water resources is an issue facing the whole of the state.  The nature of the services we provide in the maintenance of Public Open Space, results in this being a high risk operational issue for the City, with it being assessed as a major consequence that we will not have enough water to function effectively but unlikely that it will occur.  In response the City has developed a Local Water Action Plan and a Water Conservation Plan (yet to be adopted) and works closely with developers and other relevant stakeholders to ensure Water Sensitive Urban Design principles are utilised.  These controls assist in the reasonable and practical management of the risk, which remains however high. This is an example of a high risk that the City really has no choice to accept and manage as best as it reasonably can.

 

The Butter Factory has potential for a fire to start in the pottery kiln, the kitchens or the old wiring.  The building is heritage listed and was built at a time before fire resistance was a Building Code requirement.  This risk has been assessed with a public safety consequence of major and a likelihood of unlikely, resulting in a high level of risk.  Consideration is still being given to the treatment options for this risk, noting its heritage status also makes treatment complicated. A report is being prepared for the December 10 Council meeting.

 

With respect to a natural disaster affecting the provision of City services, this is again assessed as being unlikely but with potential major operational consequences and hence is a high risk. An emergency affecting the community of Busselton may have demands on City staff in terms of emergency management response and recovery and there is also the potential for staff to be personally impacted and therefore unavailable for work.  This could impact on our ability to continue to provide the usual services required and / or expected of us.  A natural disaster may also have an impact on the City’s administration facilities and similarly impact on the provision of services.  In evaluating the risk it was identified that, although the City does have some aspects of a business continuity plan in place, for instance there is an IT continuity plan, it does not have a holistic whole of organisation plan which identifies potential disruptive events and provides a framework for responding to those events.  The development of such a plan is something that has been highlighted as a potential future action.  In the meantime however, given aspects such as the IT continuity plan are in place, the risk has been accepted.

 

The risk of an aviation accident at the Busselton airport is a high risk as the potential consequences would be major, although it is unlikely.  The most likely cause of an aviation accident at the airport is either pilot error or due to an inadequately maintained airplane, both of which are outside of our control.  The risk is controlled and managed through various specific safety protocols and procedures and meeting extensive regulatory requirements which are safety related, with the City doing all it reasonably can to ensure that an aviation accident is unlikely.

 

The above risks have been identified using the formal system and procedures for managing risks.  It is acknowledged that City Officers identify and treat risks using many other processes, some formalised and others not.  During Business Unit planning many risks are identified that have previously, through good management practices, had controls put in place to mitigate them to an acceptable level.  Not all of these are translated through to the formal risk register as they are already managed as part of core business.  For instance the City has established a wide range of purchasing and budget management controls aimed at preventing improper expenditure and ensuring proper financial management.  Separate reports will be presented to the Audit Committee on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the City’s systems and procedures in relation to internal controls and legislative compliance but in effect many of the matters referred to in these reports could also be described as risk management or mitigation measures.

 

A number of systems have also been designed to specifically mitigate risks, including the Customer Request Management System and the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Management System.  These systems provide the City with proactive management of hazards impacting on employees and contractors in day to day operations and on the community. 

For instance, the OSH Management System outlines the process to assess the risk level of identified hazards, with hazards being defined as “Anything that may result in injury to a person, or harm to the health of a person."  The City has the following hazard risk profile.

 

 

The City has currently identified four hazards with high level risks

·    Spiders, Bees, etc.

·    Uneven Ground

·    Manual Handling

·    Traffic Management Set Up

 

It should be noted that most of these hazards are rated as high risk as they have a high likelihood, almost certain in most cases, of having what is a relatively minor level consequence, that is injury / disease causing medical treatment.

 

City of Busselton staff encounter spiders, bees, stingers and other poisonous insects on a regular basis.  This hazard has been risk assessed as almost certain that someone will be stung or bitten and need medical treatment and hence is a high risk.

 

Workers, who work out doors generally work in areas where the ground is uneven.  These workers include workers from Operations Services, Rangers, Survey Services and Building Services.  Based on previous history, the risk of uneven ground has a likelihood of almost certain for an ankle to be rolled and / or sprained resulting in injury requiring medical attention.

 

Due to the nature of the work undertaken by Operations and Works Services workers, there are many manual handling tasks.  Whilst these workers are all required to attend manual handling training on a regular basis, it has still been assessed as a high level risk as there is an almost certain likelihood of an injury requiring medical treatment.

 

Working on or near roads whilst they are in use is an inherently high risk activity.  One of the controls used to reduce the level of this risk to an acceptable level is to establish traffic management.  This unfortunately has introduced a new hazard of traffic management set up.  This hazard is not as high a risk as working on roads without traffic management, but it has still been assessed with a risk rating of high.

 

Thus all of these are examples of identified high risks that necessarily arise from carrying out the City’s operations, albeit that the best reasonably practical mitigation measures are in place and that the consequences are always proactively managed to minimise the negative consequences for the employee and the City.

 

The City has made a significant improvement over the last twelve months to achieve a strong base level of risk management maturity.  As demonstrated above the City has a solid Risk Management Framework in place and has a number of well-established processes in place to identify, assess and manage risk.  Through the City’s risk management team and risk management committee risks are regularly monitored and discussed.  

 

In the process of reviewing our systems and processes further improvements have been identified to assist in achieving a more mature classification in management of risks.  These include:

·    the improved identification and evaluation of risks associated with projects through more robust project planning practices;

·    improved processes for the formal capture and monitoring of risks identified through Council reports;

·    the undertaking of a process to identify strategic level risks, that is risks associated with Council’s strategic direction as laid out in the Strategic Community Plan;

·    the improved monitoring of risk evaluation processes through the setting of relevant key performance indicators for Managers; and

·    review and updating of the Organisation Wide Risk Management Policy to ensure full compliance with AS/NZS ISO31000:2009.

 

It is also expected that improvements identified through the review of the City’s systems and processes in relation to internal control and legislative compliance will in effect assist in improving the City’s risk management practices.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Risk Management Committee are responsible for implementing a risk management culture within the City of Busselton and are progressively achieving this through the risk management policy and framework.  The organisation is utilising the framework to identify, assess and either accept risks or determine a treatment action plan to reduce risks to an acceptable level.

 

The City has conducted a review of its systems and procedures and found them to be both appropriate and effective overall.  Notwithstanding this there is still the need to implement the recommendations detailed above to further improve the maturity of its systems and procedures and in turn further reduce and / or mitigate its risk exposure.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Committee could consider not endorsing the recommendations of this report because it believes our processes are not adequate and / or could seek further information.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

There is no timeline associated with implementation of the recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council note receipt of this report as per Regulation 17 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations (1996), and note the findings.

 

 


 

15.             Planning and Development Services Report

11.1           AMENDMENT 5 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME 21 - INTRODUCTION OF A SPECIAL PROVISION AREA TO PERMIT AN UNRESTRICTED LENGTH OF STAY - WYNDHAM RESORT - CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION FOR COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

SUBJECT INDEX:

Town Planning Schemes and Amendments

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

Attachment b    Site Plan

Attachment c    Site Concept Plan  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is requested to consider initiating for advertising proposed Scheme Amendment 5 to Local Planning Scheme 21 (LPS21) to introduce a special provision into Schedule 3 that would permit an unrestricted length of stay for up to 25% of tourist accommodation units to be built within the remaining undeveloped portion of the Wyndham Vacation Resort, Marybrook.

 

Officers consider that the proposal is broadly consistent with most elements of the strategic planning framework applicable to the area, reflecting changes in planning direction endorsed by the Council in its adoption of the Local Tourism Planning Strategy (LTPS). While there is some variation in the proposal from the specific criteria set out in the LTPS, the proposal has been assessed on a case-by-case basis, as per the LTPS recommendations, and is considered to have merit.

 

The proposal demonstrates a net tourism benefit in that it will facilitate the full development of the resort and deliver further accommodation options to the market generally, both in built product and permissible occupancy. It has also triggered a level of reinvestment in guest amenities, with further refurbishments proposed for the resort pool facility.

 

Officers are recommending that proposed amendment be initiated to allow public consultation to be undertaken.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The proposal comprises a scheme amendment that seeks to introduce a special provision for strata lots 6-15/700 Caves Road, Marybrook to permit an unrestricted length of stay for up to 25% of tourist accommodation units to be built that otherwise may only be used for short stay purposes pursuant to LPS21. To achieve the objectives of the amendment it is proposed to include the strata lots within a Special Provision Area pursuant to Schedule 3 of LPS21, as outlined in the table below –

 

No.

Particulars of Land

Zone

Special Provisions

58

Strata Lots 6 – 15, 700 Caves Road, Marybrook

Tourist

Notwithstanding any other provision of the Scheme, an unrestricted length of stay is permissible for up to 25% of the accommodation units on Strata Lots 6 – 15 on Strata Plan 46392 (approved on 8 September 2005).

 

The proposed amendment would facilitate a variation for these strata lots to the standard restriction of 3 months occupancy within a 12 month period that applies to tourist accommodation, to allow the tenants to occupy their unit for an unlimited time. 

 

The subject land forms part of the Wyndham Vacation Resort, which is located on Caves Road in Marybrook. The site was originally subdivided into 12 strata lots. Lots 4 and 5 have been developed with three storey, four bedroom town houses, whilst the remaining lots the subject of this amendment (Lots 6 – 15) are vacant. The location of the Wyndham Vacation Resort and the land the subject of the amendment are provided in Attachments A and B respectively.

 

Wyndham Resort currently offers luxury accommodation with direct frontage to Geographe Bay and includes: 100 deluxe king rooms, two four bedroom apartments, restaurant, bar, function and conference facilities. Other facilities also include a swimming pool, day spa, gymnasium, tennis courts, putting green, business centre, wedding chapel, BBQ picnic area and children’s playground. There are management agreements in place governing the use, maintenance and management of the resort, including the management of all tourist accommodation through a central booking agency.

 

The resort is located immediately west of the Marybrook/Siesta Park residential area, with land reserved for recreation to the north and west. The Busselton city centre and the Dunsborough town centre are approximately 15km and 8km away respectively.

 

A site concept plan is included as part of the amendment and indicates 30 additional one and two bedroom units over three storeys (Attachment C). The development envisaged will be similar to the existing tourist product in that it will rely on communal parking, rather than fully allocated parking bays. It is suggested that this will, in part, set the difference between tourist and traditional residential accommodation. It should be noted that before development can occur, planning consent is required that will, amongst other things, determine built form outcome and parking provision. The actual locations of the unrestricted length of stay units will be secured via a new strata subdivision application (approval of which would implement strata by laws and a binding management statement) and planning consent (with conditions to be satisfied as part of approval including a development agreement, staging plan and management agreement).

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key elements of the statutory environment with respect to the proposed amendment are set out in the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme 21. The subject land is zoned Tourist under LPS21 and is mostly developed for short stay tourist accommodation purposes. ‘Tourist Accommodation’ is defined pursuant to Schedule 1 of LPS21 as meaning –

 

‘a building or group of buildings substantively used for the temporary accommodation of tourists, visitors and travellers which may have facilities for the convenience of patrons such as restaurants, convention areas and the like but does not include a building or place elsewhere specifically defined in this Schedule or a building or place used for a purpose elsewhere specifically defined in this Schedule.’

 

Clause 5.18.1 of LPS21 deals with residential occupancy of tourist developments as follows -

 

‘No person shall occupy a tourist accommodation unit, chalet, caravan, camp or any other form of tourist accommodation for more than a total of 3 months in any one 12 month period.’

 

Clause 6.3.1 provides the mechanism for special provisions, in addition to any provisions which are generally more applicable to such land under LPS21, to be introduced into the Scheme and for those provisions to be listed in Schedule 3 of the Scheme and for the Scheme Map to be amended accordingly.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The key policy implications for consideration of the proposed amendment are set out in the Western Australian Planning Commission Planning Bulletin 83/2013 – Planning for Tourism and the City of Busselton Local Tourism Planning Strategy (2010). Each is discussed below under appropriate subheadings.

 

Western Australian Planning Commission Planning Bulletin 83/2013 – Planning for Tourism

 

The bulletin sets out the policy of the WAPC to guide decision making by the WAPC and local government for subdivision, development and scheme amendment proposals for tourism purposes. Policy provisions outlined in this bulletin relevant to the consideration of the proposed amendment include –

 

·    Proposals for non-tourist accommodation developments (such as permanent residential, commercial, retail and restaurant) within tourism sites to facilitate the development of tourist accommodation should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

 

·    For permanent residential use, local governments may set a percentage limit within their local planning strategy or local planning policy.

 

City of Busselton Local Tourism Planning Strategy 2010

 

The Local Tourism Planning Strategy (LTPS) provides the long term strategic land use planning and strategic direction for tourism development within the District. Wyndham Resort offers four star luxury accommodation and is considered essential to the diverse mix of short stay choice offered within the City. Luxury accommodation has its own market and the resort plays an important part in catering to that market. For this reasons the LTPS identifies Wyndham Resort as Strategic Site 23 and recommends the site be rezoned to ‘Tourist A’ and may be considered for inclusion in the ‘Tourist B’ zone in accordance with Recommendation 3.7b.

 

The ‘Tourist A’ zone is similar to the current ‘Tourist’ zone in LPS21 whereby there is no provision for relaxation of occupancy restrictions. The Tourist B zone provides for the consideration of up to 25% of accommodation units available for an unrestricted length of stay for non-strategic sites, but for strategic sites to be assessed on a case-by-case basis where a net tourism benefit can be demonstrated. The LTPS outlines criteria against which to assess proposals to incorporate an unrestricted length of stay component. Each criteria is listed below, with the officer response immediately following –

 

ii)         located within an existing urban settlement;

 

Wyndham Vacation Resort is located in close proximity to the civic, retail, sporting and cultural activities in and around the Dunsborough and Busselton localities. The resort is situated in the western part of the Marybrook/Siesta Park residential area.

 

             iii)        any unrestricted length of stay component units/development shall be of a design and scale        that is subsidiary to the tourism component of the development;

 

The proposed amendment would retain the existing Tourist zoning of the site, reflective of the primary use of the site for short stay holiday accommodation. The applicant is seeking an unrestricted length of stay component for up to 25% of the accommodation units to be built on the subject site. It is considered that this percentage is consistent with the LTPS in terms of retaining the dominant tourist function and character of the overall resort development.

 

             iv)        the restricted length of stay component having to be completed to the City’s satisfaction,             prior to the occupation of the unrestricted stay component; or

             v)         the City being satisfied through a legal agreement, bond, bank guarantee, or other legally           agreed commitment from the developer to ensure the development will be undertaken and           satisfactorily completed;

 

Wyndham Vacation Resort is substantially developed and is operating as a tourist resort comprising 100 accommodation units and central facilities (restaurant/bar; function and conference facilities), swimming pool, day spa and gymnasium as well as other recreational facilities. The balance of the site has been subdivided into 12 strata title lots, of which two have been developed with 3 storey townhouses and ten remain undeveloped.

 

The resort operates as a single, centrally managed entity with binding agreements in place for the central management of the resort and shared use of the common property and this is an important factor in providing a level of service to support the predominant tourist function such as reception, room servicing and ongoing provision of tourist facilities.

 

             vi)        the City being satisfied with the separation of the two uses or the management arrangement     to prevent land use conflict;

 

Land use conflict within tourist resorts can potentially play out in numerous ways and the most undesirable outcome for a tourist resort is manifested in a devaluation of the tourism experience. A reduced level of conflict and therefore detrimental impact on tourism generated by a residential component can be achieved by limiting the latter to a maximum of 25%, combined with design and management such that the tourism orientation of the development is emphasised and maintained.

 

The strata by-laws require that the resort operates as a single, centrally managed entity, with shared use of the common property, and this is an important factor in providing a level of service to support the predominant tourist function such as reception, room servicing, on-site manager and ongoing provision of tourist facilities. The unrestricted length of stay units will be clustered together at the eastern end of the site, rather than being randomly distributed throughout the resort and that should also assist in mitigating potential conflict.

 

             vii)       on all sites, the unrestricted length of stay component being generally located away from the     areas of the site providing the highest tourism amenity; and

             viii)      on coastal sites, the unrestricted length of stay component being generally located in areas         further from the coast.

 

The highest tourism amenity areas within this tourist site include proximity to the resort facilities, such as the swimming pool, and the beach.  Key resort facilities (swimming pool, tennis court) are located closest, and have direct frontage, to the coastal reserve with largely unimpeded views. The existing hotel is attractive to tourists given the luxury accommodation, extensive facilities and superior coastal access/frontage offered. The resort complex has the higher tourism amenity and the subject site is separate from this.

 

Within the subject site, Lots 6-10 have the closest proximity to the coastal reserve. In response, the applicant has proposed that on Lots 6-10 an equal number of units could be set aside for unrestricted length of stay and short stay purposes (e.g. 5 ground floor units for short stay, with 5 two storey short stay townhouses comprising the first and second floors, for unrestricted length of stay). The remaining allocation of unrestricted length of stay units would be located on Lots 11-15, which are located furthest away from the coastal reserve. Controls on the number and location of the unrestricted length of stay units developed on Lots 6-10 would be secured though strata title approval and subsequent development approval conditions. Of the 30 units to be developed, only 7 would be available for unrestricted length of stay to comply with the maximum allowance of 25%. This represents 5.6% of the total accommodation units within the resort, once fully developed, and the remaining 125 units would be available for short stay purposes.

 

Net Tourism Benefit

 

Recommendation 3.7(b) of the LTPS requires the demonstration of a net tourism benefit in considering support for an unrestricted length of stay component within strategic tourism sites. The net tourism benefit is described in the amendment proposal and may be summarised as follows –

 

The subject land has been substantially developed and is operating as a tourist resort. The remaining strata lots have been approved for the development of 10 large four bedroom tourist units, but have not been developed. The applicant argues that this yield is not viable given the financial cost of developing the units and the tourist market for accommodation that carries a rack rate of $1,000 - $1,300 per night is also limited in terms of customer demand.

 

Furthermore, obtaining financial assistance from lending institutes for short stay tourist development is more limiting than for unrestricted length of stay (as the lending institutes consider this as residential and therefore perceived to carry less risk for investment). Unrestricted length of stay becomes more attractive for investment and/or reinvestment in existing and new tourism products. Should the amendment as proposed not be supported, the undeveloped portion of the site is likely to remain that way indefinitely, meaning that this strategic tourism site will not be fully developed.

 

In anticipation of the proposed development for the additional short and unrestricted length of stay units, upgrades to the range of television channels available in-room, including Foxtel, has been implemented and a complete refurbishment of the existing swimming pool facility is planned.

 

Of the 30 units that would be developed, 23 will be available for short stay purposes. The 7 unrestricted length of stay units will not be removed from the short stay letting pool. The proposal would simply enable flexibility in occupancy length that is not currently possible under LPS21.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

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

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The proposed amendment is considered to be consistent with the following community objective of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 – “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 initiating the proposed scheme amendment and referring it to the Environmental Protection Authority. In this regard, there are no significant risks identified. 

 

CONSULTATION

 

There is no requirement under the Planning and Development Act 2005 to advertise a proposed scheme amendment prior to it being initiated by the Council. Accordingly, no advertising has occurred to date.

 

If the Council resolves to initiate the proposed amendment, the relevant amendment documentation would be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for consideration of the need for formal assessment under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Should the EPA resolve that the amendment does not require formal assessment it will be advertised for 42 days in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

For strategic tourism sites identified in the City’s Local Tourism Planning Strategy there is scope to permit an unrestricted length of stay for up to 25% of accommodation units. Proposals are to be assessed on a case-by-case basis where a net tourism benefit can be demonstrated.

 

The amendment has been assessed against the criteria outlined in the LTPS that, in brief, relate to: location within an urban settlement; subsidiary to the tourist component; completion of the tourist component; separation of tourist and residential uses; and location generally away from high tourist amenity areas. The amendment is broadly consistent with most elements of the strategic planning framework applicable to the area and while there is some variation in the proposal from the specific criteria set out in the LTPS the proposal has been assessed on a case-by-case basis and, on balance, is considered to have merit.

 

In terms of a net tourism benefit, the amendment would facilitate the full development of the resort and deliver further accommodation options to the market generally, both in built product and permissible occupancy. Wyndham Vacation Resort is substantially developed for short stay tourist accommodation (100 luxury units plus two townhouses) with significant guest facilities and a high level of tourist amenity. The balance of the site, having been subdivided into 10 strata title lots, remains undeveloped and has been for some time.

 

Obtaining financial assistance from lending institutions for short stay tourist development is more limiting than for unrestricted length of stay (as the lending institutes consider this to be residential and therefore perceived to carry less risk for investment). Unrestricted length of stay becomes more attractive for investment and/or reinvestment in existing and new tourism products. Should the amendment as proposed not be supported, the undeveloped portion of the site is likely to remain that way indefinitely, meaning that this strategic tourism site will not be fully developed.

 

In anticipation of the amendment, the resort operators have upgraded the range of television channels available in-room, including Foxtel, and a complete refurbishment of the existing swimming pool facility is planned. A number of tourist developments within the City are in need of refurbishment and improvements to tourist amenities and facilities and, as a result, may be struggling to remain viable for various reasons. The investment and refurbishment for Wyndham Resort is a good example of what is needed for existing resorts to keep them attractive and viable, and allowing an unrestricted length of stay component is seen as an important driver for this to occur.

 

Wyndham Resort has sufficient capacity for permanent residential land uses and provides an adequate level of access to residential services and amenities. The site would: provide a small permanent population that would complement and reinforce the existing and future tourist operations proposed on the land; enable permanent and short stay residents to access and be in close proximity to the civic, retail, sporting and cultural activities in and around the Busselton-Dunsborough localities; and encourage a permanent presence on the land in seasonal low periods and therefore encourage year-round activity and vibrancy.

 

The unrestricted length of stay units will not necessarily be removed from the short stay letting pool. The proposal would simply enable flexibility in occupancy length that is not currently possible under LPS21. The proposal may also support the refurbishment works on the resort swimming pool. Improvements such as that serve to reinforce the predominant tourist function and character of the resort. The development envisaged will be similar to the existing tourist product in that it will rely on communal parking, rather than fully allocated parking bays. It is suggested that this will, in part, set the difference between tourist and traditional residential accommodation.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Officers are recommending that proposed Amendment 5 to Local Planning Scheme No. 21 be initiated for referral to the EPA and subsequent advertising for public comment.

 

OPTIONS

 

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

 

1.         Resolve to decline the request to initiate the proposed amendment in its entirety and      provide a reason for such a decision.

 

2.         Resolve to initiate the proposed amendment subject to modification(s).

 

It should be noted that there is no right of appeal against a Council decision not to initiate an amendment.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve the provision of advice of the Council resolution to the applicant and this will occur within one month of the resolution.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That  1.           That the Council, in pursuance of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2005, adopts        draft Amendment 5 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme 21 for community    consultation for the purpose of:

 

                         (a)       Inserting the following particulars into Schedule 3 – Special Provision Areas of the              Scheme:

 

No.

Particulars of Land

Zone

Special Provisions

58

Lots 6 – 15 (700) Caves Road, Marybrook

Tourist

Notwithstanding any other provision of the Scheme, an unrestricted length of stay is permissible for up to 25% of the accommodation units on Strata Lots 6 – 15 on Strata Plan 46392 (approved on 8 September 2005).

 

                         (b)      Amending the Scheme Map accordingly.

 

2.         2.         That as the draft Amendment is in the opinion of the Council consistent with Part V of the          Act and Regulations made pursuant to the Act, that upon the preparation of the necessary            documentation, the draft Amendment be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority    (EPA) as required by Part V of the Act and on receipt of a response from the EPA indicating           that the draft Amendment is not subject to formal environmental assessment, be advertised          for a period of 42 days, in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

 

 


Council                                                                   105                                                        10 December 2014

11.2           DA14/0479 - MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AFFECTING A CATEGORY 1 HERITAGE PLACE (YOONDERUP) - LOT 154 (NO.71) KENT STREET, BUSSELTON

SUBJECT INDEX:

Development/ Planning Applications

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Services; Environmental Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Statutory Planning

REPORTING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Development Plans

Attachment b    3D perspective of proposed development

Attachment c    Heritage Impact Assessment  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

A Development Application has been submitted seeking consideration of a mixed-use development (commercial and residential) at Lot 154 (No.71) Kent Street, Busselton, the site of ‘Yoonderup’, which is listed in the City of Busselton Municipal Heritage Inventory (2013) as  a Category 1 Heritage Place and is included in the Heritage List under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.21.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

No. 71 Kent Street is located on the north-west corner of Kent Street and Stanley Street, adjacent to a City of Busselton managed car parking area.  

 

‘Yoonderup’ is listed on the City of Busselton Municipal Heritage Inventory (2013) as PN028 Management Category 1 and is subject the provisions of the Local Planning Scheme 21. The place is included in the Heritage List. Category 1 places are the most important places in the City with the highest cultural heritage values, and generally have built features that are part of their significance.

 

The development proposal consists of five ground floor commercial tenancies ranging from 63m2 to 151m2 Net Lettable Area (NLA), with primary frontage to Kent Street (Tenancies 4 & 5) and Stanley Street (Tenancies 1, 2 & 3). The concept also houses five residential units on the upper floor level ranging from 93m2 to 105m2 (internal area). These upper floor units are accessible by a ground floor entry located within the development and accessed by a landscaped entry pathway between the existing `Yoonderup' house and Commercial tenancy 3.

 

The existing 'Yoonderup' house is proposed to be retained and the corner aspect, including landscaped `front' yard and fencing to be retained and additional landscaping provided.

 

The Development Application submission includes a Heritage Impact Statement commissioned by the applicant and prepared by Judith Murray Cultural Heritage and History in support of the proposal, identifying the need for a Conservation Management Strategy identifying works required upgrade and support the heritage building. A copy of that statement is provided as Attachment C.

 

City officers have sought heritage advice from the City’s Heritage Advisor, Ms Annabel Wills, who does not support many of the findings of the Heritage Impact Statement submitted by the applicant.  The City’s Heritage Advisor provides advice that It is considered that this development is not giving due regard to a place designated as a Category 1 on the City of Busselton’s Heritage List and that the proposal in its current form should not be supported for approval.

 

The proposed development when assessed against the City of Busselton Car Parking Provisions Policy and the Residential Design Codes, requires the development to provide for 17 onsite car parking bays for the commercial components and 6 parking bays for the residential components of the development. Adequate parking bays have been provided for the residential component however a shortfall of 11 bays for the commercial component is proposed. The Car Parking Policy and Scheme 21 include provisions for the option of a payment of cash-in-lieu of the shortfall of parking bays.

 

The City's current cash-in-lieu payment figure is $10,000 per bay. This amounts to a total figure of $110,000 if cash-in-lieu being provided. The applicant is seeking that the cash-in-lieu amount be waived by Council on the basis that this amount of money would make the proposed development economically unviable and that this money is needed to fund heritage conservation upgrades to ‘Yoonderup’.    

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key elements of the statutory environment that relate to the proposal are set out in the Local  Planning Scheme.

 

The site is located in the ‘Business’ zone. Objectives of this zone relevant to this application are as follows:

 

(a)  To provide for conveniently‐located shopping and other service associated commercial activities to service each centre’s catchment area, as determined by the relevant planning framework.

(b)  To maintain and reinforce the viability of existing commercial centres, including those

supporting adjoining agricultural areas.

 

Policies of the “Business’ zone relevant to this application are:

 

(a)    To encourage the provision of retail and other business services and associated  development to add to the strength and diversity of existing centres.

 (b) As far as is practical and appropriate to allow market forces to influence the location of retail and office uses within existing centres with minimal intervention by the local government.

(c) To allow residential development only where it is a component of commercial development.

(d) To utilise and strengthen the existing town centres of Busselton and Dunsborough as the primary retail and commercial centres of the City by active discouragement of any new “out of town” shopping centres other than neighbourhood shopping centres, convenience stores and the like.

(e) The consolidation of land to assemble larger land parcels suitable for integrated development or redevelopment is encouraged and supported. Fragmentation of land, unless it is part of an overall plan for integrated development or redevelopment, will generally not be supported.

 

Part 5 of the Scheme deals with General Development Requirements and clauses relevant to the provision of parking in the business zone are:

 

5.22 Parking In the Business and Restricted Business Zones

Provision shall be made for the off‐street parking of motor vehicles without charge to the general public in all development in the Business zone or Restricted Business zone. Parking areas shall be paved, drained and marked to the satisfaction of the local government and maintained thereafter, and shall be designed so as to enable all vehicles to return to the street in forward gear.

5.23 Cash‐In‐Lieu of Parking in the Business and Restricted Business Zones

5.23.1 The local government may, in respect of a use or development proposed within the Business zone or Restricted Business zone, require or accept the payment of cash‐in‐lieu of the provision of parking spaces on the lot of the proposed use or development. The intent of providing for the payment of cash‐in‐lieu of the provision of parking is to encourage comprehensive, consolidated and co‐ordinated development, to enable better and safer management of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and to facilitate the provision of strategically and conveniently‐located public parking facilities.

5.23.2 The cash payment in lieu of the provision of parking shall not be less than the estimated cost to local government of ‐

(a) constructing, sealing and draining the number of car parking spaces as a consequence of the development; and

(b) all associated administration costs to local government and shall not include any costs

related to the value or acquisition of land.

 

Part 8 of the Scheme deals with Heritage Protection and relevant clauses are:

 

8.3 Heritage Agreements

The local government may, in accordance with the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, enter into a heritage agreement with an owner or occupier of land or a building for the purpose of binding the land or affecting the use of the land or building insofar as the interest of that owner or occupier permits.

8.4 Heritage Assessment

The local government and or the Planning Commission may require a heritage assessment to be carried out prior to the approval of any subdivision or development proposed in a heritage area or in

respect of a heritage place listed on the Heritage List and may require a conservation plan to be prepared. The heritage assessment and conservation plan is to determine the extent of the cultural

heritage significance of the place and how the place is to be conserved.

8.5 Variations to Scheme Provisions for a Heritage Place or Heritage Area

8.5.1   Where desirable to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance or preserve

heritage values, the local government may vary any provision of the Scheme provided that where, in the opinion of the local government, the variation of a provision is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality or adjoining the site which is the subject of the variation, the local government shall –

(a) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions dealing with advertising pursuant to Clause 10.4; and

(b) have regard to any expressed views prior to making its decision to approve the variation.

8.5.2      In approving variations under clause 8.5.1 the local government may enter into a Heritage Agreement under Part 4 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 with an owner who would benefit from the variation. The agreement may specify the owner’s obligations and contain memorials noted on relevant Certificates of Title.

8.5.3      In approving variations, granting incentives and/or entering into heritage agreements, the local government shall utilise the guidelines outlined in its Heritage Conservation Policy.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The key policy implications for consideration are set out in the following policy documents:

·    City of Busselton Heritage Conservation Provisions

·    City of Busselton Town Centre Urban Design Centre Provisions

·    City of Busselton Car Parking Provisions

 

City of Busselton Heritage Conservation Provisions

The relevant provisions for this development are the following:

Incentives

Incentives take the form of relaxation or modification of one or more of the planning requirements for that place that would normally apply under TPS20 or the Residential Design Codes. This includes but is

not limited to:

·    Parking requirements

City of Busselton Town Centre Urban Design Centre Provisions

The following are particularly relevant excerpts from the provisions –

6.10 Heritage & Streetscape

New development should conserve and enhance the heritage of the town, and maintain/foster areas of individual and interesting character. Proponents who intend to develop a property which is listed in the Shire’s Municipal Inventory need to refer to the Shire’s Environment and Heritage Conservation Policy. These provisions offer guidance on various matters, and highlights incentives that may be available for appropriate, sensitive new development.

New development should respect the setting of any surrounding properties of identified heritage and/or streetscape value in terms of building design and form.

7.2 Relationship to the Street (Public/Private Interface)

Each street within the Provision Area has been defined as a Primary, General Commercial or Green Street, with specific requirements to each Frontage Type. Frontage Types in the provision policy area are defined in Figure 2.

Frontage Type 2: General Commercial Street

·    Moderate to high level of activation.

·    Mix of shop, office and other commercial tenancies at ground floor level, residential lobby also acceptable.

·    General commercial and residential uses permitted above ground floor level.

·    At ground floor level, the facades of buildings shall address the street with a commercial shop front, primary business entrance and/or residential lobby.

·    Front setback may be a minimum of nil, up to a maximum of 4m, however the setback will be determined after consideration of the front setbacks of any adjoining existing buildings.

·    New development should conform to any clearly established building line in the near vicinity.

·    The front setback area to be landscaped with soft and hard treatments in a manner appropriate to the site’s location and context.

·    Pedestrian shelter, through provision of an awning over the front door, must be provided as a minimum requirement.

·    Car parking shall not be located between the building and the street boundary.

·    The number and width of vehicle crossovers to each site shall be minimised and sharing with adjoining properties encouraged.

 

City of Busselton Car Parking Provisions

Where car parking cannot be provided onsite or where on site provision is not desirable in terms of traffic or pedestrian management, then all or part of the shortfall may be met via a cash-in-lieu payment. Car parking requirements are discussed in more detail in the ‘officer comment’ part of the report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

This application may result in financial implications in respect to the payment or non-payment of cash-in-lieu of required parking bays.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendation of this report reflects Community Objectives 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1 of the Strategic Community Plan 2013, which are:

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.

3.1          A strong, innovative and diversified economy that attracts people to live, work, invest and visit.

 

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 individual risk, once controls are identified, is medium or greater.

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

Financial risk arising from SAT appeals associated with decision.

The consequence of the risk can be reduced by not using, or minimising use of, external legal or other advice in responding to appeals. There is not much that can be done, however, to reduce the likelihood of the risk.

Minor

Possible

Medium

 

CONSULTATION

 

The proposal has not been publicly advertised or referred to surrounding landowners or external agencies, however advice has been sought advice from the Regional Heritage Advisor on the merits of the proposal in respect to the Heritage Conservation of ‘Yoonderup’.

 

In response to the request for advice the City’s Heritage Advisor has provided the following comments:

 

It is considered that this development is not giving due regard to a place designated as a Category 1 on the City of Busselton’s Heritage List.

 

It is acknowledged within the Heritage Impact report that:

The historic structure at 71 Kent Street Busselton contains a significant cultural landscape setting. The building density and the resulting massing of the proposed commercial/residential development of Lot 154 would clearly affect the historic house setting and impact on the space surrounding the site by influencing the aesthetic values and by the loss of an existing cultural landscape.”

 

The report also comments:

“While the scope of the proposal appears intrusive, the Site Plans and Concept Sketches for the Proposed Commercial/Residential development identify that consideration has been made in the planning for a number of compromises in relation to an improved heritage outcome for Yoonderup. Single storey units are planned to border the east side of the house and there is limited visual impact of high rise over the roofline of the house and as a result, the proposed built environment does not dominate the skyline.”

 

This comment is strongly disputed. The single storey units sitting so far forward of the house’s front building line and the two storey section along Stanley Street in front of the building will have a significantly negative impact on the place.

 

Summary Conclusion

The place is of a high level of cultural heritage significance within Busselton.

It is acknowledged that some development of this site is possible.

It is further suggested that in order to achieve a similar floor area the portion of the proposed building to the rear of the house could be three stories in height.

 

The items that are not supported are:

 

·    The single storey section of building forward of the front building line of the adjacent building.

·    The section of building (indicated as Commercial tenancy 3) both ground floor and the residential first floor unit above which are in front of the Stanley Street portion of the building.

 

The reasons being that these sections of the proposed development are not in accordance with the Burra Charter principles or the Town Planning Scheme – Heritage List / MHI (Heritage Management Categories) as stated above.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The key questions requiring to be considered in determining the application are seen as being –

 

1.    Is the City satisfied that, balancing heritage, design and other relevant planning considerations, the proposed development is appropriate to be approved?

2.    If the answer to that question is ‘yes’, is the City prepared to provide the requested variation in car parking requirements in order to facilitate that outcome?

 

It is clear that heritage considerations themselves are not the only factors to consider in determining an application for development of a heritage place, even a place identified as a Category 1 place (noting, though, that in the case of a place on the State Heritage Register, which this place is not, no decision-maker may make a decision inconsistent with or prior to a decision of the Heritage Council). Heritage considerations need to be balanced against design and other relevant planning considerations.

 

The Busselton City Centre, within which the development site is located, is the economic, social and cultural hub of our community and is now, and will increasingly be in the future, an ‘urban’ place, the ongoing relevance and success of which will involve it becoming increasingly dense and urban in character, even while areas nearby, such as the Busselton Foreshore, retain a lower-density, more informal feel and character. That increasingly urban character will depend upon street activation, buildings built close or up to the property line. In particular, it can be expected that over time open car parking areas in the vicinity of this site will be redeveloped to incorporate multi-storey buildings. This application needs to be seen in that context.

 

It is seen as important that this site is developed and is brought into active use. If that does not occur then it is likely that the significant heritage asset on the site will progressively degrade, and at some point the City may face pressure for the demolition of the place – that would certainly be the more financially advantageous option for the owners. Notwithstanding that, it is obviously important that the design of the new development and its relationship with the heritage building which is to remain is carefully considered.

 

Officers accept that, looked at from a heritage perspective alone, it may be appropriate to set development back from Kent Street on the western side of the existing building. That would, however, reduce the extent to which the development contributes to activating and creating a good pedestrian environment on Kent Street. It is seen as very important, from a broad urban design perspective, that the new building directly fronts Kent Street, and that overrides the heritage consideration.

 

The primary concern from a heritage perspective, other than the preservation of the building in general, is seen to be the maintenance of the view of the building from Kent Street. To assist with maintaining that, since the application was first lodged with the City, the detailed design of proposed commercial tenancy 3 has been modified, to remove a proposed parapet fire wall on the western side of the building. The 3D perspectives provided as Attachment B illustrate that change, and there has been a significant reduction in visual impact on the existing building as a result of that change.

 

It is considered that, with the change described above, the development is broadly appropriate. Conditions are, however, proposed requiring detailed plans of the colours and finishes of the new development, detailed landscaping plans and detailed plans for the preservation and restoration of the existing building – which must be implemented before the new development is occupied.

 

Given the heritage and design outcomes that will be achieved by the proposed development, it is seen as appropriate that the City waive cash-in-lieu parking costs associated with the 11 bay car parking shortfall when the development is assessed against the City’s car parking policy. It would certainly not be appropriate or practical to provide additional car parking on site. Waiving cash-in-lieu car parking requirements in the manner suggested would also be consistent with the approach taken by the City in assessing an application for the development of another, somewhat difficult to develop, heritage site, the ‘Bovell’ site – redevelopment of which, whilst conserving the most important heritage assets, is now nearing completion.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is recommended that the Council approve the development and facilitate the adaptive re-use and redevelopment of an important heritage asset.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could refuse the proposal, apply additional or different conditions, or seek further information.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The proponent will be advised of the Council decision within two weeks of the Council meeting.

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council resolve:

 

1.    That application DA14/0479 submitted for development at Lot 154 (No.71) Kent Street, Busselton is considered by the Council to be generally consistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives and policies of the zone within which it is located.

 

2.    That Planning Consent be issued for the proposal referred to in 1. above subject to the following conditions:

 

General Conditions:

1.         All development is to be in accordance with the approved Development Plan dated    (attached), including any amendments placed thereon by the City and except as may be modified by the following conditions.

 

2.         The development hereby approved shall be substantially commenced within two years from the date of this decision letter.

 

Prior to Commencement of Any Works Conditions:

3.         The development hereby approved, or any works required to implement the development, shall not commence until the following plans or details have been submitted to the City and have been approved in writing:

a)    A Conservation Management Strategy for the heritage building on the site (‘Yoonderup’).

b)    A Construction Management Plan.

c)    A detailed schedule of colours and materials.

d)    Satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City to provide public art works.  This entails compliance with the Percent for Art provisions of the City's Development Contribution Policy via appropriate works up to a minimum value of 1% of the Estimated Cost of Development ("ECD"). Where the value of on-site works is less than 1% of the ECD, a payment sufficient to bring the total contribution to 1% of the ECD is required.

e)    Details of sewage, stormwater and surface water drainage works.

f)     A Landscape Plan.

g)    Details of the vehicular crossovers.

4.      The development hereby approved, or any works required to implement the           development, shall not commence until the following contributions have been paid        to the City:

a)            A contribution of $11,655 towards community facilities in the Busselton precinct.

b)            A contribution of $5,127.05 towards the Road Network Upgrading in the Busselton precinct.

 

Prior to Occupation/Use of the Development Conditions:

5.    The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or used until all plans, details of works required by Conditions(s) 1, 3 and 4 have been implemented and the following conditions have been complied with:

a)    Landscaping and reticulation shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan and shall thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the City.  Unless otherwise first agreed in writing, any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from first planting, are removed, die or, as assessed by the City as being seriously damaged, shall be replaced within the next available planting season with others of the same species, size and number as originally approved.

b)    A minimum number of 12 car parking bays (including 1 disabled bay) shall be provided on site.  The parking area(s), driveway(s) and point(s) of ingress and egress [including crossover(s)] shall be designed, constructed, sealed, drained and marked.

c)    Details of the bicycle parking facilities. The details shall include, as a minimum, the location, design and materials to be used in their construction.

 

On-going Conditions:

 

6.    The works undertaken to satisfy Condition(s) 1, 3, 4, and 6  shall be subsequently maintained for the life of the development.

 

 

 


 

11.4           NBN FIXED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER, PORT GEOGRAPHE

SUBJECT INDEX:

Property Leasing

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Property Development Officer - James Young

Manager, Strategic Planning and Development - Kelley O'Neill

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Proposed Location Plan

Attachment b    Valuation prepared by Landgate  

   


Council                                                                                      115                                                        10 December 2014

 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The National Broadband Network (NBN) is a Federal Government initiative to deliver a high speed broadband network across Australia utilising a combination of optical fibre, fixed wireless and satellite technology.  NBN Co. selected Busselton rural districts in 2011 as one of the first locations in Western Australia to receive the service.  Eleven NBN telecoms tower locations have been identified which includes the City-owned car park at Spinnaker Boulevard, Port Geographe, and the infrastructure proposed would serve the rural area east of Port Geographe and is the subject of this Council Report.

 

This report recommends that Council resolves to endorse the valuation of the proposed disposal by way of lease of the proposed site at Spinnaker Boulevard. City officers will then advertise details of the proposed lease with Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd, the national telecoms infrastructure partner of NBN Co, before returning to Council for formal approval of the arrangement in accordance with s.3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

 

Do not delete this line

BACKGROUND

 

The objective of establishing a National Broadband Network in Australia was first conceived in 2003 and the NBN Co. was established in April 2009. The rural districts of Busselton were selected in 2011 to trial a fixed wireless network, which is similar to a mobile broadband service but provides superior quality. NBN Co. gave a presentation to Councillors in February 2013 which provided the background to the proposed trial in the rural districts of Busselton.

 

NBN Co. consultants Daly International identified eleven locations across the rural districts of Busselton and concluded that a combination of using both existing infrastructure and greenfield sites was required to meet the necessary coverage and performance objectives. The current statuses of the locations that have been identified to date are listed below:

 

·         Port Geographe: 30m monopole in a car park (replacing a light pole) - City owned land – the subject of this report;

 

·         Ambergate: 40m monopole at Chapman Hill Road (private land owner);

 

·         Busselton: proposed 40m monopole at Rendezvous Road (private land owner);

 

·         Busselton West: co-location on existing Broadcast Australia tower, Caves Road (owned by Broadcast Australia Pty Ltd);

 

 

·         Dunsborough: co-location on existing Telstra tower (a portion of land excised from Big Rock Nature Reserve, Crown land);

 

·         Dunsborough North: No location yet identified;

 

·         Dunsborough South:  Private land identified on Balmoral Drive, Quindalup – 40m monopole

 

·         Dunsborough West: No location yet identified;

 

·         Yallingup East: A 45m monopole located on Creekview Reserve; 

 

·         Yallingup Siding: No location yet identified; and

 

·         Yallingup: Location identified on Reserve 8428,Yallingup Beach Road adjacent to existing Telstra tower: - 40m monopole

 

Spinnaker Boulevard is located in Port Geographe and the proposed telecoms tower will be constructed in a new secure compound in the main trailer car park No.1 (refer Attachment A: Location Plan).  The car park is City freehold land that was transferred to the City by the developers along with four other parcels of land within the marina development. 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 directs a local government on the disposal of property by way of, amongst other mechanisms, a lease.  Before approval by Council, the City must give local public notice of its intention to dispose of the property and including certain details about the proposed lease and consider any submissions which are received within the specified period. The required details for advertising include the market value of the lease. The City obtained a valuation from Landgate on 6 January 2015. Where the valuation the City has obtained is more than 6 months old, Council must resolve that it believes that the valuation still gives a true indication of the value at the time of the proposed disposition.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

There are no relevant plans or policies.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The negotiated lease in for a term of 20 years with a commencement rent of $10,000 per annum, with an annual increase of 2.5%. An independent rental valuation was obtained in January 2015, which indicated the market value was in the region of $12,000.  Should Crown Castle, as owner of the telecoms tower, negotiate with another telecoms operator to locate an additional facility on the tower, then the City will be entitled to an additional 30% of the passing rent per annum.

 

City officers believe that the proposed rent of $10,000 per annum (adjusted annually upwards by 2.5% plus 30% additional rent if Crown Castle sublets) is a reasonable outcome, despite being slightly lower than the market value shown in the valuation, primarily because there are limited potential parties who would be interested in taking a lease of the site given its location and nature, and as such there is a very limited market. In addition, it represents a significantly higher value than Crown Castle were initially prepared to pay

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendation of this report reflects Community Objectives 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 4.2 of the Strategic Community Plan 2013, which are:

 

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 social connections;

 

3.1   A strong, innovative and diversified economy that attracts people to live, work, invest and visit; and

 

4.2   A community that is well connected to its neighbours and the broader world, lobbying key partners to enhance our connectivity links including the implementation of the National Broadband Network.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer’s recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s Risk Assessment Framework. The assessment identifies ‘downside’ risks only, rather than ‘upside’ risks as well and no reportable risks were identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

NBN Co. has engaged the services of telecoms consultants Daly International and Ericsson, who prepared a Stakeholder Identification Checklist and Engagement Strategy in 2013.  A Community Information Session was held on 28th October 2013 at St. Mary’s Family Centre, Busselton.  This was widely advertised via a letter drop and newspaper advertisement and 15 people attended the session. The vast majority of attendees were in favour of the proposal.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The location of the proposed monopole telecoms tower at Port Geographe is on a raised planted landscape island within the main marina car park.  The 30m tower will replace an existing 12m light pole within the same landscape island and will have a matching light fitting attached.  After construction, the raised landscape island will be revegetated with native plants.  A secure telecoms compound will be constructed at the base of the tower measuring 8m x 5.3m. One car and trailer parking bay will be given up for the construction of the tower (from a total of 88 car and trailer parking spaces in car park No. 1).  The tower will have three antennas and power will be provided from a new supply from a nearby existing Western Power mini pillar.   

 

The anticipated delivery date for new wireless broadband sites in the district of rural Busselton is 2015/2016.  Port Geographe is a terminal site feeding off the regional fibre hub at a location that has already been secured at Ambergate. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The delivery of the National Broadband Network across the City of Busselton is a positive outcome for the City’s businesses, residents and visitors.  NBN Co. has selected Busselton as only one of a small number of locations to trial the roll-out of the fixed wireless network within mainland Australia. The opportunity to secure the required locations on a site-by-site basis contributes to the overall delivery of the NBN fixed wireless broadband network in rural Busselton.  The City-owned car park at Spinnaker Boulevard, Port Geographe offers the preferred location of one such tower and the opportunity for the City to secure an annual rent over a lease period of twenty years.

City officers believe that the valuation obtained in January 2015 gives a true indication of the market value of the property and that the commercially negotiated position with Crown Castle is a fair one and a good outcome for the City, accordingly, the Officer recommendation is that Council endorses the valuation of 6 January 2015 so that the City may proceed to advertise details of the proposed disposal.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may choose to not accept the Officer recommendation and instead instruct City officers to seek a new valuation.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should Council support the Officer Recommendation, then City officers will within 1 week advertise the details of the proposed lease.

Do not delete this line

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

  1. Declares that it believes that the market value of the proposed lease site, the subject of discussions with Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd, as shown in the valuation report obtained by the City on 6 January 2015, gives a true indication of the market value of the proposed lease.

 

            


Council                                                                                      119                                                        10 December 2014

16.             Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given

Nil   

 

Late items

10.7           Finance Committee - 4/12/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 OCTOBER 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

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 October 2014  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 4 December 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 October 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

 

Not applicable.

 

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

 

Not applicable.

 

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: 

Land and Buildings

Plant and Equipment

Furniture and Equipment

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 OCTOBER 2014

   

Operating Activity

 

§  Operating Revenue

 

As at 31 October 2014, there is a variance of +0.7% in total operating revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

+71%

+$604

Other Revenue

+31%

+$62

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

-14%

-$240

Profit on Asset Disposals

+628%

+$7

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (+$604K)

This variance is primarily attributable to:

§ The earlier than projected raising of an invoice for the (half-yearly) Busselton Jetty Licence Agreement instalment (+$346K)   

§ The receipt of an unbudgeted natural disaster claim in respect of September 2013 storm damage (+$99K)

§ The receipt of an unbudgeted Local Government Insurance Services Scheme surplus distribution (+$50K)

§ A range of minor grants and reimbursements received in advance of associated budget projections   

      

Other Revenue (+$62K)

This variance is primarily attributable to:

§ Fines and penalties revenue (primarily parking fines) is presently falling short of year to date budget estimates (-$20K)

§ A scheduled transfer of bond monies for Birchfields landscape maintenance is presently falling short of year to date budget estimates (-$23K)

§ The ‘accounting’ recognition of the value of a heavy plant item trade-in, with this revenue to be reversed in November (+$100K)  

 

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (-$240K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to:

§ The receipt of additional developer contributions over year to date budget estimates (+$555K)

§ The accounting recognition of a donated fire tender from DFES (+$117K)

§ Timing differences associated with the receipt of capital grant funding including, but not limited to, the Airport terminal building and other Airport related infrastructure works, and also coastal protection/ boat-ramp works (-$913K)

   

Profit on Asset Disposals (+$7K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to book profits on the sale, through auction, of obsolete computer equipment and sundry plant items. In most cases, the items had a zero written down value, with any funds received representing a book profit on disposal. It should be noted that this is an accounting entry only, and has no direct impact on the Net Current Position.       

 

§   Operating Expenditure

 

As at 31 October 2014, there is a variance of -9.8% in total operating expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Materials and Contracts

-38%

-$2,147

Utilities

-24%

-$178

Depreciation on Non-current Assets

+19%

+$657

Insurance Expenses

-12%

-$91

Allocations

-17%

-$107

Interest Expenses

-34%

-$113

Loss on Asset Disposals

+280%

+$34

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Materials and Contracts (-$2,147K)

Due to the nature of this expenditure category, variances are evident across a broad range of activities. However, the major variances, which are predominantly due to timing differences, include:

§ Collective contractor expenditure is presently $1,180K below year to date budget estimates and includes, amongst others, recycling contractors (-$346K), Busselton Jetty contractors (-$169K), coastal protection related contractors (-$145K), Vasse & Provence specified area rate contract maintenance works (-$167K) and also numerous building contractor related works (e.g. Nautical Lady Lighthouse demolition of $150K)

§ Computing related expenditure (e.g. software licence renewals) is presently $235K below year to date budget estimates  

§ Collective consultancy expenditure is presently $207K below year to date budget estimates

§ Building maintenance services (including contract cleaning and general maintenance) are presently $126K below year to date budget estimates

§ Leasing expenditure is presently $97K below year to date budget estimates

 

The remainder of the variance is attributable to a variety of budget shortfalls in contractor expenditures, material purchases, legal expenses, maintenance of plant and equipment and non capital asset acquisitions. However, as previously mentioned, the current collective variance is primarily as a result of budget timing matters at this juncture.    

 

Utilities (-$178K)

This variance is primarily attributable to timing differences in the levying of utility invoices, including water consumption charges, and to a lesser extent electricity charges. As a result of the repealing of the carbon tax, it is estimated that the City’s electricity charges will reduce by up to $70K during 2014/15. However the actual extent of any savings will be dependent upon, amongst others, overall electricity usage during the financial year and the associated performance against budget estimates.           

 

Depreciation on Non-current Assets (+$657K)

This variance is primarily attributable to the Buildings fair value valuation (as at 30 June 2014), coupled with the significant value of donated assets brought to account as at last financial year end. The depreciation budget is developed reasonably early in the annual budget process, based on financial year end projections. Whilst generally accurate, this approach has this year been impacted by the aforementioned activities, the outcomes of which were not known until very late in the 2013/14 financial year. It should be noted however that depreciation expense is reversed as a non cash adjustment, and as such has no net effect on the Net Current Position.                       

 

Insurance Expenses (-$91K)

This variance is primarily attributable to property and plant insurance premiums, which presently reflect variances of -$46K and -$52K respectively. Whilst a potential saving may be achieved in respect of the property premium, the City’s insurer does issue subsequent invoices in respect of plant insurance, to reflect plant adjustments throughout the course of the financial year.                  

 

Allocations (-$107K)

This activity incorporates numerous internal accounting allocations. Whilst the majority of individual allocations are administration based (and clear each month), the activity also includes plant and overhead related allocations. Due to the nature of these line items, the activity reflects as a net offset against operating expenditure, in recognition of those expenses that are of a capital nature (and need to be recognised accordingly). Variances, particularly early in the financial year, are not uncommon, as the activity is highly dependent upon a range of works related factors.                

 

Interest Expenses (-$113K)

This variance is attributable to the initial repayment on the Civic and Administration Centre loan facility. The facility was drawn on 5th August 2014 and in order to have an initial repayment on 30 September 2014, the interest component of the first repayment was lower than budget projections. However, this meant that the initial principal repayment was higher than projected in the budget, as is reflected in the ‘Total Loan Repayments – Principal’ capital expenditure activity.           

 

Loss on Asset Disposals (+$34K)

This variance is due to book losses on the sale, through auction, of obsolete computer equipment, sundry plant items and a range of light vehicles. The predominant (single) book loss ($11K) relates to the write off of a boat ramp structure at Scout Road. It should be noted that this is an accounting entry only, and has no direct impact on the Net Current Position.       

 

Capital Activity

 

§  Capital Revenue

 

As at 31 October 2014, there is a variance of +1.5% in total capital revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Transfers from Restricted Assets

+30%

+$319

 

A summary of the above variance is provided as follows:

 

Transfers from Restricted Assets (+$319K)

This variance is attributable to the (unbudgeted) repayment of bonds and deposits. Due to the nature of the transactions, this variance has no direct impact on the Net Current Position.    

 

§  Capital Expenditure

 

As at 31 October 2014, there is a variance of -9.8% in total capital expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold: 

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Plant and Equipment

-28%

-$122

Furniture and Office Equipment

-39%

-$61

Infrastructure

-64%

-$3,388

Total Loan Repayments - Principal

+29%

+$89

Advances to Community Groups

-100%

-$30

Transfers to Restricted Assets

+172%

+$593

 

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 Office Equipment

§   Infrastructure

 

A summary of the remaining variances is provided as follows:

 

Total Loan Repayments – Principal (+$89K)

This variance is attributable to the initial repayment on the Civic and Administration Centre loan facility. The facility was drawn on 5th August 2014 and in order to have an initial repayment on 30 September 2014, the principal component of the first repayment was higher than budget projections. However, this meant that the initial interest repayment was lower than projected in the budget, as is reflected in the ‘Interest Expenses’ operating expenditure activity.           

 

Advances to Community Groups (-$30K)

This matter relates to the drawdown of the budgeted self-supporting loan of $30K in favour of the Busselton Football and Sportsman’s Club; to carry out repairs to the Bovell Park football clubrooms. It has been advised that the repairs/ renovations are proposed to commence early next calendar year, after the Southbound event.        

 

Transfers to Restricted Assets (+$593K)

The favourable variance is primarily due to the receipt of developer contributions (predominantly pertaining to the Vasse Newtown and Via Vasse subdivisions) totalling approximately $853K, along with bond and deposit payments totalling approximately $86K; both against a year to date budget of $346K). It should be noted however that performance in this activity has no direct impact on the City’s net current position.  

 

BUDGET VARIATIONS AND OTHER ‘KNOWNS’

 

§ Actual principal and interest repayments on the Civic and Administration Centre borrowing facility for 2014/15 will be approximately $84K less than the annual budget projection by financial year end. This represents a budget saving in this amount.

 

§ The natural disaster claim (September 2013 storm) represents windfall revenue in the current financial year of $99K, as the associated expenses were incurred in the previous financial year.   

 

§ As noted in the Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions comments, the City has recently received an unbudgeted scheme surplus distribution of $50K from Local Government Insurance Services, based on the scheme’s 2013/14 financial year performance. Whilst this represents windfall revenue, the City has been required to make a further (unbudgeted) worker’s compensation premium adjustment payment of approximately $31K (in respect of the 2010/11 fund year), which partly offsets the surplus distribution.         

  

CONCLUSION

 

The City’s financial performance to the end of October 2014 is considered satisfactory, with no adverse trends evident at this time. The major operating revenues (i.e. rates and fees and charges) are both tracking in line with budget estimates. Whilst more significant variances are apparent in the operating expenditure area (e.g. materials and contracts), this level of variance is not uncommon at this time of the financial year. With regards to capital activities, both revenue and expenditure activities are ‘notionally’ inflated by developer contributions and bond and deposit movements, albeit these have no direct impact on the net current position. Furthermore, and whilst the capital acquisition and construction budget is presently some $3.5M below year to date budget estimates, this is generally in line with expectations at this time of the year.  

 

OPTIONS

 

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

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

NA.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

Note:                 As detailed in the Officer Report , the natural disaster claim reimbursement of $99K and the Insurance Scheme Surplus distribution of $50K, both represent windfall revenue in the 2014/15 financial year. Also, and primarily due to the lower than projected interest rate obtained for the Civic and Administration Centre borrowing, net loan repayments for 2014/15 will be approximately $84K less than the adopted budget projections. The Committee’s desire was to have the value of the savings and reduced (net) loan repayments quarantined, via a transfer to the Infrastructure Development Reserve.          

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 1

                                                                                        ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Amends its 2014/25 annual budget to recognise the following unbudgeted revenues:

 

Description

Account Number

2014/15 Adopted

Budget

$

2014/15 Amended Budget

$

Variance

$

Roads –  Reimbursements: Storm Damage Sept 2013

545.M9996.1515.2043

             0

99,092

+99,092

Financial Services – Insurance Reimbursements

211.10200.1509.0000

0

50,336

+50,336

TOTAL

 

0

149,428

+149,248

 

2.    Amends it 2014/15 annual budget to reflect reduced (net) loan repayments associated with the Civic &

Administration Centre borrowing facility of $18M, as follows: 

 

Description

Account Number

2014/15

Adopted

Budget

$

2014/15 Amended Budget

$

Variance

$

Finance & Borrowing (P4) – Interest Expenses

213.10221.3555.0000

934,790

720,244

-214,546

Finance & Borrowing (P4) – Principal Repayments

213.10221.8601.0000

524,301

644,620

+120,319

Finance & Borrowing (P4) – Guarantee Fee

213.10221.3663.0000

0

10,308

+10,308

TOTAL

 

1,459,091

1,375,172

-83,919

 

3.    Amends its 2014/15 annual budget to reflect the aforementioned savings and expenditure reductions,

totalling $233,167, being transferred to the Infrastructure Development Reserve

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 2 AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      127                                                        10 December 2014

10.8           Finance Committee - 4/12/2014 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – OCTOBER 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

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 - October 2014  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 4 December 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 October 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 M109840 - M110115, EF036687 - EF037146, T007105 - T007109, and DD002288 - DD002322, together totalling $6,206,164.60.

 

 


Council                                                                                      129                                                        10 December 2014

10.9           Finance Committee - 4/12/2014 - BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REPORT - SCHOOL FOOTPATHS SWDC UNSPENT GRANT FUNDS 

SUBJECT INDEX:

 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Linked networks of cycleways and pedestrian paths providing alternative transport options.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Engineering and Facilities Services; Operations Se

ACTIVITY UNIT:

 

REPORTING OFFICER:

Engineering Management Accountant - Stephen Wesley

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Jensen Way Footpath and Parking

Attachment b    Jensen Way Car Parking Plan

Attachment c    Kaloorup Road Drop Off Area

Attachment d   Keenan Street Path - Dunsborough  

 

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

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report seeks Council approval to amend the original budget to bring to account four new projects to be completed this financial year, these projects to be funded from unspent South West Development grant monies currently held by the City.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The City received $1.395m in grant funding from the South West Development Commission in financial year 2012/13. These funds were provided to undertake pedestrian improvements within the City as detailed in the table below.  

 

Project Description

Original Budget

Actual Cost $

Under / (Over) Budget variance

Footpath on Bussell Highway – Mac Intyre to Ray Ave

75,000

58,719

16,281

Footpath on Bussell Highway - Queen Elizabeth Ave to West St

60,000

58,800

1,200

Footpath on Bussell Highway - Breeden Street to Earnshaw Rd

115,000

63,372

51,628

Footpath on Queen Elizabeth Ave - Grace Ct to Recreation Lane

90,000

65,975

24,025

Footpath on Bussell Highway - Barnard Road to Hadfield Ave

90,000

41,036

48,964

Vasse Footpaths and Bridge Network

821,000

842,342

(21,342)

Ray Village Pedestrian Crossing

47,565

30,595

16,970

Peel Terrace Pedestrian Crossing

31,570

31,570

 -  

Peel Terrace Bus Embayment

9,000

9,000

 -  

Fairway Drive Pedestrian Crossing

55,865

55,865

-  

Totals

1,395,000

 1,257,273

  137,726

 

All of the projects associated with the original grant funding agreement have been completed with the exception of a small portion of the Vasse Footpaths Network.

The City is awaiting road widening works and the construction of a roundabout on the Bussell Highway to be completed by Main Roads in order that the last 130 meter section of path can be delivered. It will link into the existing paths network. A preliminary costing for these works is estimated at approximately $10,000.    

 

Upon completion of the missing link there will be in the order of $127,726 in unspent grant funds remaining. (This is the amount shown in the “variance column” of the table above reduced by the $10,000 yet to be outlaid)

 

Permission has been sort and subsequently granted by the South West Development Commission to assign the remaining grant monies to undertake further pedestrian enhancements close to three separate school zones. The proposed projects are detailed below;   

 

Project 1 & 2 - West Busselton Primary footpath and Car Parking        Estimated Cost $100,500

 

The West Busselton Primary School has adequate pedestrian accessed-ways with the exception of the eastern approach off Craig Street along Jensen Way. Currently, pedestrians are required to walk approximately 140m on the roadway to access the school via the sports oval. Completing this link will provide safer access to the school and sports oval. This is estimated to cost in the order of $30,000.

 

In addition to the new path it is proposed that approximately 39 car parking bays be constructed along the southern side of oval adjacent to Jensen Way. Cars are consistently parking on the verge, thus these works will formalise parking in this area. These works are estimated to cost in the order of $70,500.

 

See ATTACHMENT A & B showing the location of the proposed path and car parking bays.

 

Project 2 - Vasse Primary School Drop-off                                          Estimated Cost $10,000

 

The Vasse Primary School has been experienced rapid growth with several large housing and commercial sub-division developments in the area. This has increased traffic volumes on the surrounding roads and significant congestion around the school at peak times. The intent of this project is to formalise a drop-off and pick-up area on Kaloorup Road to help reduce the existing congestion. It will also reduce the need for additional parking and improve traffic flow within the area in general.

Supporting the construction of this infrastructure is the success of a recently trialed drop-off and pick-up area on Kaloorup Road. ATTACHMENT C            shows the site of the proposed drop-off point.

 

Dunsborough Primary School new path                                                           Estimated Cost $17,226

 

Access to the Dunsborough Primary School is predominately by Keenan Street, a small narrow one way street shared by buses, cars, cyclists and pedestrians.

 

The high volume of traffic causes significant congestion and conflict at peak times. Child safety has been identified as a concern by the schools Parents and Citizens' (P&C) Association and to some extent the Department of Education.

It is being proposed that a short section of additional path be built adjacent to the existing path on Keenan street to alleviate conflict and congestion be separating pedestrians and cyclist.

It should be pointed out that an unofficial dirt path in the proposed location is already being used as can be seen on ATTACHMENT D.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act refers to expenditure from the municipal fund that is not included in the annual budget. In the context of this report, where no budget allocation exists, expenditure is not to be incurred until such time as it is authorised in advance, by an absolute majority decision of the Council. 

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Nil

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The existing budget has $137,726 recorded against Cost Code F0042 titled, Vasse Footpath Network, as a carry-over from the previous year.

 

This budget amendment seeks Councils approval to reassign $127,726 of these monies against the following four new projects.

 

1.    West Busselton Primary footpath                                          $30,000

2.    West Busselton Primary Car Parking                                                  $70,500

3.    Vasse Primary School Drop-off                                                             $10,000

4.    Dunsborough Primary School new path                                           $17,226

TOTAL                                                                                                 $127,726

 

The proposed budget adjustment will have no financial implications on the City’s net budgeted financial position.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

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

 

There is a financial risk, as there is with most undertakings that the estimated preliminary project costs could potentially exceed the budget allocated in lieu of detailed design and costings. If additional unforeseeable costs eventuate the City will need to fund the difference. 

 

CONSULTATION

 

There has been consultation with the South West Development Commission, West Busselton Primary, Vasse Primary School and Dunsborough Primary School.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Council approval is sought to amend the original budget to bring to account the four new projects to be completed this financial year, these projects to be funded from unspent South West Development grant monies currently held by the City.

City officers have been working closely with the SWDC and the schools as detailed in the report to develop these projects.

 

CONCLUSION

 

This report seeks Councils approval to;

1.    Approve the four new projects so works can commence.

2.    Adjust the existing budget allocation accordingly.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may determine not to accept the new projects or amend the Officer Recommendation in any way they deem suitable. Alternatively, Council could return the unspent grant monies to the Commission.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should the Officer Recommendation be endorsed, the associated budget amendments will be processed within a month of being approved.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council endorse the budget amendments as follows:

 

·    Reduce the expenditure budget on the existing project F0042 by $127,726

account string 541.F0042.3280.0000

 

·    Add expenditure to new project titled, Jensen Way Footpath (West Busselton Primary)  $30,000

account string 541.NEW.3280.0000

 

·    Add expenditure to new project titled, Jensen Way Oval Parking (West Busselton Primary)$70,500

account string 541.NEW.3280.0000

 

·    Add expenditure to new project titled, Kaloorup Road Vehicle Drop-off area (Vasse Primary School)  $10,000

account string 541.NEW.3280.0000

 

·    Add expenditure to new project titled, Keenan Street Path (Dunsborough Primary School) $17,226

account string 541.NEW.3280.0000

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      133                                                        10 December 2014

10.10        Finance Committee - 4/12/2014 - GEOGRAPHE LEISURE CENTRE - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST AIR HANDLING

SUBJECT INDEX:

GLC Extension

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Community Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Community Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Community Services - Maxine Palmer

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

 

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

 

PRÉCIS

 

The purpose of this report is to seek approval to amend the 2014-2015 Geographe Leisure Centre (GLC) to transfer $18,169 from the GLC building maintenance services budget (336-10591-3110-0000) to the GLC extensions capital budget (126-B9554-3280-000) for the provision of air handling in the GLC change rooms and Universal Access Toilets (UATs).

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The existing air handling in the GLC change rooms consists of outside air blowing into the area with no evacuation system. This was a ‘quick fix’ installed about two years ago to address the problem of condensation and moisture build up that was causing rot, mould and staining to all the change room walls, floors and ceilings. The fix hasn’t completely resolved the condensation problem and has caused repeated customer complaints especially during winter and first thing in the mornings from elderly users and families with children when cold air blows into the change rooms and showers.

 

CDJ Engineering and Consultancy Services Ltd, installed the Geothermal system at the GLC, which included air handling in the pool hall. CDJ was also appointed through the GLC expansion project to provide air handling into the new gym, crèche, allied health suites, cycle room and existing group fitness room.  Whilst not necessarily required at this point in time, the expansion project scope did not include the change rooms and UATs, however it was deemed advantageous to undertake the works in conjunction with the expansion project so that cost efficiencies could be taken advantage of. 

 

The contingency budget for the expansion project has insufficient funds to cater for these works, however, resolution to the lack of air flow in the change room has been included in the GLC Business Plan endorsed by Council in March 2014, and still remains a priority for the GLC’s operating budget. CDJ was requested to provide a quote to install air handling in the change rooms and UATs.  CDJ quoted $18,169 which factored in savings that would be enabled by bulk procurement of equipment if an order was placed at the same time as the equipment needed for the health suites, offices and stadium air handling systems.

 

To enable CDJ to purchase the equipment in bulk and achieve the desired cost savings, a purchase order was raised from the GLC’s building maintenance operating budget. $9,700 has since been invoiced for the equipment. A subsequent transfer of funds is therefore recommended to transfer $18,169 from the GLC building maintenance services budget (336-10591-3110-0000) to the GLC extensions capital budget (126-B9554-3280-000) to ensure the project remains within budget.

 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act refers to expenditure from the municipal fund that is not included in the annual budget. In the context of this report, where no budget allocation exists, expenditure is not to be incurred until such time as it is authorized in advance, by an absolute majority decision of the Council.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

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.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The following budget amendment is recommended, noting this results in a net neutral outcome to Council.

 

Description

 Account String

2014/15 Adopted Budget  $

 2014/15 Amended Budget (PROPOSED)  $

Variance $

GLC building maintenance services

336-10591-3110-0000

$35,280

$17,111

-$18,169

GLC extensions capital budget

126-B9554-3280-000

$889,331

$907,500

$18,169

Net Variance

 

$0

$0

$0

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendations has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment identifies ‘downside’ risks only, rather than ‘upside’ risks as well. The officer recommendation is considered to be “low” risk.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Nil

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The ‘quick fix’ to enable some air flow into the GLC change rooms has reduced the condensation build up, although not completely. Moisture from the hot showers is still creating condensation, causing mould to grow which will stain walls and ceilings and eventually will result in rotted ceiling tiles. The cold air blowing into the change rooms has also resulted in increasing customer complaints.

 

Since the Geothermal air handling, installed by CDJ, has been operating in the pool hall the condensation issues have been resolved. CDJ are able to install an extension of the Geothermal system in the change rooms and UATs which will also deliver ambient air temperatures year round in these areas and address the risk of new fittings and freshly painted walls and ceilings being damaged by further mould and staining due to condensation build up.

 

The 2014/15 adopted GLC capital budget incorporates $30,420 for the purchase of specific equipment needed to fit out the new gymnasium.  Utilising these funds for the air handling system will limit the scope of the completed gymnasium it is therefore not recommended that this budget be utilised to fund the works. The GLC’s 2014/15 adopted building maintenance budget (336-10591-3110-0000) is $59,095. This budget comprises of expenses for both planned and unplanned maintenance. The drawing of funds from this budget will enable CDJ to purchase the equipment in bulk and achieve the desired cost savings.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Officer’s recommend that the 2014/15 adopted budget be amended through the transfer of $18,169 from the GLC building maintenance services budget (336-10591-3110-0000) to the GLC extensions capital budget (126-B9554-3280-000) to allow for the upgrading of the air handling system in the change rooms and UATs, capitalizing on cost efficiencies resulting from the GLC expansion project. 

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may determine not to support the Officer’s recommendation and resolve not to provide air handling in the GLC change rooms and UATs. However, $9,700 has already been invoiced to purchase the equipment at a reduced cost and therefore retention or disposal of this equipment would therefore need to be negotiated.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should the officer recommendation be endorsed, budget amendments will occur in December 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

That the Council:

 

1.    Approves an amendment to the 2014/15 budget on the following base:

 

Description

 Account String

2014/15 Adopted Budget  $

 2014/15 Amended Budget (PROPOSED)  $

Variance $

GLC building maintenance services

336-10591-3110-0000

$35,280

$17,111

-$18,169

GLC extensions capital budget

126-B9554-3280-000

$889,331

$907,500

$18,169

Net Variance

 

$0

$0</