COB-RGB

 

 

 

 

 

Council  Agenda

 

 

 

25 March 2015

 

 

 

 

 

ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

 

 

 


CITY OF BUSSELTON

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA – 25 March 2015

 

 

 

TO:                  THE MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

 

 

NOTICE is given that a meeting of the Council  will be held in the the Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton on Wednesday, 25 March 2015, commencing at 5.30pm .

 

Your attendance is respectfully requested.

 

 

 

 

 

Naomi searle

 

A/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

13 March 2015


CITY OF BUSSELTON

Agenda FOR THE Council  MEETING TO BE HELD ON 25 March 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors. 5

2....... Attendance. 5

Apologies. 5

Approved Leave of Absence. 5

3....... Prayer. 5

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 11 March 2015. 5

Committee Meetings. 5

9.2          Minutes of the Community Resource Centre Management Committee held 23 February 2015  5

9.3          Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee held 25 February 2015. 6

9.4          Minutes of the Finance Committee held 5 March 2015. 6

9.5          Minutes of the Audit Committee held 12 March 2015. 7

10..... Reports of Committee. 8

10.1        Airport Advisory Committee - 25/02/2015 - BUSSELTON REGIONAL AIRPORT UPDATE REPORT. 8

10.2        Airport Advisory Committee - 25/02/2015 - BUSSELTON REGIONAL AIRPORT PROPOSAL FOR HELICOPTER PARKING AREA EXTENSION.. 22

10.3        Airport Advisory Committee - 25/02/2015 - BUSSELTON REGIONAL AIRPORT - NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW... 25

10.4        Finance Committee - 5/03/2015 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 JANUARY 2015. 33

10.5        Finance Committee - 5/03/2015 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – JANUARY 2015. 57

10.6        Finance Committee - 5/03/2015 - DRAFT LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN: 2015/16 - 2024/25. 84

10.7        Audit Committee - 12/03/2015 - COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN 2014. 134

11..... Planning and Development Services Report. 150

11.1        PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE VASSE NEWTOWN DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS STAGING PLAN (2011) AND VASSE NEWTOWN OVERALL DEVELOPMENT GUIDE PLAN (2014)  150

11.2        LOT 17 WEST STREET LANDUSE CONCEPT PLAN.. 192

11.3        DA14/0367: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO REFUSE OVERHEIGHT OUTBUILDING WITH REDUCED SETBACKS AT LOT 6 (HSE 31) CLOVER CRESCENT, BUSSELTON   202

12..... Engineering and Work Services Report. 227

Nil

13..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 228

13.1        MARKETING AND EVENTS REFERENCE GROUP OUTCOMES. 228

13.2        COMMUNITY SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND - SMALL GRANTS ROUND SUMMER  233

14..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 259

14.1        LOCKE ESTATE VACANT LEASEHOLD SITE (ASSESSMENT OF EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST AND PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT). 259

15..... Chief Executive Officer's Report. 330

15.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 330

16..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 339

Nil

17..... Confidential Reports. 339

Nil

18..... Questions from Members. 339

19..... Public Question Time. 339

20..... Next Meeting Date. 339

21..... Closure. 339

 


Council                                                                                      5                                                                     25 March 2015

 

1.               Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors

2.               Attendance 

Apologies

 

Nil

Approved Leave of Absence

 

Nil

3.               Prayer

                   The prayer will be delivered by Pastor Nigel Wittwer from Hope Christian Church.

4.               Public Question Time

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice 

Public Question Time

5.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member 

Announcements by other Members at the invitation of the Presiding Member

6.               Application for Leave of Absence

7.               Petitions and Presentations 

8.               Disclosure Of Interests

9.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes 

Previous Council Meetings

9.1             Minutes of the Council  held on 11 March 2015

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Council  Meeting held 11 March 2015 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Committee Meetings

9.2             Minutes of the Community Resource Centre Management Committee held 23 February 2015

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)         That the minutes of a meeting of the Community Resource Centre Management                Committee held on 23 February 2015 be received.

 

2)         That the Council notes the outcomes of the Community Resource Centre Management Committee held on 23 February 2015 being:

 

a)            The Committee discussed the feasibility and cost benefit of converting one of the meeting rooms to another lease area.

 

b)            The Property and Corporate Compliance Coordinator provided the Committee with an update on the hire of meeting rooms at the Centre.  

 

 

 

 

9.3             Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee held 25 February 2015

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)         That the minutes of a meeting of the Airport Advisory Committee held on 25        February 2015 be received.

 

2)         That the Council notes the outcomes of the Airport Advisory Committee meeting               held on 25 February 2015 being:

            

             a)            The Busselton Regional Airport Update Report is presented for Council                                 consideration at Item 10.1 of this agenda.

 

             b)            The Busselton Regional Airport Proposal for Helicopter Parking Area                                      Extension Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.2 of this                               agenda.

 

             c)            The Busselton Regional Airport - Noise Management Plan Review Charges                          Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.3 of this agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.4             Minutes of the Finance Committee held 5 March 2015

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)         That the minutes of a meeting of the Finance Committee held on 5 March 2015 be received.

 

2)         That the Council notes the outcomes of the Finance Committee meeting held on 5 March 2015 being:

 

a)            The Committee noted the Information Bulletin – January 2015

 

b)            The Financial Activity Statements – Period Ending 31 January 2015 Item is presented for Council  consideration at Item 10.4 of this agenda

 

c)            The List of Payments Made – January 2015 Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.5 of this agenda

 

d)            The Draft Long Term Financial Plan: 2015/16 – 2024/25 Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.6 of this agenda

 

e)            The Director, Engineering and Works Services and the Engineering Management Accountant discussed with the Committee proposed amendments to the Waste Services Policy.

 

 

 

9.5             Minutes of the Audit Committee held 12 March 2015

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)    That the minutes of a meeting of the Audit Committee held on 12 March 2015 be received.

 

2)    That the Council notes the outcomes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 12 March 2015 being:

 

a)      The Compliance Audit Return 2014 item is presented for Council consideration at item 10.7 of this agenda.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      9                                                                     25 March 2015

10.             Reports of Committee

10.1           Airport Advisory Committee - 25/02/2015 - BUSSELTON REGIONAL AIRPORT UPDATE REPORT

SUBJECT INDEX:

Busselton Regional Airport

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Busselton regional Airport

REPORTING OFFICER:

Airport Operations Coordinator - David Russell

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Attachment A: Exercise Collapse Debrief

Attachment b    Attachment B: EMV Letter  

 

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 25 February 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report provides an overview on the Busselton Regional Airport (BRA) operations and activities for the reporting period 1 July to 31 December 2014.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Regular Passenger Transport (RPT) flights have operated on Fridays and Sundays on the Perth/Busselton/Albany return services up until the 5 December 2014 when Virgin Australia Regional Airlines (VARA) withdrew these services. The Wednesday evening RPT service continues to operate.

 

RPT Passenger numbers for the reporting period 1 July – 31 December 2014 are as follows;

                     

 

DEPARTING RPT PASSENGERS

ARRIVING RPT PASSENGERS

 

2013

2014

2013

2014

JULY

41

82

163

213

AUGUST

57

67

157

199

SEPTEMBER

62

56

142

206

OCTOBER

52

98

195

215

NOVEMBER

72

51

193

230

DECEMBER

61

16

178

154

TOTAL

345

370

1028

1217

 

                                        

                       

 

                                                Total RPT passengers    July / December 2013 = 1373

                                                Total RPT passengers    July / December 2014 = 1587

 

 

FIFO/Charter passenger numbers have continued to increase through the BRA. The following table indicates the number of FIFO/Charter passengers travelling through the BRA for the reporting period 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2014;

 

 

Departing FIFO Passengers

Arriving FIFO Passengers

 

2013

2014

2013

2014

JULY

1017

1079

838

830

AUGUST

871

969

530

654

SEPTEMBER

980

1077

400

821

OCTOBER

1213

1039

1091

890

NOVEMBER

815

1054

701

862

DECEMBER

792

1141

756

1021

TOTAL

5680

6359

4316

5078

                                                       

                                                   

                            

 

                                                       

                                                         Total FIFO passengers July / December 2013 = 9996

                                                         Total FIFO passengers July / December 2014 = 11437

 

The total number of FIFO services is currently at 14 flights per week. This is a reduction of 3 flights per week due to the withdrawal of the Star Aviation’s King Air service on Monday and Tuesdays.

 

A total of 2,633 aircraft landings were recorded for the first half of 2014/2015 financial year, a slight increase from the numbers reported for the same period in 2013/2014 of 2,564 landings as highlighted in the following table;

 

                               

 

 

There have been instances of licence renewal flights conducted by the emergency services and regular FIFO charter operators. Whilst the City does not restrict licence renewal flights for emergency services or FIFO operators, Officers actively manage these operations. Voice recordings of all aircraft activities using the BRA are used to assist Officers in addressing complaints received from the public regarding flight operations. Officers have recorded licence renewal training in the last six months for the RFDS, Aero Rescue, WAPOL, RAAF and a number of reportable non-compliant flight training operators. As such the City has reported three instances of non-compliant flight training to the Office of Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) in the last two (2) months and Officers are working with the City’s Legal Officer to investigate further potential action with these operators.

 

Under the Noise Management Plan (NMP) the City is required to submit its annual compliance report to the OEPA prior to 22 September 2015. Of the City’s allowable twelve (12) non-conforming activities (authorised by the City under Section 3.3.3 Approval for Non-Conforming Activity of the NMP 2012) five (5) have been approved since the beginning of the reporting period (23 June 2014).

 

At the August 2014 Airport Advisory Committee meeting staff reported that a CASA audit was carried out on 25 – 27 June 2014, which focussed on aerodrome management and compliance with the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Part 139.

 

A total of ten (10) non-compliances were reported ranging from issues with documentation to the runway strip and RESA. All reported non-compliances had already been identified and works had either been planned to take place or were in progress at the time of the inspection audit. Currently nine (9) of the ten (10) non- compliances have been acquitted with the last waiting on the next Local Emergency Management Committee (LEMC) meeting in March 2015 to accept the new Aerodrome Emergency Plan currently being developed.

 

There has been a slight increase in the number of verbal complaints received over the reporting period from customers using the car park with the reliability of the payment machines and lack of credit card /EFTPOS facilities being the main concern. There has been a reduction in the instances of damage to the exit barriers and people attempting to exit without paying due to the deployment of bollards near the exit barriers and City Officers working closely with the Rio Tinto Busselton office to educate FIFO passengers on the correct procedures regarding car parking at the BRA. Additionally, Officers have been working with Romex (automated car parking system provider) to investigate options to provide EFTPOS/credit card facilities in the next financial year.

 

The BRA bi-annual emergency exercise was conducted in November 2014 involving Local Emergency Services, City staff and the Busselton Repertory Club members who acted as passengers in simulating an F100 aircraft crash on landing. The exercise was extremely successful in that it covered all aspects required should there be an aircraft incident at the BRA.  Hot and cold debrief reports have provided an insight into deficiencies and improvements to infrastructure required to streamline operations in an emergency situation (see attachment A).

 

The bush fire season has been extreme this year with the Northcliffe and Boddington Fires; the BRA was utilised to its full capacity on the weekend of 7th  and 8th  February with two (2) large water tanker aircraft (C130Q  Hercules, Avro RJ-85) from Emergency Management Victoria operating from the main apron area supported by two B-double trucks carrying fire retardant. The air tankers were dropping fire retardant to assist firefighters on the ground in the Northcliffe area and performed eleven (11) sorties from the BRA dropping 80,000L of retardant. The BRA team responded to the call out to assist and were onsite during the operations to monitor any damage to the pavements areas given the weight of the aircraft tanker. Post operations inspections have shown that there is minimal pavement surface damage which was to be expected given the high temperatures experienced at the time of operations. The City has also received a letter of thanks and commendation from Emergency Management Victorian department for the assistance received in mobilising and performing the firefighting operations (see attachment B).  

 

BRA staff have been approached by AV8 Charity Flight for a waiver of landing and passenger facilitation fees of approximately $4,600 for 156 people flying on two (2) F100 aircraft in May 2015. The flights are in support of the Variety WA fundraiser event.  It is recommended that the Council waives these fees.

 

In terms of capital works projects, the following list below will be undertaken, or have been completed, in the 2014/2015 financial year;

 

·   Terminal expansion; incorporates a new departure lounge, upgrade of public facilities, and upgrade of baggage collection area.  The project is 99% complete with finishing touches to be finalised before the official opening in May 2015. The total project cost was $1,412,000 with $516,338 funded by the Department of Transport Regional Development Scheme (RADS), $500,000 funded from Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF) Round three, and the remaining funded by the City of Busselton. Construction commenced in early April 2014 with the published practical completion date as 4 April 2015, however works for practicable completion were finished ahead of schedule with hand over in December 2014.

 

The passenger flow for both FIFO and RPT operations has improved the passenger experience, with feedback received from arriving and departing passengers being very positive. With the arrival of new check-in counters and baggage system, queuing times have been reduced, and the addition of air-conditioning to the terminal has improved the comfort of the passengers and public.  The arrival of new terminal seating, boarding gate counters and internal and external signage are all due in March and April, together with the completion of landscaping and external lighting.  The official opening of the terminal is scheduled for May 2015.

 

·   Jet A1 fuel facility; at a total project cost $700,000, 50% funded from RADS and 50% funded by the City. Contracts are due to be forwarded to Air BP for signing in mid February 2015.

 

·   Apron expansion; the completion of this project will facilitate F100 aircraft parking.  The total budgeted project cost was $590,000, with the City contributing 50% and the remaining 50% funded by RADS. The tender was awarded to BMD Construction at a total cost of $695,167, with the balance funded from the City’s airport infrastructure reserve. The project commenced in December 2014, with the detailed design signed off in early February and construction commencing 18 February.  The completion date is scheduled for early May 2015.

 

·   General Aviation Taxiway Overlay; the total budgeted project cost was $217,492 with the City contributing 50% of the total, and RADS contributing the remaining 50%. This project also involved the widening of two (2) taxi-lanes from the GA taxiway to the hangars to facilitate the building of new hangars in the future. The project is complete and the actual budget spend totalled $142,805.

 

·   Helicopter parking pad; the total budget project cost was $11,500 with DFES, MCDermotts and the City all contributing a third towards the total costs. The works are now complete with a budget overspend taking the total cost to $16,301.59. City Officers have confirmed with DFES and McDermotts that they will contribute a third of the total cost, (including the additional costs) leaving the City with an overspend amount of $1,600 which can be funded through a transfer of funds from the operational budget (included as a separate report).

 

City Officers have submitted funding applications to the RADS 2015-2017 funding round for the following projects.  Successful applications should be announced in March 2015:

 

·    BRA Master Plan (2011-31) update. The current Master Plan completed in 2011 needs to be updated, this project would be planned for 2015/16 once the outcome of the SWDC Business Case has been announced. The Master Plan would either be revised to incorporate Stage 2 of the SWDC business case or new strategies to support and develop the current Stage 1b upgrade. At a total budget of $21,615, Officers will incorporate this work into the 2015/16 budget.

 

·    BRA Asset Management Plan; further development of the draft plan. One of the future requirements of the RADS funding programme is to have an Asset Management Plan. The existing BRA Asset Management Plan requires further analysis prior to being finalised and presented to the Council for endorsement. At a total budget of $31,488 Officers will incorporate this work into the 2015/16 budget.

 

City Officers have completed hangar inspections of all three (3) hangers to ensure compliance with leasing arrangements. A number of non-compliances were identified and notification letters will be sent to the hangar groups with identified timeframes in which to resolve the issues.  These inspections will be an ongoing requirement to ensure the hangars are being used for the intended purpose of as stated in the lease, and that building and safety regulations are being maintained.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The BRA operates in accordance with the following; Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005, CASA MOS 139, Council’s Transport Security Plan and City policies and procedures.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

There are no policy implications with this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The net operating cost of the BRA as at 31 December 2014 was -$27,615 (excluding depreciation of $79,095) compared to a surplus of $109,890 (excluding depreciation of $74,562) at the same time last year.

 

There were a number of factors influencing the net operating total compared to the previous financial year, including approximately $240,000 in outstanding revenue for landing fees, passenger facilitation and security fees. The City has received a total of $149,747 in landing fees for the period July 2014 to December 2014 with approximately $107,000 in landing fees from VARA still outstanding. City Officers are liaising with VARA to recover outstanding landing fees in shorter timeframe. 

Outstanding passenger facilitation and screening fees as at 31 December 2014 was approximately $160,000. The outstanding passenger fees are due to the variances in recorded passenger numbers between the City and VARA. City Officers have now agreed with VARA the final passenger numbers and all outstanding payments are expected in February.

 

Car Parking fees received to the end of December 2014 totalled $131,368, an increase in revenue compared to the same period last financial year ($80,257) which reflects the increase in car park usage.

 

The total operating expenditure budget allocated for the 2014/2015 financial year is $938,037 with expenditure to 31 December 2014 totalling $306,064 (excluding depreciation).  This is lower than the year to date budget projection of $475,286 due to non-critical operational works being delayed due to capital works projects and CASA Non Compliances Notice rectification taking priority.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The BRA is consistent with following the City of Busselton’s strategic Objectives:

 

Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Places:

 

·    Infrastructure Assets that are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations;

 

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

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation with Department of Transport, Aviation Projects, Government agencies, Airport stakeholders, Office of Transport Security (OTS), Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Virgin Australia Regional Airline, the Busselton Aero Club, Maroomba Airlines, Emergency Service Agencies, Albany, Esperance, Geraldton Airports and Australian Airports Association has been occurring on a regular basis concerning many topics and issues relating to the Airport.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The continued increase of FIFO passengers, aircraft numbers and anticipated increased jet aircraft operations through the BRA has or will be accommodated by the completion of the following key projects and upcoming upgrades listed below;

 

·   Completion of Stage 1b of terminal upgrade;

·   Installation of Jet Fuel facility;

·   Construction of an additional F100 parking bay; and

·   General Aviation Taxiway overlay.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The second half of the 2014/15 financial year is planned to be a busy period with a number of operational improvements taking place and capital works planned which will see the completion of the new Apron bay, and the commencement of the Jet A1 fuel facility project. Additionally, with the increase in charter passengers, ensuring that the BRA is functioning safely is always a high priority. The completion of the terminal project has allowed for a better passenger experience and also seen the opportunity for new initiatives such as a kiosk and commercial spaces within the terminal to be realised within this financial year.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Airport Advisory Committee chooses not to accept the Officers recommendation.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Not Applicable

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council;

 

1.    Waives the landing charges and passenger facilitation fees for AV8 Charity Flights for the Variety WA fundraiser on 16th May 2015 to the estimated value of $4,600.

 

 

 


Council

15

25 March 2015

10.1

Attachment a

Attachment A: Exercise Collapes Debrief

 

COB-RGB

Notes / Minutes of a Debrief meeting held in the Council Chambers

on 15 December 2014 at 2PM regarding

Busselton Regional Airport Exercise “Collapse”

Attendees:

Name

Title

Jennifer May

City of Busselton Manager Commercial Services

David Russell

City of Busselton Airport Operations Coordinator

Steve Principe

OIC W.A. Police (Busselton)

Brad Slater

DFES, Area Officer

Mark Guthridge

GBTA, Airport Services Supervisor

Brian McCarroll

City of Busselton OHS Officer

Roma Boucher

Child Protection Family Support, Acting District Emergency Services Officer

 

 

               

               Minutes: David Russell

               Apologies:

Name

Title

Dean Freeman

City of Busselton Ranger and Emergency Services Coordinator

Danny Mosconi

DFES, District Officer Capes

Kingsley Ford

St John Ambulance

Mark Delane

GBTA, Asset Development Manager

Anna Huxtable

Child Protection Family Support, Acting Senior Policy and Planning Officer

Des Austin

SES

Nik Booker

Busselton Hospital, Acting District Manager

 

 


ITEM DESCRIPTION / OUTCOMES / ACTION REQUIRED

BY WHOM & BY WHEN ACTION REQUIRED

1.0          Introduction

Exercise “Collapse” was held airside at Busselton Regional Airport on 15th November 2014 as per CASA MOS 139-10.8.4.1 and CASR 139.215.

Thanks to all the services that attended and praise for the volunteers for giving up their time and feedback.

With the feedback from this debrief we hope to come away with some positive outcomes to implement and improve what we do should we have an aircraft incident at Busselton Airport.

 

David Russell

2.0          Volunteers

All volunteers enjoyed being part of the exercise and the basis of their feedback was:

·      Without makeup it was hard to know how badly injured they were.

·      All commented on how well they were treated and looked after.

 

·      Concern was raised about how long the initial response by airport staff was (14min.)

 

·      Some were asked for their details 3 or 4 times and felt this was a waste of time and resources.

·      Some would have liked a real plane for the exercise.

 

David Russell

2.1           Response to Volunteer points

·      Unfortunately the moulage team had to pull out 2 days before the exercise and no one else could be found on such short notice. The injury cards for patients were written in a way medical services would be able to assess the patients and the patients were briefed on their injuries and pain levels before the exercise.

·      Initial response time by airport staff to the aircraft was 14min, as per the start of most exercises it does take some time for people to get ”involved”. Once the responders got going all personal where actively responding.

·      There are standard forms and identification to be checked by CPFS/ Red Cross and other agencies will have their own procedures, this was the case in the local bushfires as well, not sure if this could be avoided.

·      I would like a real plane as well but our chances of getting an F100 are very slim to nil.

David Russell

 

 

 

David Russell

 

Roma Boucher

 

David Russell

3.0          DFES

Very happy with the exercise, meeting all DFES expectations with the following recommendations:

·      Develop and review AEP in accordance with CASA Document “Airport Emergency Planning in Australia”

·      Promote/ Review AEP for inclusion in the Local Emergency Management arrangements in conjunction with WAPOL Local hazard Plan “Aircrash”

·      Develop a Pre-Plan in conjunction with DFES/ VFRS for immediate response to the airport.

·      The need to identify alternative ICC e.g. SES building, Busselton Police stn, council offices.

·      Cache of UHF radios at the airport.

·      Investigate purchase of a number of 90ltr fire extinguishers to be maintained on the apron areas.

·      Identify alternative location for a media centre, passenger reception area in the event of an easterly wind blowing smoke into or accident taking the terminal out of action.

·      Suggested familiarisation visits for the agencies and new services personal.

·      Cache of foam to be pre deployed at the airport.

 

Brad Slater

3.1          Response to DFES points

·      Agreed to review the EAP as per the “Airport Emergency Planning in Australia” document and distribute to the relevant agencies once developed and review by the AEC as part of LEMC next meeting in March 2015

·      Agreed to develop a Pre-Plan kit in conjunction with VFRS/ DFES to be distributed to the relevant agencies

 

 

·      Busselton Police Stn would not be suitable due to lack of room but the SES building has been used for other emergencies and would be suitable.

 

 

·      The City will be purchasing mobile and base UHF radios for airport use which could be use in the event of an aircraft incident.

 

·      There are already 2 x 70ltr fire extinguishers and spill kit on the main apron and other extinguishers nearby at the fuel tanks.

 

·      Alternative locations for a Media centre / Passenger reception could be the Busselton Aero Club located to the south of the terminal.

 

 

·      Suggested 3 monthly invite go out to the relevant agencies for familiarisation visits. All agreed only needed to be 6 monthly or when new staff are employed.

 

 

 

·      Cache of foam would be unlikely to be deployed due to the likelihood of it being needed.

 

·      Also the used by date of the foam. (approx.. 12 months)

 

 

David Russell, Actioned for March 2015

 

David Russell, Actioned for completion June 2015

Steve Principe

 

Jenny May –

David Russell to cost this financial year

David Russell – No further action

 

Jenny May – A facilities plan will be prepared as part of the AEP

 

David Russell – Will send out invite for familiarisation visit each 6 months.

 

David Russell – Brad Slater agreed

Brian McCarroll – Brad Slater agreed

4.0          WAPOL 

This exercised allowed WAPOL to work with other agencies under exercise conditions which provided good practice in case of real event. Police were able to see first-hand the infrastructure available to them and experience the challenges faced so they can be better prepared to co-ordinate other agencies to achieve expected outcomes in the future. Most importantly, relationships were formed with other combat agency members so there is a common bond between members when they are required to work with each other in similar situations.

Other observations:

·      Police radio communications were affected by interference in the Airport Operations office and alternative location needs to be identified once the terminal renovations are completed.

·      Mobile phone service was very poor or none at all to some locations in the terminal building.

·      At times other IMT members were not present to discuss critical decisions as they were hands on in the field.

·      Security was a challenge and some breaches occurred.

·      Some confusion with the manifest numbers and names.

 

Steve Principe

4.1        Response to WAPOL points

·      Now the renovations are complete the sterile passenger departure lounge would be suitable control post.

 

 

·      Suggest approaching Telstra for better mobile phone reception on the grounds of the airport requiring better communications in the event of an emergency.

 

 

·      Kingsley from SJA rectified this on the day as the IMT member for SJA was a volunteer and wasn’t aware of the need to be at the control post area.

 

·      WAPOL did not post a member at gate 1 which would allow members of the public (media) to gain access to airside. The airport staff are available to help with security if there are sufficient airport staff members but they have other airport emergency tasks to perform and may not be available.

 

·      The confusion with the manifest occurred due to some role play volunteers not turning up and others involved to make up the numbers without the exercise manifest being amended.

David Russell – facilities plan in the AEP will address this point

 

Brian McCarroll -

David Russell will talk to COB IT department

 

David Russell

 

Jenny May – 6 monthly Familiarisation visits to be conducted

 

David Russell -

Action: will make sure this doesn’t happen at the next exercise.

5.0          Child Protection Family Services     

Anna Huxtable had no concerns and was happy coordinating the role performed by GBTA as the agent for the Airline.

CPFS would normally have more staff on site as would Red Cross.

 

Roma Boucher

 

 

6.0           GBTA as Agent for the Airline         

·      Thought there was some confusion at the start of the exercise as to who should be responding to the aircraft

·      Confusion with the manifest caused some concern until informed of the changes.

·      Some confusion with volunteers having multiple roles.

·      Recommend some ongoing scenario training for GBTA staff with the AROs

 

Mark Guthridge

6.1        Response to GBTA points

·      Initial response time to the aircraft was 14min by the AROs, as per the start of most exercises it does take some time for people to get ”involved”. Once the responders (AROs and GBTA) got going all personal involved themselves in the exercise.

 

·      The confusion with the manifest occurred due to some role play volunteers not turning up and others involved to make up the numbers without the exercise manifest being amended.

 

·      Having limited volunteers does cause some problems but utilising them to play multiple roles e.g. injured passenger and gone to hospital, then a non-injured passenger to be relocated with family does help to test different components of the exercise.

 

 

 

 

 

·      Agree, a walk through scenario would be beneficial for the AROs and GBTA staff involved in the initial response

 

David Russell

 

David Russell – will make sure this doesn’t happen next exercise

 

 

David Russell

 

 

 

 

 

David Russell -

Will liaise with Mark Guthridge / Mark Delane from GBTA

7.0         COB (Airport)

·      Best ever exercise for testing Aerodrome procedures, has highlighted some areas for improvements (assessments and reporting of runway damage / mitigation actions by ARO’s).

·      Handover between the ARO’s and initial WAPOL vehicle was not clear from ARO’s perspective (this could have been helped if the ARO’s had setup the incident control point at the apron Airside gate and not the landside / airside gate).

·      Airport Mgr./ ARO’s used mobile phones to communicate which was difficult due to lack of mobile network coverage – UHF radios to be purchased.

·      No list of resources, alternative facilities available when requested by DFES – COB to prepare a Facilities Plan.

·      Timelines of IC update meetings – first update meeting held > one hour into exercise.

·      Checklist of questions for ARO’s to collect relevant information for WAPOL / DFES handover to be prepared (including aircraft details, pax manifest, cargo information, fuel volumes) – some information was provided in the initial handover to WAPOL but not all.

·      Some security concerns (which may be due to this being an exercise and limited resources) but airside / landside access needs to be maintained.

 

Jenny May

 

8.0         Exercise Controller on behalf of others

·      Concerned no Media/PIO wasn’t appointed earlier.

 

·      Noticed uncertainty as to whom the Operations Officer was due to WAPOL officer having Tabard on but DFES noted as Operations on the Incident Plan.

·      Noticed a delay in first Command brief, it was conducted at 12.55pm

 

·      Busselton Hospital wasn’t contacted to provide information on incoming patients as per exercise brief.

Dean Freeman

 

Dean Freeman

 

Dean Freeman

Nik Booker

 

 

 

8.1              Response

·      WAPOL acknowledge Media control is their responsibility as per the discussions held at the exercise Hot brief on the day.

·      There was a double up of positions within organisations and this was cleared up on the day as per the Hot debrief.

·      Busselton Hospital wasn’t contacted WAPOL suggested this should be conducted by St Johns. (No St Johns personal at debrief to confirm)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Council

21

25 March 2015

10.1

Attachment b

Attachment B: EMV Letter

 


Council                                                                                      23                                                                  25 March 2015

10.2           Airport Advisory Committee - 25/02/2015 - BUSSELTON REGIONAL AIRPORT PROPOSAL FOR HELICOPTER PARKING AREA EXTENSION

SUBJECT INDEX:

Busselton Regional Airport

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Busselton Regional Airport

REPORTING OFFICER:

Airport Operations Coordinator - David Russell

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

 

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 25 February 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

In September 2014 Council endorsed (C1409/222) an amendment to the 2014/15 adopted budget for the construction of a helicopter parking pad at the Busselton Regional Airport (BRA) to be equally funded by the City of Busselton, the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) and McDermott Aviation.  This report seeks Council’s approval to further amend the budget due to increased construction costs of $4,802, to be funded equally between three (3) parties.  Further, the City has been requested by McDermott Aviation to extend the dust/FOD suppressant surface around the new parking pad, which involves the City of Busselton delivering the works with the associated costs of $3,000 being reimbursed by McDermott Aviation on completion.  Accordingly, this report seeks Council’s approval to facilitate these works.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The initial Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) contract for emergency services to be based at the BRA was for a three (3) year period.  In 2013 DFES re-tendered the National Aerial Firefighting Centre contract, awarding it to McDermott Aviation for a period of three (3) years plus two (2) one (1) year options. As part of the contract McDermotts provided a second helicopter, Bell 214, for the 2014/15 fire seasons and in 2013/14 the two (2) helicopters were co-located on the one (1) landing site.  The co-location however caused concerns with dust and FOD downwash from the rotor blades of the helicopters, as well as some minor damage to the asphalt from the helicopter skids. Subsequently, in August 2014 Council endorsed (C1409/222) the allocation of $11,400 for the construction of an additional helicopter parking pad, with the total costs to be equally shared between the City, DFES and McDermotts.  The construction new helicopter parking pad was completed in November 2014.

 

During the construction stage additional gravel materials were required to form a safe compacted apron area around the parking pad to suppress blowing sand and FOD. This resulted in increased construction costs of $4,802, which is to be equally shared between the three (3) parties.  The City’s component of $1,601 can be sourced through a transfer of funds from the Airport Operational maintenance budget.

 

With the 2014/15 firefighting season now underway and the second helicopter parking area in operation, DFES and McDermott Aviation have contacted City Officers requesting an extra extension of the compacted gravel apron around the new parking area to help suppress the dust and FOD from helicopter downwash causing damage to the tail rotors. An arrangement between DFES, the contractor (McDermott Aviation) and the City has been proposed with the City constructing the additional gravel apron with 100% of the costs to be reimbursed by McDermott Aviation. 

 

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

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

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

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

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

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The increased construction costs of the helicopter parking pad has required the City of Busselton to contribute an additional $1,601 to the project, being one (1) third of the total over run costs, equally shared with McDermott Aviation and DFES.  These funds can be sourced from the Airport Operations maintenance budget (341-11151 3165), in lieu of other non-critical operational projects that had been planned.

 

The costs associated with the supply of materials and construction of a gravel apron for the parking pad extension is estimated at $3,000.  This can be undertaken through the existing Airport Helicopter Pad budget (C6007).

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The BRA and this project are consistent with following the City of Busselton’s strategic objectives:

 

Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Places

 

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

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The recommendations contained within this report are considered low risk and as such a formal risk assessment is not provided.

 

CONSULTATION

 

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

 

 

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The City of Busselton has continued to support the DFES helitac capability since the inaugural season in 2010/11. This has been both a financial and in-kind commitment to date with the benefits to the community and emergency response achieved outweighing the costs. There is no doubt that a second parking pad has been an integral part in operating two helitacs at the BRA this fire season ensuring safe operations and meeting CASA safety standards.

 

The commitment by McDermott Aviation to fund the helicopter parking pad extension will have no financial implications to the BRA budget.

 

CONCLUSION

 

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

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council chooses not to endorse the extension to the helicopter parking pad, however this will create adverse operating conditions for the emergency services teams.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The extension to the helicopter parking pad will be undertaken immediately after Council resolves to undertake the works.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Approves an amendment to the 2014/15 adopted budget for the construction of a helicopter parking pad to be utilised for emergency services purposes, and construction of associated extension to be funded by McDermott Aviation on the following base:

 

Description

 Account String

2014/15 Adopted Budget  $

 2014/15 Amended Budget (PROPOSED)  $

Variance $

Airport Helipad and Infrastructure works

341-C6700

$11,500

$19,302

$7,802

Capital Grant State

341-C6007-1215-0000

$5,700

$11,901

-$6,201

Airport Maintenance

341-11151-3165

$42,953

$41,352

-$1,601

Net Variance

 

$0

$0

$0

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      25                                                                  25 March 2015

10.3           Airport Advisory Committee - 25/02/2015 - BUSSELTON REGIONAL AIRPORT - NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW

SUBJECT INDEX:

Busselton Regional Airport

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Busselton Regional Airport

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Commercial Services - Jennifer May

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

 

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 25 February 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The first review and update of the Busselton Regional Airport Noise Management Plan submitted to the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in 2013 is nearing the approval stage.  This review proposed a number of amendments which have now been considered by the OEPA and advertised for public comment.  The City is now awaiting final approval for implementation.

 

This report presents the key operating conditions of the proposed NMP and the approach for the imminent second review of the NMP to be submitted to the OEPA for consideration.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The concept of a Noise Management Plan (NMP) for the Busselton Regional Airport (BRA) was first initiated in 2009 when Council allocated funds for a consultant to be engaged to prepare a NMP. This was in response to the first Fly in Fly out (FIFO) services commencing at the BRA and the need to address the restrictive hours of operation and conditions specified in Ministerial Statement 399 approved by the Minister for the Environment (October 1995). The key elements of Statement 399, that the then Shire of Busselton was looking to revise and seek approval from the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) and Minister for the Environment were;

 

“4.2 To achieve the objectives of condition 4.1, at all times during the operation of the aerodrome, the proponent shall ensure that noise emissions from the aerodrome activities, including emissions from aircraft using the aerodrome, do not cause noise levels at any residential premises in occupation to exceed an average of 55 dB(A)Ldn or a maximum of 65 dB L a slow, unless a specific variation to the maximum noise level is agreed to by the Minister for the Environment on advice of the Department of Environment and Conservation and following consultation with relevant agencies.

 

4.3 Where a variation has been granted by the Minister for the environment, as referred to in condition 4.2, the variation may only apply for operation between 0700 hours and 2200 hours, and the proponent shall ensure that the maximum noise level does not exceed 80 dB La slow and that the number of flights is limited ”

 

A variation, described in condition 4.3 had been granted by the Minister for the Environment to allow two (2) flights per day between the hours of 0700 and 2200 with aircraft noise to be limited to 80 dB(A) to enable the first Skywest Airlines Fokker100 FIFO operations to commence.

 

The Consultants, Strategen, were engaged to prepare a draft NMP that was presented to the then Airport Advisory Group (AAG). The AAG was a working group made up of community members, three Shire Councillors, and representatives from the Busselton and Dunsborough Chambers of Commerce, Geographe Bay Tourism Association and the Busselton Aero Club.

 

The draft NMP was further developed by the AAG and in July 2010 a draft plan was presented to the Council for review and consideration. Furthermore, at this time the AAG was transitioned to an official committee of the Council, the Airport Advisory Committee (AAC), with four nominated Councillors. In October 2010, the newly formed AAC, requested City staff to review and update the draft NMP (developed by the AAG) and present a final draft to the Council for endorsement prior to being submitted to the OEPA for consideration. A final draft version of the NMP was presented to the Council for endorsement on 15 December 2010 followed by submission to the OEPA on the 1 February 2011.

 

A lengthy consultation period occurred with the OEPA, including a public consultation period of four weeks, prior to a final NMP being submitted to the OEPA Board for consideration and referral to the Minister of the Environment; Water for approval. The City of Busselton’s Noise Management Plan (June 2012) was approved as part of Ministerial Statement 901 on the 22 June 2012.

 

As part of the annual compliance reporting for Ministerial Statement 901, the City of Busselton has the opportunity to put forward proposed amendments or updates to the NMP. In a report presented to the Council at its meeting on 28 August 2013, City Officers presented the proposed changes, a number were considered minor or technical in nature and not changing the intent of the existing NMP. However, some of the proposed changes to the Hours of Operations were considered material under Condition 4-2 of Statement 901 by the OEPA. Following a public consultation period and endorsement by Council of the proposed changes City Officers submitted a proposed, amended NMP to the OEPA for review and approval in September 2013.

 

The OEPA review resulted in the proposed material amendments being resubmitted by the City of Busselton as a Section 46 application under the Environmental Protection Act, which occurred in March 2014. Following further discussions with the OEPA and gaining agreement on the proposed amendments, the City of Busselton submitted a final revised version of the NMP in December 2014, to come into effect in 2015 with the following amendments;

 

Minor Amendments

 

Chapter / Page reference

Original Text

Proposed Text

Comment

Definitions; Page 3

Charter (open/closed)

Charter Closed Charter - Open

The original definition was correct for closed charter definition only. A new (separate) definition has been added for Open charters.

Chapter 2. Principle and Statement of Intent Limitations (Page 12)

NA

AirServices             Australia (ASA)

Add reference to ASA in text.

Chapter 3.1.1 Flight Paths (Page 15)

“1.  maximise  the  use  of flight paths over water…”

“1. Maximise the use of flight paths over coastal waters…”

To distinguish between coastal waters and inland/estuary waters where disturbance of water              birds              is discouraged and where there may be an increase risk in bird strike. Also to incorporate the proposed text where this reference occurs elsewhere in the NMP.

Chapter         3.1.2        Noise Abatement Zones (Page 16)

Replacement of map indicating                      Noise Abatement Zones

 

Provide map using GIS system indicating the unchanged                    noise abatement zones.

3.1.4.      Fly      Neighbourly Agreement (Page 20)

“When       flying      in     the circuit:

·      Fly  tight  circuits wherever possible”

Delete line

CASA provide guidelines for flying in the circuits, this may be contrary to CASA’s guidelines.

3.1.6     Licence      Renewal Training (Page 27)

“Licence renewal training requires a permit approved and issued by the City of Busselton”

“Licence renewal training requires                     written permission, approved by the CEO of the City of Busselton and will only….”

Approval by the CEO is still required however a formal permit issued through the Legal Services area will be avoided.

4.3         Urban          Growth Strategy (Page 32)

The area covered in the plan will cater for an additional                 11,000+ people over the next 15- 20 years.

The area covered in the plan will cater for an additional                 12,000+ people over the next 15- 30 years.

Updated figures based on current demographic information

9.1                     Compliance Framework; Land based activities (Page 46)

•              Reporting non- compliance to relevant government  agencies (like        CASA,             and AirServices Australia) and seeking support from these agencies to prevent re-occurrence of such activities;

•              Reporting non- compliance to relevant government  agencies (like CASA, AirServices Australia and OEPA) and seeking support from these agencies to prevent re-occurrence of such activities;

Include the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority as a reporting stakeholder

9.1                     Compliance Framework; Activities in Airspace (Page 46)

Since the powers to regulate                Australian administered airspace are considered to  be exclusive to CASA,

Since the powers to regulate                Australian administered airspace are considered to  be exclusive to CASA and AirServices Australia,

To add AirServices Australia as a legislative and regulatory body for airspace activities.

Various

 

 

Grammatical                    and typographical changes throughout the NMP

Various

Shire of Busselton

City of Busselton

There are instances of the Shire of Busselton being referenced.

 


 

Material Amendments

 

Chapter / Page reference

Original Text

Proposed Text

Comment

Chapter 3.1.3 Standard hours of Operation (Page 18).

“General Aviation Aircraft over 2000kgs maximum take-off weight and/or twin engine aircraft and/or that exceed 65dB(A)* will be able to utilise the airport between the hours of 0700 and 1900….”

“General Aviation Aircraft over 2000kgs maximum take-off weight and/or twin engine aircraft and/or that exceed 65dB(A)* will be able to operate from the airport between the hours of 0700 to 1900 between the months of May – November and 0600 and 2100 between the months of December to April subject to noise not exceeding 85dB(A)”

This amendment is to facilitate private pilots of GA aircraft to operate during day light hours which are extended during the summer months.

The revised amendment now separates out summer operations from winter operations with the hours of operations remaining unchanged for the winter months.

Chapter 3.1.3 Standard hours of Operation (Page 18).

“Open and Closed Charter Services –may utilise the airport between the hours of 0600 and 2100 with City approval…”

“Open and Closed Charter Services –may utilise the airport between the hours of 0600 and 2200 with City approval…”

This amendment is to allow closed charter operations to operate until 2200hrs. The key reason for this request is that the FIFO charters (particularly in winter) are often delayed as a result in of inclement weather or operational issues and either cannot operate into the airport or have to operate under a non-conforming activity (the City has 12/year non-conforming activities approved by the City’s CEO).   

 

In reaching agreement with the OEPA on the proposed amendments to the NMP, the City accepted their recommendation that the below amendment would not be implemented however the City would liaise with the OEPA on future NMP reviews to align the NMP with the Australian Standard AS2021:2000 Acoustics – Aircraft noise intrusion – Building siting and construction (AS2021).

 

Chapter / Page reference

Original Text

Proposed Text

6.2.2 Noise Amelioration as a Noise Reduction Technique – Table 6 Noise Criterion for Amelioration

(1) Each aircraft noise event occurring between 7pm and 6am is to be counted as 4 events.

(1) Each aircraft noise event occurring between 8pm and 6am is to be counted as 4 events.

 

City Officers expect that the NMP will be approved in the near future and have already commenced the next review the NMP in consultation with the OEPA. As such, Officers are recommending the following approach be undertaken in the second review of the NMP;

 

1.    Initial consultation with Officers from the OEPA on the management and operations of the BRA including areas such as;

 

·    Effective management of noise emissions.

 

The NMP outlines the use of the BRA by aircraft operators based on noise levels such as “less than 65db(A)” or “not greater than 85 dB(A)” but does not determine where this measurement applies, leaving the decision making process with City Officers as to whether an aircraft meets the conditions or not. City Officers, without making this an onerous task would like to define how noise levels are determined and applied in a more effective, consistent manner.

 

·    Management of noise emissions from locally based aircraft operators through Fly neighbourly agreements.

 

·    Management of noise emissions from emergency service aircraft operators through Fly neighbourly agreements.

 

·    Jurisdiction of the City of Busselton with regards to airspace within the City boundaries.

 

There are instances where aircraft operators are flying within the City of Busselton boundaries and Busselton Aerodrome CTAF where City Officers have no jurisdiction over airspace. In these circumstances, City Officers can refer complaints to AirServices Australia (NCIS) and/or CASA if there are any safety concerns but do not have any legal means to direct or give instruction to operators. Further description of the City of Busselton’s jurisdiction and that of other agencies should be added to the NMP. 

 

·    Endorsement of flight training permits and conditions.

 

The NMP dated June 2012 was approved by the OEPA however sections describing the Flight Training guidelines where deferred for assessment. City Officers would like to have agreement with the OEPA on the guidelines, extent and processes for flight training approvals in the NMP. 

 

·    Reporting of non-compliances.

 

Section 4-2 of Statement 901 refers to the compliance reporting requirements for the City of Busselton. City Officers are in agreement with the frequency of compliance reporting and the process of reporting non-compliances however would like further discussion on the City being held responsible for non-compliances beyond the City’s ability to control. 

 

·    Enforcement of the NMP conditions and Standard hours of operations.

 

The City is further investigating the means by which it can enforce compliance with the NMP. This includes consulting with other agencies such as CASA, AirServices Australia and the OEPA in determining what laws or legislation can be used in enforcing compliance with the NMP.

 

2.    Areas or Sections of the NMP that City Officers would like to review and propose amendments to;

 

 

·    Refine the definitions of noise criteria ‘less than xxdB(A)” or “greater than XX dB(A)” and how these are measured;

·    Section 3.1.3 Standard Hours of Operations – consider a further category of standard hours of operation between 2300hrs and 0100hrs of restricted operations (with criteria to be agreed by the City and OEPA) not defined as ‘Non-conforming Activities’ that the City/Council can approve through an agreed process;

·    Section 3.1.4 Fly Neighbourly Agreements

·    Section 3.1.5 Flight Training Guidelines

·    Section 4 – Land use planning to be updated with proposed Town Planning Scheme Amendment and proposed Special Control Area for the Airport.

·    Section 6.2 Noise Reduction and Amelioration Measures to be aligned with AS2021-2000.

 

3.    Once initial consultation with the OEPA has occurred on the areas listed above, City Officers will prepare a revised NMP to be presented to the Airport Advisory Committee.  Following this, Officers will undertake consultation with BRA stakeholders and the community prior to a formal public consultation process. Following assessment of submissions received through the public consultation period and further liaison with the OEPA, Officers would present a revised NMP to the Airport Advisory Committee and the Council for endorsement prior to a formal Section 46 application to the OEPA.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The Noise Management Plan (22 June 212) was approved by the Minister for the Environment; Water after review and consideration by the Environmental Protection Authority. Compliance reporting and review of the NMP is defined under Ministerial Statement 901 Busselton Regional Aerodrome.

 

The Busselton Regional Airport operates in accordance with the following: Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005, CASA MOS 139, Council’s Transport Security Plan and City policies and procedures.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

This report is in-line with the City of Busselton’s Noise Management Plan and processes for monitoring and reporting aircraft movements and associated noise at the Busselton Regional Airport.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The Commercial Services Business unit has an approved operational budget allocated to the maintenance and upkeep of the facility and aviation related services. None of the recommended changes to the NMP are expected to have an additional cost implication to the operational budget. One of the possible follow on actions in approving the recommended changes would be to perform noise monitoring in the vicinity of the Airport, however this is not expected to have a significant impact on the operations budget as an allowance for noise monitoring is already provided for in the operational budget.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This report is consistent with the City of Busselton’s Strategic Community Plan (2013) community goals and objectives;

 

Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Places:

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

Connected City:

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

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

Extending the Hours of Operation cause noise nuisance and complaints requiring noise monitoring and mitigation.

Monitor and assess any increase in aircraft traffic during the extended hours for the potential for noise complaints from the community.

Minor

Unlikely

Medium

 

CONSULTATION

 

Officers will continue to consult with the OEPA, CASA, AirServices Australia, airport users and stakeholders throughout the review of the NMP. Once further consultation has occurred with the OEPA, a consultation and communications plan will be prepared and implemented.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The NMP has now been in effect for over two years and has resulted in a positive impact for the Busselton Regional Airport (BRA) with increased open and closed charter services and a reduction in the number of noise complaints associated with the BRA compared to previous years. 

 

During the course of the past eighteen months, Officers have been consulting with the OEPA and developed good working relationships within the areas of compliance and assessment and recommend that future reviews of the NMP are carried out in consultation with OEPA. This approach is expected to assist in a broader understanding of the operations of the BRA but also in determining the objectives, criteria and compliance of future NMPs.

 

The initial review of the NMP has provided an opportunity for the City to identify areas that can be improved and make amendments to the plan that will continue to safeguard the community but provide flexibility to airport users, particularly as the BRA has been identified strategically as a ‘Gateway’ Airport for the South West Region. The second review of the NMP should consider current operations and, with appropriate controls, the flexibility for increased growth and future operations.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The NMP has been in effect now for over two years and the annual compliance assessment reporting has been submitted to the OEPA for two reporting cycles. As part of this annual reporting, a review of the NMP has been completed and City Officers are recommending that a second review now be undertaken.  

 

 

 

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may choose not to support the Officers recommendation and not undertake a second review of the NMP at this point in time.  This however will impede the potential future development of the BRA.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The City has commenced a second review of the NMP and expects to engage with the OEPA in March on sections identified for further assessment and/or updates. Depending on availability of the OEPA, City Officers would plan to present a final proposed, amended NMP to the Airport Advisory Committee and the Council by the end of April 2015.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council notes and supports a second review of the Busselton Regional Airport Noise Management Plan and that a draft Noise Management Plan be presented to the Airport Advisory Committee prior to public consultation.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      33                                                                  25 March 2015

10.4           Finance Committee - 5/03/2015 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 JANUARY 2015

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 January 2015  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 5 March 2015, 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 January 2015.

 

 

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 JANUARY 2015

   

Operating Activity

 

§  Operating Revenue

 

As at 31 January 2015, there is a variance of -0.5% in total operating revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

+10%

+$222

Other Revenue

-36%

-$124

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

-29%

-$982

Profit on Asset Disposals

+108%

+$8

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (+$222K)

This variance is primarily attributable to:

§ A number of employee related reimbursements, including workers compensation (+$35K) and parental leave payments (+$31K)     

§ The receipt of numerous insurance related reimbursements and settlements (+$45K), the majority of which are subsequently on-paid to relevant community groups

§ The reimbursement of costs associated with specific infrastructure maintenance works (+$43K)     

§ A range of minor grants and other sundry reimbursements received in advance of associated budget projections

 

Whilst currently reflecting a favourable variance, this activity includes a number of revenues which represent the reimbursement of expenditures already incurred. Consequently, the net impact on the City’s Net Current Position is not significant.          

 

Other Revenue (-$124K)

This variance is primarily attributable to:

§ Fines and penalties revenue is presently falling short of year to date budget estimates by $62K, with the primary contributors being parking fines (-$32K) and bushfire related fines (-$21K)

§ Scrap metal and recycling sales are falling short of year to date budget estimates, primarily due to timing  differences (-$60K)

§ A scheduled transfer of bond monies for Birchfields landscape maintenance is falling short of year to date budget estimates (-$23K)

§ Unbudgeted registration fees associated with the Mayoral Prayer Breakfast ($11K) have been received, albeit this has been fully offset by related expenditure and the transfer of residual funds.    

 

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (-$982K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to:

§ The receipt of additional developer contributions over year to date budget estimates (+$532K)

§ The accounting recognition of donated assets, including fire tender from DFES (+$123K)

§ Timing differences associated with the receipt of capital grant funding including, but not limited to:

Road Construction grant funding (-$712K)

Airport terminal building and Airport related infrastructure works (-$560K)

Beach Restoration and Boat-ramp related grant funding (-$449K)

 

It should be noted that the developer contributions funding has no direct impact on the Net Current Position, as these funds are transferred to Equity upon receipt, via the ‘Transfers to Restricted Assets’ capital expenditure activity. Additionally, donated assets are accounted for in the City’s Balance Sheet, and do not impact on the Net Current Position.      

    

Profit on Asset Disposals (+$8K)

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 January 2015, there is a variance of -4.1% in total operating expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Materials and Contracts

-25%

-$2,271

Utilities

-20%

-$256

Depreciation on Non-current Assets

+20%

+$1,160

Insurance Expenses

-11%

-$88

Allocations

-12%

-$135

Loss on Asset Disposals

+196%

+$66

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Materials and Contracts (-$2,271K)

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 $1,236K below year to date budget estimates and includes, amongst others, recycling contractors (-$360K), Busselton Jetty contractors (-$270K), coastal protection related contractors (-$197K), Vasse & Provence specified area rate contract maintenance works (-$240K) and also numerous building contractor related works (e.g. Nautical Lady Lighthouse demolition of $150K). Conversely, tree pruning and road maintenance contractor expenses are presently exceeding year to date budget estimates by $214K

§ Collective consultancy expenditure is presently $311K below year to date budget estimates

§ Building maintenance services (including contract cleaning and general maintenance) is presently $163K below year to date budget estimates

§ Collective Legal expenses are presently $100K below year to date budget estimates

The remainder of the variance is attributable to a variety of budget shortfalls in contractor expenditures, material purchases, 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 (-$256K)

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, preliminary estimates are that the City’s electricity charges will reduce by up to $70K during 2014/15. Notwithstanding this, 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 (+$1,160K)

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 (-$88K)

This variance is primarily attributable to property and plant insurance premiums, which presently reflect variances of -$46K and -$48K respectively. Whilst an end of financial year saving is anticipated in this category, additional expenses will be incurred throughout the year as additions are made to the City’s Insurance Schedule.                     

 

Allocations (-$135K)

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.                

 

Loss on Asset Disposals (+$66K)

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 January 2015, there is a variance of -2.1% in total capital revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Proceeds from Sale of Assets

-25%

-$123

Transfers from Restricted Assets

-15%

-$274

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Proceeds from Sale of Assets (-$123K)

This variance continues to be primarily attributable to timing differences in relation to the changeover of light and heavy plant items, and corresponds with the current variance in the ‘Plant and Equipment’ capital expenditure activity.   

 

Transfers from Restricted Assets (-$274K)     

Due to the nature of this activity, the annual budget is spread evenly (my month) across the financial year. The majority of transfers made so far this financial year relate to the return of bond monies, rather than equity transfers toward capital projects. As funded projects are completed, transfers from Restricted Assets will increase.       

 

§  Capital Expenditure

 

As at 31 January 2015, there is a variance of -20.1% in total capital expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold: 

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Land & Buildings

-24%

-$962

Plant and Equipment

-27%

-$571

Furniture and Office Equipment

-28%

-$92

Infrastructure

-60%

-$7,627

Advances to Community Groups

-100%

-$30

Transfers to Restricted Assets

+115%

+$696

 

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:

 

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 is understood that the Club will be seeking the drawdown of this facility in the near future.        

 

Transfers to Restricted Assets (+$696K)

The favourable variance is due to the receipt of developer contributions (predominantly pertaining to the Vasse Newtown and Via Vasse subdivisions) totalling approximately $1,060K, along with bond and deposit receipts totalling approximately $240K. It should be noted however that due to the nature of associated transactions, performance in this category has no direct impact on the City’s net current position.  

 

BUDGET VARIATIONS AND OTHER ‘KNOWNS’

 

Nil.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The City’s financial performance to the end of January 2015 is considered satisfactory. Collective operating revenue reflects a nominal adverse variance -0.5% (or -$289K) on a year to date basis. Whilst impacted by timing differences in several categories (primarily non-operating grants, subsidies and contributions), rates revenue and fees and charges revenue are currently exceeding year to date budget estimates by approximately $630K. Consequently, there is presently nothing to indicate that the overall annual operating revenue budget will not be achieved by 30 June 2015.

 

Whilst collective operating expenditure continues to fall short of year to date budget estimates (-$1,337K), this figure is understated by depreciation expense, which is presently $1,160K in excess of year to date budget estimates. The majority of the current budget shortfall sits within the Materials and Contracts category (-$2,270K), and is currently due to a range of timing differences. A further critical review of performance in this area will be undertaken as part of the impending Annual Budget Review.

 

From a capital perspective, capital revenue is generally tracking in line with year to date budget estimates, with Proceeds from the Sale of Assets being the principal area of difference. However, this is primarily as a result of timing differences associated with the Plant and Equipment replacement program, and should be resolved by financial year end. Conversely, overall capital expenditure is presently falling short of year to date budget estimates by approximately $8.5M, with the major contributor being Infrastructure expenditure (-$7.6M). However, as detailed in the December 2014 Financial Activity Statement Report, it has been projected that the majority of budgeted infrastructure expenditure will be incurred by financial year end.

 

Whilst the Annual Budget Review, scheduled to be completed as at the end of February 2015, will critically review all revenue and expenditure categories, the City’s performance to the end of January is considered generally consistent with recent year’s performance to this period.    

 

OPTIONS

 

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

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

NA.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council receives the statutory financial activity statement reports for the period ending 31 January 2015, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations.

 

 


Council

41

25 March 2015

10.4

Attachment a

Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 31 January 2015

 


 


Council

43

25 March 2015

10.4

Attachment a

Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 31 January 2015

 


Council

45

25 March 2015

10.4

Attachment a

Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 31 January 2015

 


 


 


 


 


Council

49

25 March 2015

10.4

Attachment a

Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 31 January 2015

 


Council

51

25 March 2015

10.4

Attachment a

Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 31 January 2015

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      57                                                                  25 March 2015

10.5           Finance Committee - 5/03/2015 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – JANUARY 2015

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 - January 2015  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 5 March 2015, 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 January 2015, 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 receives the statutory financial activity statement reports for the period ending 31 January 2015, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations.

 

 

 


Council

61

25 March 2015

10.5

Attachment a

List of Payments Made - January 2015

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      85                                                                  25 March 2015

10.6           Finance Committee - 5/03/2015 - DRAFT LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN: 2015/16 - 2024/25

SUBJECT INDEX:

Financial Plans and Strategies

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   Draft Long Term Financial Plan: 2015/16 - 2024/25 (Financial Statements and Supporting Schedules)  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 5 March 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The draft Long Term Financial Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25 has been comprehensively workshopped with Councillors over recent months. At the culmination of the most recent workshop (05 February 2015), Councillors advised that they were comfortable to proceed to formal consideration of the draft Long Term Financial Plan (‘LTFP’), with this matter to be advanced as part of the 05 March 2015 Finance Committee meeting.

 

Consequent to the inclusion of all amendments as agreed to as part of the associated workshops, this report now presents the draft LTFP for formal consideration and endorsement by the Council. 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

In accordance with Section 5.56 of the Local Government Act (the ‘Act’), and Regulations 19C and 19DA of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations (the ‘Regulations’) a local government is to plan for the future of its district. This incorporates the development and adoption of two key documents, namely a Strategic Community Plan and a Corporate Business Plan.

 

Whilst a Strategic Community Plan sets out a community’s aspirations, vision and objectives over a ten year period, a more detailed Corporate Business Plan identifies and prioritises the principal strategies and activities required to achieve the higher level Strategic Community Plan outcomes; albeit for the first four years of the higher order plan.

 

A Corporate Business Plan is also required to be underpinned by several resourcing plans, including a Workforce Plan, Asset Management Plan and also a LTFP. The LTFP component is not only required to demonstrate a local government’s financial capacity to resource it’s identified Corporate Business Plan actions, but also its ability to resource its asset management plan obligations and projected workforce growth requirements (as detailed in the relevant plans).

 

A Corporate Business Plan is to be reviewed annually. The Council’s current Corporate Business Plan was adopted in June 2014, with a further review due by June 2015. Whilst acknowledging that the Council is being requested to endorse its equivalent LTFP in advance of the associated Corporate Business Plan review, it is felt that the draft LTFP satisfactorily encapsulates (from a financial perspective) the strategies and activities comprised within both the prevailing, and the proposed, Corporate Business Plans.         

 

Prior to presentation to Councillors for workshopping, the draft LTFP was also the subject of considerable internal scrutiny by Senior Management. This was not only to confirm the draft LTFP’s continued alignment with the Strategic Community and Corporate Business Plans, but also to certify that the draft LTFP continues to reflect prudency, efficiency and conservatism in its projections.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 5.56 of the Act requires local governments to plan for the future of their districts. Regulations 19C and 19DA of the Regulations provide specific guidance to local governments in relation to planning for the future; which includes the requirement to develop a Strategic Community Plan and a Corporate Business Plan. The Corporate Business Plan is to integrate matters relating to resources, including asset management, workforce planning and also long-term financial planning. 

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

From an Integrated Planning and Reporting perspective, the LTFP has a direct relationship with the Council’s Strategic Community Plan, and more particularly with the Corporate Business Plan. The LTFP also reflects the financial implications associated other key resourcing documents; namely the Workforce Plan and Asset Management Plans.

 

In addition to the above, the LTFP incorporates the funding requirements associated with a range of other Council endorsed Plans and Policies.    

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Whilst there are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendation as comprised within this report, the LTFP does reflect the Council’s strategic financial direction over the ensuing ten year period, in line with its Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plan.    

 

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 risks associated with the Council endorsing the LTFP are limited. In addition to its being a guiding document only, the LTFP is also a living document which will continue to be formally reviewed and updated on an annual basis. Consequently, the Council has the ability to amend the content of the Plan as and when circumstances necessitate; albeit bearing in mind that material amendments (relating to Corporate Business Plan activities) may be required to be reported as part of the Annual Report.

 

Notwithstanding the above, and due to the nature of the LTFP, a level of risk is always inherent in projecting in to the future. Whilst it is considered that the associated extrapolation assumptions, interest rate projections (borrowings) and other variable assumptions are conservative, these are subject to external economic factors beyond the control of the Council.

 

The draft LTFP demonstrates the financial capacity for the Council to deliver on the services as detailed in the higher level strategic plans, analogous with the underpinning assumptions. However in order to minimise or mitigate financial risk, any decisions to enter into financial arrangements in future years must not be undertaken based solely on the prevailing LTFP projections.                      

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

The draft LTFP continues to reflect the community’s aspirations, vision and objectives as included in the Strategic Community Plan 2013, and concomitantly the principal strategies and activities as comprised within the Council’s prevailing Corporate Business Plan. Consequently, no specific (external) consultation has been undertaken in relation to the content of the draft LTFP as presented for endorsement.      

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The following commentary provides an overview of the draft LTFP development, the outcomes of the subsequent Councillor workshops and then provides an overview of the draft LTFP as presented for formal consideration.

 

Draft LTFP Development

The draft LTFP 2015/16 – 2024/25 has been developed in a similar manner to prior years. A high level summary of this process is provided as follows:

§ Firstly the currently adopted budget (in this case the 2014/15 budget) formed the basis for the operating revenue and expenditure components. With non-recurrent and periodic items adjusted/ deleted, and stand–alone funding models excluded (e.g. Busselton Regional Airport), the remaining operating revenues and expenditures were then projected out via the associated extrapolation assumptions.

§ Secondly, the capital revenue and expenditure components were moved forward one year, with new Year 10 figures added (either via the provision of specific allocations or ongoing percentage increases as relevant). This process also involves the review of major projects expenditure, and whether any specific adjustments are required to be reflected in the revised draft LTFP.

§ Subject to review and rationalisation where required, the above process delivers the ‘base-line’ draft LTFP. 

 

Prior to presentation to Councillors at an initial LTFP workshop in December 2014, much work had already been undertaken in relation to the ‘base-line’ draft LTFP. Consequent to its initial compilation (as summarised above), the Senior Management Group then critically reviewed the integrity of the draft LTFP across a number of areas; including but not limited to:

§ Ensuring that the draft LTFP continued to reflect the strategies and activities as reflected in the Council’s currently adopted Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plan;

§ Ensuring that the previously endorsed extrapolation assumptions were current and relevant;

§ Ensuring that the draft LTFP reflected the general rate increases as are included in the currently endorsed LTFP, excepting where the Council had subsequently agreed to amendments (e.g. Busselton Foreshore and Performing Arts Centre projects);

§ Ensuring that the draft LTFP continued to represent financial prudency and a level of conservatism in its forward projections, and implementing financial efficiencies where identified (e.g. the change in methodology for funding waste related plant replacements); and,

§ Ensuring that the draft LTFP reflected a surplus position in each financial year, thereby negating the need for Councillors to be tasked with identifying further savings in the first instance  

 

Only subsequent to the above matters being addressed was the draft LTFP considered acceptable for presentation to Councillors for review and deliberation. 

 

Workshop Outcomes

Two draft LTFP workshops have been convened with Councillors.

 

The initial workshop (04 December 2014) dealt primarily with the base-line draft LTFP as presented, and included detailed discussions on a range of matters. These included extrapolation assumptions, annual general rate increases, major capital expenditure items, selected corporate plan actions, borrowings, reserve funding, and a range of specific items included within the draft LTFP. The workshop also included a comparative against the currently endorsed LTFP, including projects subsequently identified and now included in the revised draft LTFP (e.g. Performing Arts Centre, Busselton Regional Airport capital works, Busselton Foreshore etc.).

 

The second workshop (05 February 2015) primarily focused on the deliberation and prioritisation of a list of additional projects that had been identified as priority projects, but which had not been included in the base-line draft LTFP for a range of reasons. Notwithstanding the original intent of this workshop, due to the broad and varying nature of the projects, a simple prioritisation process did not do justice to each project, and as such, individual priority rankings were not assigned.                  

 

During each workshop, the Councillors agreed to make several amendments to the draft LTFP, as follows: 

 

December 2014 Workshop

In respect of the Busselton Foreshore project, it was considered that unconfirmed commonwealth grant funding, and financial contributions from participating sporting clubs, should be replaced by borrowings, to ensure certainty in funding availability. This resulted in a further $4.4M in borrowings being added to the draft LTFP against the following projects:

§ Tennis Clubhouse                                                                     (+$2.8M)

§ Tennis/ Croquet Court Development                               (+$1.1M)

§ Multi-purpose Community Sporting Clubhouse          (+$0.5M) 

 

It is also worthy of noting that, as part of this workshop, Councillors also indicated their support to an amendment to the method of funding the replacement of waste related plant and equipment. Whilst historically funded from the Plant Replacement Reserve, these acquisitions will, in future, be funded from the Waste Management Facility and Plant Reserve; with this change already reflected in the draft LTFP. Whilst the purpose of the Waste Reserve can be amended as part of the 2015/16 budget adoption, the Council’s Waste Reserve Policy will require earlier amendment to confirm the Council’s decision in respect of this matter.         

 

February 2015 Workshop

In considering the list of ‘Additional Projects Identified’, Councillors agreed to add several items to the base-line draft LTFP, as follows:

§ Three Port Geographe related capital projects (finger jetty renewal and car-parking) were added, on the basis that the Council funding component could be sourced from the Port Geographe Development Reserve

§ A further 0.25% rate increase per annum was added in years 7 to 10 inclusive, to assist in providing funding for future coastal adaptation expenditure; with these funds to be quarantined to the Beach Protection Reserve.

§ Additional funds totalling $325K above the prevailing endorsed LTFP projections were provided in relation to Meelup Regional Park (in years 1 to 5).  

 

The above amendments are all reflected in the draft LTFP as is presented herewith for endorsement.

 

Overview of draft LTFP 2015/16 - 2024/25

 

The aforementioned commentary provides a synopsis as to how the draft LTFP has been developed, whilst also summarising the subsequent amendments agreed to by Councillors. The following provides an overview of the composition of the relevant components of the draft LTFP.

 

 

 

 

§ Extrapolation Assumptions

The extrapolation assumptions as included in the endorsed LTFP have been replicated within the current draft LTFP document. There is a rationale behind the individual extrapolations, and whilst reviewed as part of the current draft LTFP development, it was determined that the prevailing extrapolations remained relevant.

 

For the purpose of long term financial planning, the rolling ten year average Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Local Government Cost Index (LGCI) figures have been used to inform the majority of operating extrapolations. Whilst previously equating to 3% and 4.2% respectively, as at 30 June 2014, the 10 year rolling average indexes moved to 3.1% and 4%. However this movement is atypical, particularly in relation to the LGCI which, as at 30 June 2014, fell to 1.3%; some 2% lower than the equivalent CPI index.

 

With the above in mind, it was determined to retain the 3% and 4.2% values for the CPI and LGCI extrapolations, as these more realistically reflected long term financial projections. Consequently, the draft LTFP’s operating extrapolations are as follows:

 

Description

Extrapolation 

Operating Revenue

 

Rates (general rate increase component & growth)

CPI

Operating Grants, Subsidies & Contributions

CPI

Fees & Charges

LGCI

Interest Earnings

CPI

Other Revenue

CPI

Non-operating Grants, Subsidies & Contributions

Actual

Profit on Asset Disposal

Nil

 

 

 Operating Expenditure

Employee Costs  (reflective of current EA) 

3.5%

Materials & Contracts

3.5%

Utilities

LGCI

Depreciation

Actual

Interest Expenses

Actual

Insurance Expenses

LGCI

Other Expenditure

LGCI

Loss on Asset Disposal

Nil

CPI = 3%

LGCI = 4.2%

 

 

 It is worthy of noting that the Employee Costs extrapolation of 3.5% aligns with the prevailing Enterprise Agreement. Additionally, and due to the broad range of activities covered under the Materials and Contracts operating expenditure activity, an extrapolation of 3.5% (as opposed to 4.2%) was considered more appropriate.

 

From a capital expenditure perspective, recurrent expenditures have generally been extrapolated by approximately 3%. This includes Buildings, Furniture and Office Equipment, and the majority of Infrastructure expenditure. Notwithstanding this, the Plant and Equipment and several Infrastructure activities (e.g. Busselton Jetty, Sanitation, Beach Restoration) reflect allocations more so based on relevant asset management plan funding requirements. This methodology is consistent with that reflected in the endorsed LTFP.        

 

§ Closing Surplus/ Deficit Position

The draft LTFP reflects closing surpluses in each financial year. Whilst nominal in most years, the surpluses in years 8 to 10 are more material in value, and account for the majority of the cumulative surplus closing of approximately $2.3M by year 10.

 

Whilst the annual surpluses in later years could have been transferred to Reserves (as savings), it was considered appropriate to identify these in the plan as (potentially) available funds, to demonstrate the City’s future capacity to undertake additional projects over and above those already funded within the draft LTFP.   

 

The following table details the annual surplus/ deficit movements as reflected within the draft LTFP:

 

Description

2015/16

Yr 1

2016/17

Yr 2

2017/18

Yr 3

2018/19

Yr 4

2019/20

Yr 5

2020/21

Yr 6

2021/22

Yr 7

2022/23

Yr 8

2023/24

Yr 9

2024/25

Yr 10

 

Annual Cash (Surplus)/ Deficit

 

(3,708)

(2,566)

(2,685)

(3,130)

(5,450)

(1,866)

(16,267)

(401,552)

(360,296)

(1,486,984)

C/-forward (Surplus)/ Deficit

 

0

(3,708)

(6,274)

(8,959)

(12,089)

(17,539)

(19,405)

(35,671)

(437,223)

(797,520)

Cumulative (Surplus)/ Deficit

 

(3,708)

(6,274)

(8,959)

(12,089)

(17,539)

(19,405)

(35,671)

(437,223)

(797,520)

(2,284,503)

 

§ General Rate Increases

Whilst guided by the general rate increases as comprised within the currently endorsed LTFP (2013/14 – 2022/23), the draft LTFP as presented does vary in its general rate increase projections. The variances are due to the inclusion of Councillor supported projects subsequent to the endorsement of the current LTFP; detailed as follows:

 

Description

2015/16

Yr 1

2016/17

Yr 2

2017/18

Yr 3

2018/19

Yr 4

2019/20

Yr 5

2020/21

Yr 6

2021/22

Yr 7

2022/23

Yr 8

2023/24

Yr 9

2024/25

Yr 10

 

Endorsed LTFP

5.25%

4.00%

4.00%

4.00%

4.00%

4.00%

4.00%

4.00%

NA

NA

Draft LTFP

5.25%

4.75%

4.75%

5.25%

5.25%

4.00%

4.25%

4.25%

4.25%

4.25%

Variance

0.00%

+0.75%

+0.75%

+1.25%

+1.25%

0.00%

+0.25%

+0.25%

NA

NA

 

The reasons for the above variances are:

 

Busselton Foreshore Project

Prior to the December 2014 LTFP workshop, the draft LTFP included $14.6M in new borrowings, $6.6M of which related to the overall Busselton Foreshore projects. As part of previous LTFP deliberations, Councillors agreed to the inclusion of two additional 0.75% rate increases in years 2 and 3; to fund the Busselton Foreshore related loan repayments.    

 

Performing Arts Centre (PAC)

The draft LTFP includes the construction of the PAC (at a cost of approximately $15M), commencing in year 3. The two additional 1.25% rate increases in years 4 and 5 are required to fund loan repayments on the associated borrowing of $8M, and also to cover the projected operating shortfall and future asset preservation costs associated with the operation.        

 

 

Coastal Adaptation

As part of the February 2015 draft LTFP workshop, Councillors agreed to levy an additional 0.25% in general rates in years 7 to 10, to provide funding for future coastal adaptation requirements. The draft LTFP reflects this revenue being transferred to the Beach Protection Reserve.  

 

Analogous with the above, the breakdown of the general rate increases in each year of the draft LTFP is as follows:

 

Description

2015/16

Yr 1

2016/17

Yr 2

2017/18

Yr 3

2018/19

Yr 4

2019/20

Yr 5

2020/21

Yr 6

2021/22

Yr 7

2022/23

Yr 8

2023/24

Yr 9

2024/25

Yr 10

 

General Rate Increase (CPI)

3.00%

3.00%

3.00%

3.00%

3.00%

3.00%

3.00%

3.00%

3.00%

3.00%

Civic & Administration Centre

1.25%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Busselton Performing Arts Centre

 

 

 

1.25%

1.25%

 

 

 

 

 

Road Asset Management Plan

1.00%

1.00%

1.00%

1.00%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continuation of 1% (ex. Asset Management Plan)

 

 

 

 

1.00%

1.00%

1.00%

1.00%

1.00%

1.00%

Busselton Foreshore

 

0.75%

0.75%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coastal Adaptation

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.25%

0.25%

0.25%

0.25%

TOTAL

5.25%

4.75%

4.75%

5.25%

5.25%

4.00%

4.25%

4.25%

4.25%

4.25%

 

§ Major Projects Included in the draft LTFP

Whilst the attachments to this report provide summary details of proposed capital works to be undertaken over the term of the draft LTFP, major projects comprised within the draft plan include the following:

 

ü Busselton Foreshore Project - $25M

ü Civic and Administration Centre - $22M

ü Performing Arts Centre - $15M

ü Busselton Regional Airport - $13M

 

The above is in addition to significant recurrent capital expenditure activities, including the following: 

 

ü Road Construction - $60M

ü Sanitation Infrastructure - $20M

ü Parks, Gardens and Reserves - $18M

ü Footpaths and Cycleways - $7M

ü Beach Restoration - $6M

ü Townscape Works - $5M

 

§ Borrowings

The draft LTFP includes $19M in proposed new borrowings. Of this, $11M relates to the Busselton Foreshore project, with the remaining $8M earmarked for the Performing Arts Centre project. A summary of the individual projects incorporating loan funding is provided as follows:

 

Description

Total Borrowings

Tennis/ Croquet Court Development

$3,200,000

Busselton Foreshore: Central Core Area & Auxiliary Works

$4,000,000

Tennis Clubhouse

$2,800,000

Multipurpose Community Sporting Clubhouse – Stage 2

$1,000,000

Performing Arts Centre

$8,000,000

TOTAL

$19,000,000

 

§ Alignment with other Resourcing Plans – Asset Management and Workforce Plan

As discussed in the Background section of this report, the LTFP is one of three resourcing documents required to support the annual Corporate Business Plan. In addition to demonstrating the financial capacity to resource the identified Corporate Business Plan strategies and actions, the LTFP must also be able to financially support the other resourcing plans, namely asset management plan obligations and projected workforce plan growth requirements.

 

The draft LTFP as presented is able to fully fund these obligations. In addition to over $24M in workforce plan funding allocations, the draft LTFP also includes over $54M in Asset Management Plan funding requirements across a range of core activities (e.g. roads, buildings, parks, coastal protection, drainage), plus a further $12M for the Busselton Jetty.  For clarity, the Asset Management Plan funding requirements are incorporated within the respective capital expenditure, and associated operating expenditure, allocations.  

 

§ Key Performance Measures - Financial Ratios

As part of the Integrated Planning and Reporting process, a number of key performance indicators (in the form of financial ratios) have been identified to assist in assessing a local governments’ long term financial sustainability. The ratios cover both core operational matters (e.g. liquidity, debt servicing), and also asset management related matters (e.g. asset consumption and sustainability). In assessing financial sustainability, each of the ratios has been assigned a minimum standard of achievement.

 

Whilst the draft LTFP as presented for endorsement details the annual performance against each of the ratios, the following provides a brief summary of the draft LTFP’s achievement against each of the ratios:

 

Operating Surplus Ratio - basic standard achieved

The draft LTFP reflects an average ratio of 5.7% over the 10 years. Whilst falling to 4.5% in year 5 (principally as a result of abnormal land sales), the ratio reflects an improving trend thereafter, increasing to approximately 7% in year 10.   

 

Own Source Revenue Coverage Ratio -advanced standard achieved

The draft LTFP reflects an average ratio of 103% over the 10 years, with the annual ratio relatively consistent throughout the ten years (allowing for annual fluctuations).    

 

Current Ratio – not achieved

The draft LTFP reflects an average ratio of 0.5 over the 10 years, albeit an improving trend is evident in later years, increasing to 0.8 by year 10. Measured at a single point in time, and coinciding with the period in which the City’s cash resources are historically at their lowest, this ratio is of limited relevance in assessing the City’s long term financial sustainability.

 

Debt Service Coverage Ratiobasic standard achieved         

The draft LTFP reflects an average ratio of 4.8 over the 10 years. Whilst falling to a ratio of just under 4.0 in year 5, the ratio reflects an improving trend thereafter, increasing to approximately 6.0 in year 10. Whilst the Department of Local Government and Communities guidelines recognise a ratio of between 2 and 5 as achieving a basic standard, other (local government oriented) professional organisations suggest that the minimum ratio should be at least 5.      

 

Asset Sustainability Ratio – advanced standard achieved

The draft LTFP reflects an average ratio of 141% over the 10 years, albeit this is inflated by the Civic and Administration Centre upgrade in early years. During the term of the draft LTFP, the ratio normalises back below 100% by year 10, which is more than acceptable; especially in consideration of the higher ratio in early years.    

 

Asset Consumption Ratio - basic standard achieved         

The draft LTFP reflects an average ratio of 59% over the 10 years, which is at the high end of the basic standard. However, the ratio exceeds 60% from year 5 onwards, with an improving trend evident across those years.     

 

Asset Renewal Funding Ratio - advanced standard achieved

Whilst the figures underlying this ratio are very subjective, the City has demonstrated its capacity, via its significant asset management plan work, to fully fund its asset renewal requirements. Consequently, a ratio of 100% has been assigned to this ratio.     

  

In summary of the above, the draft LTFP as presented for endorsement reflects the achievement of all key performance indicator measures, with the exception of the Current Ratio. However, it is worthy of noting that this ratio was also not achieved in the currently endorsed LTFP, with an average ratio of 0.5 also reflected in that plan.  

 

§ Summary

Much preliminary work was undertaken in advance of the draft LTFP being presented for workshopping with Councillors in December 2014. Amendments made by Councillors at that workshop, and also a subsequent workshop, have been factored into the draft LTFP. This is in addition to a number of significant project inclusions since the plan’s last endorsement in June 2013. As detailed above, the draft LTFP continues to reflect a balanced to surplus position, with all but one key performance measure being achieved.       

 

CONCLUSION

 

The draft LTFP 2015/16 – 2024/25 has been reviewed and updated cognisant of the Council’s Strategic Community Plan, its currently adopted Corporate Business Plan, and also the associated informing plans. In addition to amendments and additions ratified by the Council since the endorsement of the current plan in June 2013, the draft plan has been further updated to reflect the outcomes of recent Councillor Workshops.

 

Subject to endorsement, the LTFP will be utilised to guide the Council’s 2015/16 budget development. With the plan being reviewed and updated annually, it will also be pivotal in informing future annual budget development processes. The Plan will also be invaluable to assisting the Council in deliberating future financial obligations, particularly as they relate to the higher order Strategic Community Plan (and associated Corporate Business Plan).     

 

The draft LTFP 2015/16 – 2024/25 is considered realistic, if not conservative, in its assumptions. It is also considered to be achievable, with the City comfortable in its ability to deliver on the Plan’s content. With this in mind, it is recommended that the Council endorses the draft Long Term Financial Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25 as presented.  

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may determine to amend the content of the draft LTFP. Alternatively, the Council may choose not to endorse the draft LTFP until such time as the annual review of the Corporate Business Plan has been undertaken (due by June 2015). However, it is felt that the draft LTFP already reflects the strategies and activities as are/ will be reflected in the revised Corporate Business Plan.    

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Subject to endorsement, the draft LTFP will inform the 2015/16 annual budget development parameters, whilst also forming the basis for the following year’s LTFP development.     

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council endorses its draft Long Term Financial Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25, comprising the following financial statements and supporting schedules, as attached to this report:

§ Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type

§ Statement of Financial Position

§ Statement of Changes in Equity

§ Statement of Cash Flows

§ Rate Setting Statement

§ Schedule of Capital Works

§ Schedule of Loan Repayments

§ Schedule of Reserve Movements

§ Key Performance Indicators

§ Long Term Financial Plan Assumptions

 

 

 

 


Council

97

25 March 2015

10.6

Attachment a

Draft Long Term Financial Plan: 2015/16 - 2024/25 (Financial Statements and Supporting Schedules)

 


Council

99

25 March 2015

10.6

Attachment a

Draft Long Term Financial Plan: 2015/16 - 2024/25 (Financial Statements and Supporting Schedules)

 


 


Council

101

25 March 2015

10.6

Attachment a

Draft Long Term Financial Plan: 2015/16 - 2024/25 (Financial Statements and Supporting Schedules)

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

127

25 March 2015

10.6

Attachment a

Draft Long Term Financial Plan: 2015/16 - 2024/25 (Financial Statements and Supporting Schedules)

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

133

25 March 2015

10.6

Attachment a

Draft Long Term Financial Plan: 2015/16 - 2024/25 (Financial Statements and Supporting Schedules)

 


Council                                                                                      135                                                                25 March 2015

10.7           Audit Committee - 12/03/2015 - COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN 2014

SUBJECT INDEX:

Reporting and Compliance

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Governance Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Governance Services - Lynley Rich

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Busselton Compliance Audit Return 2014

Attachment b    External Auditor's Report - Local Government Consultant Gary Martin  

 

This item was considered by the Audit Committee at its meeting on 12 March 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Compliance Audit Return relating to the activities of the City of Busselton during 2014 has been completed. The return is a statutory obligation and covers a range of high level requirements under the Local Government Act 1995 and various Regulations. 

 

The completed Compliance Audit Return is attached to this report for the consideration of the Council.  The return is recommended for adoption, after which it will be forwarded to the Department of Local Government and Communities as required by the 31 March 2015.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Compliance Audit Return is one of the tools enabling a local government to monitor how the organisation is functioning.  An external auditor was engaged to verify the organisation’s compliance to enable independent oversight of the process.

 

The compliance assessment is an organisational performance measurement “Compliance Assessment – Measure – Report from external inspector as to City’s compliance as provided by the Department of Local Government”.

 

At the completion of the previous Compliance Audit, one of three undertaken by Lindsay Delahaunty, the Audit Committee requested that a new auditor be engaged to undertake the assessment to provide more independent oversight of the process.  The City engaged Mr Gary Martin, a local government consultant with significant experience in local government as a former CEO at various regional local governments.  Mr Martin’s independent report is attached. 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The Statutory Compliance Return is required pursuant to Section 7.13(i) of the Local Government Act 1995 and Audit Regulations.  The Audit Regulations require that the audit results are presented to the Audit Committee for reporting to the Council.  

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

NA.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Costs associated with the appointment of the external auditor were expected and included in the 2014/15 budget.

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

NA.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The compliance assessment is one of the mechanisms that enables the organisation to ensure that it has governance systems that deliver responsible, ethical and accountable decision-making.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The whole process of the compliance assessment is about identifying risks to the organisation where non-compliant activities have been taking place.   

 

CONSULTATION

 

As identified in Mr Martin’s report, officers responded to the questions and provided comments for consideration and review.  The consultant was required to review the responses, to verify supporting documentation and compliance with existing legislation.  This was undertaken during an onsite review process involving complete review of documents and processes.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The attached Compliance Audit Return again demonstrates that the organisation has an excellent understanding of statutory requirements and has applied the correct interpretation to these requirements.   The return, and therefore the auditor, examined the organisation’s processes and records relating to:

•             Commercial enterprises;

•             Delegations;

•             Disclosures of interest;

•             Disposal of property;

•             Elections;

•             Finance;

•             Employees;

•             Official conduct; and

•             Tenders for providing goods and services.

The external auditor Gary Martin stated that the standard of compliance was excellent.

It is apparent that the City has a strong culture of awareness of compliance requirements. There were no items of non-compliance or partial non-compliance noted in the total 78 items included in the Compliance Return, an achievement rate of 100%. The City has sound management systems and procedures. The level of compliance achieved is a significant indicator in respect of the high standard of management of the City.

 

Mr Martin concluded that the City has well documented policies and procedures and the achievement of 100% compliance is a testimony to the senior management awareness and effort to comply with the onerous legislative requirements.

 

The audit demonstrates ongoing commitment to statutory compliance and adequate response to non-compliance throughout the organisation. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is recommended that the Council adopt the return for submission to the Department of Local Government and Communities.

 

OPTIONS

 

The only option that would be available to the Council in order to comply with the requirement to lodge the return with the Department of Local Government and Communities would be to query any of the responses provided by officers and recommend a different response to the Department prior to adopting the return for submission.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The certified return must be lodged with the Department of Local Government and Communities by 31 March 2014.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.            accepts the report from Mr Gary Martin in relation to his assessment of the City’s compliance in 2014 as excellent;

 

2.            adopts the Compliance Audit Return 2014;

 

3.            authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign the joint certificate.

 

 

 


Council

137

25 March 2015

10.7

Attachment a

Busselton Compliance Audit Return 2014

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

147

25 March 2015

10.7

Attachment b

External Auditor's Report - Local Government Consultant Gary Martin

 


 


 


 

 


Council                                                                                      151                                                                25 March 2015

11.             Planning and Development Services Report

11.1           PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE VASSE NEWTOWN DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS STAGING PLAN (2011) AND VASSE NEWTOWN OVERALL DEVELOPMENT GUIDE PLAN (2014)

SUBJECT INDEX:

Local Planning Policies

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development  

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager Strategic Planning and Development - Matthew Riordan

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Extract from endorsed Vasse Newtown Overall Development Guide Plan 2014 (in relation to proposed VCRP area)

Attachment b    Extract from proposed Vasse Development Area Development Guide Plan (showing incorporation of proposed VCRP)

Attachment c    Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct (VCRP) concept design (collocated oval facilities)

Attachment d   Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct (VCRP) concept design (separated oval facilities)

Attachment e    Aerial view of the Vasse Development Area indicating the general boundary of the current Vasse Newtown Development Contribution and Staging Plan

Attachment f    Aerial view of the Vasse Development Area indicating the general boundary of the proposed Vasse Development Area Development Contribution and Staging Plan

Attachment g   Currently endorsed Vasse Newtown Developer Contributions and Staging Plan (2011) showing ‘track changes’ suggested to deliver revised ‘replacement’ DRAFT Vasse Development Area Developer Contributions and Staging Plan

Attachment h   Active Open Space Recommendations 2013  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is asked to consider proposed updates and modifications to the Vasse Newtown Developer Contributions and Staging Plan (VNDCSP), adopted by Council on 24 February 2011 – which is recommended to be referred to subsequently as the Vasse Development Area Developer Contributions and Staging Plan (VDADCSP) - and to the Vasse Newtown Overall Development Guide Plan (VNODGP), endorsed by the WAPC on 24 July 2014, which is recommended to be referred to henceforth as the Vasse Development Area Development Guide Plan (VDADGP).

 

NOTE 1: ‘Vasse Development Zone’ is the nomenclature used in Local Planning Scheme No 21 to describe the           general Vasse locality, although it does not include Lot 250 Kaloorup Road (‘Deferred Vasse      Development        Zone’) or the land referred to as ‘Heron Lake’. For the purpose of this Report, therefore, and for ease of                reference throughout, the subject area being considered herein shall be referred to as the ‘Vasse   Development Area.’ 

 

NOTE 2: To avoid confusion and ensure consistency throughout this Report, the oval known variously as the             ‘Kaloorup Road Oval’, ‘Kaloorup Oval’, ‘Newtown Cricket Oval’ and ‘Newtown Oval’ has been referred to                herein as the ‘Newtown Oval’ 

The proposed modifications will:

 

A)   Incorporate into the proposed VDADCSP relevant parcels of land already forming part of the endorsed VNODGP area but not presently included in the endorsed VNDCSP – these being a 21.5 ha parcel of land at Lot 250 Kaloorup Road, and a nexus of 14 properties on Bussell Hwy, near the junction of Napoleon Promenade and Orlando Boulevard, constituting what is known as the ‘original Vasse townsite’;

 

B)    Incorporate into the proposed VDADCSP a 13.85 ha area of land known locally as ‘Heron Lake’, which comprises Lot 9506 Heritage Drive and Lot 27 Rendezvous Road and borders the south-east corner of the endorsed VNODGP area. This land is currently subject to an independent DGP proposal for 63 x R12.5 residential allotments, together with a 6,700m2 Reserve for Recreation and 4 ha Reserve for Conservation. Lots 9506 and 27 are currently included in the Broadwater local precinct of the adopted ‘City of Busselton Development Contribution Area 1’ but are recommended to be transferred into the proposed VDADCSP area. Developer contributions generated by the future residential subdivision of ‘Heron Lake’ will, clearly, better serve the Vasse community of which Lots 9506 and 27 will form a logical extension and constituent part;

 

C)    Amend in small part the endorsed VNODGP to facilitate the development of a consolidated and integrated active open space area for local and district-level community and recreation facilities - on approx. 5 ha of land to the west of the proposed Vasse Village Centre and to the north of the Cape Naturaliste College. This particular site will be referred to in this Report as the Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct (VRCP) and will incorporate land recently ceded to the Crown by the Perron Group (Lot 8113), together with land that has yet to be ceded (Pt. Lot 9540).

 

D)    Incorporate reference to the Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct, and direct developer contributions towards its funding, within the VDADCSP. [NOTE: The relatively straightforward modifications to the VNODGP, together with proposed design amendments to the ‘Dawson’ and ‘Armstrong’ components (which are being currently prepared separately and are NOT subject to this Report), will necessitate the review and revision of the estimated lot yields and anticipated cash contributions listed for the Vasse Development Area. These and other recommended changes to the endorsed VNDCSP will allow cash contributions to be collected and distributed in large part to fund integrated and consolidated community and recreation facilities proposed for the VCRP within the Vasse Development Area.]

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.    Proposed Modifications to the Endorsed ‘Vasse Newtown Overall Development Guide Plan’ (to be referred to subsequently as the ‘Vasse Development Area Development Guide Plan’)

 

The modifications proposed to the endorsed VNODGP will involve:

 

·    The consolidation of a formerly proposed road reserve with an adjoining area of approx. 1.5 ha (previously identified for use as an Aged Care Facility between that road reserve and the Buayanup Drain) between Napoleon Promenade and the Rails to Trails (Wadandi Track) reserve;

·    The consolidation of the land referred to (above) with the currently designated ‘Active Open Space’ area (approx. 3.5 ha) of ceded land between Napoleon Promenade and the Rails to Trails (Wadandi Track) reserve immediately to the west (being Lot 8113) ;

·    The consolidated total landholding (approx. 5 ha) being designated on the proposed VDADGP as a contiguous ‘Active Open Space’ area for development and use as the Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct.

These changes may be readily identified by comparison between an extract from the endorsed VNODGP (at Attachment A) and an extract from the proposed modified VDADGP (at Attachment B).  

The recommended changes to the VNODGP, including the consolidated and integrated active open space facilities referred to above, have been proposed following discussions with a number of stakeholders, including representatives of the Perron Group (the current developer); the Department of Education and Training (DET); and the Department of Water (DoW - in respect to strategic water allocations and licensing); the two existing schools in the locality (being Vasse Primary School and Cape Naturaliste College); the Vasse and Districts Community Centre committee (VDCC); and several sporting groups based in and around Vasse.

 

There has been a range of views and opinions expressed by these parties as to the ‘best way forward’ in respect of the provision of quality community and active recreation facilities within the Vasse Development Area and it remains uncertain that a consensus position will ultimately be able to be agreed upon. Nevertheless, it is the view of City officers that the proposals being presented herein for formal consideration by the Council would provide an opportunity for optimum outcomes in terms of providing high quality community and active recreation assets for the use and enjoyment of the whole Vasse community in the future.

 

Before any recommended changes to the VNODGP can be finally adopted, formal public consultation must be undertaken. As such, officers are, in effect, only proposing the adoption by the Council of draft changes for the purpose of consultation. Should the Council endorse these draft changes and approve their being advertised for public comment, it would then need to assess those changes in the light of any subsequent submissions received. Any proposed changes to the VNODGP would also require the assessment and final endorsement of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).

 

Development of the draft changes recommended here by City officers has followed, and essentially reflects, a number of informal Council briefings held over the past 24 months. One of the first of these briefings was as a result of an approach to the City by the VDCC - seeking a suitable site on which to establish an expanded ‘country club’ type facility with bowls, tennis, croquet and the like (but not necessarily sporting ovals.) In response to that initial approach, officers identified a local 8.25ha parcel of Crown Land (Reserve 1079) along Bussell Highway, between Cookworthy Road and Pries Road, as providing potentially the most suitable available site for that purpose. Reserve 1079 is vested in the City for use as a ‘Reserve for Recreation’ and is currently ‘unimproved’, apart from a purpose-built facility in the south-eastern corner (accessed from Pries Road) housing the Vasse Volunteer Bushfire Brigade (VVBB).

 

Councillors are also advised that, more recently, officers have been liaising informally with the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) about the potential future use of a relatively small (approximately 6,000m2) portion of Reserve 1079, to the west of the VVBB facility, for the establishment of a ‘career’ fire station to service the Capes region.

 

At the time of the initial VDCC approach to the City, Councillors expressed concern to officers about the potential prospect of local community and recreational facilities being developed in three (3) separate locations within the Vasse Development Area; these being at:

 

1.       The Newtown Oval alongside the Vasse Primary School,

2.       Reserve 1079, and

3.       The planned new site (being Lot 8113, already ceded to the Crown) between the Rails to Trails (Wadandi Track) reserve and Napoleon Promenade, north of the Cape Naturaliste College. This site is referred to in this Report as the Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct.

This type of prospective ‘piecemeal’ development was seen as being undesirable to Councillors for a number of reasons, including being potentially far more costly to manage and maintain on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, officers were tasked with investigating whether the majority of community and active recreation facilities for the Vasse Development Area could be effectively and efficiently integrated into the ONE consolidated and integrated site.

 

Further to this, the City has also recently completed investigative work developing and refining its Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP). As part of this process, significant financial resources were allocated to the upgrading and maintenance of existing sporting ovals, to enhance their attractiveness and ‘usability’. Anticipated future active open space needs were also identified and planned for. During this combined exercise, it became increasingly clear that future needs would best be provided (especially in an efficient, sustainable and cost-effective manner) by consolidating and integrating community and recreational facilities, rather than in trying to manage and maintain a series of small and relatively ‘isolated’ areas of public open space.

 

Proposed Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct (VCRP)

 

If the modifications proposed to the VNODGP (and VNDCSP) are endorsed by the Council they will facilitate the progressive development of a consolidated and integrated community and active recreation area to be known as the ‘Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct’ (VCRP). This precinct would be situated on contiguous, City-owned land - generally opposite the DET sporting oval at the Cape Naturaliste College - for the use, enjoyment and benefit of both the Vasse and broader district communities. The VCRP could potentially contain:

 

·    Two (2) north-south oriented AFL ovals PLUS one (1) ‘incorporated’ (separately line-marked and posted) full competition-sized AFL oval generally oriented on an east-west axis across the same, contiguous grassed areas; 

·    One (1) north-south oriented, senior cricket oval, ‘incorporated’ seasonally within the same contiguous grassed area accommodating the AFL ovals (as described above);

·    Two (2) soccer/rugby pitches, ‘incorporated’ seasonally and/or through sporting club scheduling within the same contiguous grassed area (as described above);

·    Three (3) multi-purpose (basketball/netball/tennis) courts;

·    Two (2) competition-standard bowling greens;

·    A clubroom and changing room facilities;

·    Multi-purpose community rooms (NOT shown separately on current concept design sketches);

·    Associated car parking for sports participants and spectators;

·    Landscaped pedestrian linkages.

A concept design sketch illustrating the contiguous grassed sporting ground areas, and siting of the above-mentioned facilities in the proposed VCRP, is provided at Attachment C. A concept design sketch illustrating an alternative, separated positioning of the proposed grassed sporting ground areas is provided at Attachment D. Both design concepts are consistent with maintaining the central, straight-line trajectory of the Wadandi Track required by the National Trust along the former Busselton to Augusta rail alignment.

Please note that the concept design at Attachment D is NOT a preferred option by City officers as it would dissipate obvious advantages in collocating the grassed sporting grounds in the one contiguous area; including (e.g.) far greater flexibility in providing grassed areas in different configurations for different sports, along with an enlarged space for community gatherings and large-scale events such as festivals, community concerts, circuses, and the like.

 

It is currently envisaged that Stage One development of the proposed VCRP facilities would involve the construction on Lot 8113 of the western-most (north-south oriented) AFL oval, together with initial works for changing room and toilet facilities, landscaping and inception car parking.

 

The Perron Group has indicated in discussions with City officers that it is keen to see Stage One of the VCRP delivered in the 2015/16 financial year. The City would work closely with the developer in support of this initial work, and also in respect to subsequent and ongoing works to establish all mooted VCRP facilities in the most cost-effective, efficient and timely way possible.

 

In order to advance this, two fundamental aspects would need to be considered and endorsed by the Council (at a future stage), in close liaison with the Perron Group:

 

1.      The allocation and direction of developer contributions from the modified VNDCSP (that is, the proposed VDADCSP) being focussed towards the establishment of the Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct (together with an allocation of approximately $150,000 from the City of Busselton ‘Parks and Reserves Development’ budget) and, provided this can be achieved;

 

2.      A legal agreement between the City and the Perron Group formally consolidating the subject land proposed to contain the Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct into the ownership of the City, and  directing the timely allocation of funding, conduct and staging of required construction works and other responsibilities between the two parties on an ongoing basis.

 

In terms of available financing, there is currently an amount of + $855,000 of developer contributions in the City’s ‘Restricted Assets Account’ that could, in large part (and subject to the modifications recommended to the endorsed VNDCSP being agreed to by the Council) be channeled promptly into Stage One works for the proposed VCRP.

 

Despite this, however, it is likely that FULL delivery of Stage One works - especially in the timeframe proposed by the Perron Group - would require additional pre-funding (against future contributions) by the developer. This is because the City will be unlikely to have the financial capacity to make a greater capital contribution in the 2015/16 financial year and ‘third-party funding’ from the Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR), through the Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF), will also be unlikely to become available within this particular timeframe.

 

Contributions funding and other financial issues concerning the proposed modifications to the VNODGP and VNDCSP are discussed in more detail in the ‘Financial Implications’ section of this report.

 

Additional Active Recreation Development Potential Near the Proposed VCRP

 

Although NOT the specific subject of this Report, there are potential additional development opportunities available to the City in respect to any planned future expansion and/or diversification of the proposed Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct. These opportunities could involve the provision of:

·    A youth activity/skate park facility (although such a facility may be better situated elsewhere in the Vasse Development Area) and/or a croquet court;

·    The upgrading and development of the existing DET sporting oval, and immediate surrounds, at the Cape Naturaliste College; for potential ‘shared use’ as a senior AFL/cricket ground. 

 

In respect to the latter, an agreement could potentially be entered into between the City and the DET regarding the shared financing and development of the present oval adjoining the Cape Naturaliste College, especially once works associated with the Stage One development of the proposed VCRP have been completed. College students could then, for example, share the use of the initial VCRP sporting facilities whilst drainage, surface enhancements and other engineering works and site upgrades were undertaken for the DET oval and surrounds - with the resultant high-quality active recreation facility (once provided with the necessary ‘settling-in and establishment’ period) then becoming available as an additional shared community resource and asset.

 

Such an arrangement would be subject, of course, to comprehensive prior discussion, negotiation and agreement between the parties involved and should only be considered, at this time, as a valuable strategic option for the possible further consolidation and integration of the overall VCRP area.    

 

Proposed Modifications to the VNDCSP (to be subsequently referred to as the VDADCSP)

An aerial view of the Vasse Development Area indicating the general boundary of the current Vasse Newtown Development Contribution and Staging Plan is shown at Attachment E. An aerial view of the Vasse Development Area indicating the general boundary of the proposed Vasse Development Area Development Contribution and Staging Plan is shown at Attachment F.

The changes proposed to the endorsed VNDCSP, in the context of the development guide plan modifications listed previously - and those inclusions mentioned at A) and B) and D) of the Précis - may be summarised briefly as follows:  

·    The ‘monetisation’ of all future requirements for developer ‘in-kind’ contributions (other than land transfer requirements);

·    The inclusion of the proposed Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct, as previously described;

·    The allocation and direction of future cash contributions towards the development of the proposed Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct - with the retention of $150,000 of the developer contributions currently collected to be applied to upgrading Newtown Oval in a manner to be determined following public consultation;

·    Replacement of the reference to the provision of a 7,000m2 community purposes site ‘adjacent the Village Centre’. This site now corresponds to portion of the prospective VCRP and is to be ceded to the Crown by the Perron Group. This ceding should occur as soon as practicable after WAPC endorsement of the proposed VDADGP and proposed VDADCSP and prior to the clearance for subdivision of any subsequent allotments.

 

A copy of the endorsed Vasse Newtown Developer Contributions and Staging Plan (2011), with the modifications proposed in the consequently renamed Vasse Development Area Developer Contributions and Staging Plan shown as ‘track changes’, is provided at Attachment G.

 

Before suggested changes to the VNDCSP can be finally adopted, formal public consultation must be undertaken. As such, officers are, in effect, only proposing the adoption by the Council of draft changes for the purpose of consultation. Should the Council endorse these draft changes and approve their being advertised for public comment, it would then need to assess those changes in the light of any subsequent submissions received. Any proposed changes to the VNDCSP would also require the assessment and final endorsement of the WAPC.

 

Proposed Amendments to the Endorsed VNODGP (NOT Subject to the Current Report)

 

Whilst NOT the subject of this report, there are two relatively recent planning-related decisions which will have likely implications for the future planning and development of the Vasse Development Area. It is important for Councillors to be aware of these in considering the recommended modifications described previously. The decisions were:

 

1)    The finalisation of planning for the ‘Vasse Bypass’ route and its likely constructed completion by 2016. This connection will extend from the western terminus of the Busselton Outer Bypass around the northern and western edges of the Vasse Development Area to reconnect with the Bussell Highway on the southern (Margaret River) side. Once this Bypass has been physically completed and opened, that section of Bussell Highway currently passing through the original Vasse townsite will cease to function as a regional road and be effectively ‘downgraded’ in engineering and operational terms;

 

2)    The Council’s decision to support the potential relocation and expansion of the Busselton campus of the South West Institute of Technology into the Vasse Development Area (identified by the Dept. of Training and Workforce Development of the State Government.)

Other relevant prospective proposals within the Vasse Development Area (but also NOT subject to this report) presently include:

·    The potential for the development of a Private School on land between the ‘Vasse Bypass’ alignment and Bussell Highway opposite the ‘Vasse Village Centre’; on what had previously been proposed as a site for the Busselton Regional Hospital; and    

 

·    Proposals in the City’s DRAFT Local Planning Strategy (adopted by Council in 2014 for public consultation purposes, and currently subject to discussions with the officers from the Department of Planning (DoP) around ‘consent to advertise’ approval from the WAPC) to support the long-term expansion of Vasse. Such expansion would include not only the current zoned area reflected in the endorsed VNODGP, but additional development areas to the east and south. It is worth noting that, with these additional urban development areas included, the ultimate population of the Vasse Development Area could exceed 10,000. As a result, further strategic land areas may need to be identified for future community and recreation purposes when more detailed planning in respect to those proposed additional areas is undertaken.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Clause 7.7 of the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme 21 (‘Scheme 21’) sets out that - where required by Scheme 21, a Structure Plan or a Development Guide Plan - a Developer Contributions and Staging Plan shall be prepared. It also provides further advice in relation to the preparation and adoption of a Developer Contributions Plan (DCP) requiring, amongst other things: advertising of a DCP for consultation purposes prior to a decision being made to formally adopt such a plan; and also requiring the endorsement of the WAPC for any DCP that proposes a requirement for the making of contributions associated with the subdivision of land. The process associated with modifying an already endorsed Developer Contributions and Staging Plan (DCSP) is the same as that for adopting a new DCSP.

 

Clause 1.8.6 of Schedule 11 of Scheme 21 requires the preparation of a Developer Contributions and Staging Plan prior to the subdivision or development of land to the satisfaction of the Council and the WAPC. This will, of course, apply at the Vasse Development Area in order to ensure that the developer’s appropriate and timely contributions toward service infrastructure, distributor roads and community facilities are provided on an appropriately staged and progressive basis.  

It is noted that the City’s previous town planning scheme (Scheme 20) contained a clause ‘equivalent’ to Clause 1.8.6, but no clause ‘equivalent’ to Clause 7.7. There was, therefore, no procedural advice or direction in relation to the adoption of a DCP provided in the earlier Scheme, when the Vasse Newtown Developer Contributions and Staging Plan (2011) was adopted by the Council and endorsed by the WAPC.

 

Clause 7.5 of Scheme 21 sets out the process associated with adopting or modifying a Development Guide Plan (DGP), and requires advertising for public consultation before the new or modified DGP may be adopted by the City and endorsed by the WAPC. Although there is a power to reduce the advertising period for ‘minor changes’ to a DGP provided at sub-Clause 7.5.12, it is not proposed to utilise that power in this instance.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Extracts from the approved Vasse Newtown Overall Development Guide Plan (2014) and the proposed modified, ‘replacement’ Vasse Development Area Development Guide Plan - showing the recommended introduction of the consolidated and integrated Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct - are provided at Attachments A and B respectively.

 

A copy of the endorsed Vasse Newtown Developer Contributions and Staging Plan (2011), showing ‘track changes’ suggested to deliver a modified ‘replacement’ DRAFT Vasse Development Area Developer Contributions and Staging Plan, is provided at Attachment G.

 

Proposals in the City’s DRAFT Local Planning Strategy (2014) support the long-term expansion of the Vasse locality. This expansion would include not only the current zoned area reflected in the endorsed VNODGP, but additional urban development areas to the east and south. These expanded urban development areas could contribute to the ultimate population of the Vasse Development Area exceeding 10,000 residents. As a result of this, further strategic land areas may need to be identified to provide for future community and recreation purposes, when more detailed planning in respect to those proposed additional areas is undertaken.

 

In 2013, the Council adopted the ‘Active Open Space Recommendations’ to guide the future planning and development of active open space recreation facilities within the City. These Recommendations were published following 18 months of prior public consultation, needs assessments, demographic analyses of individual population precincts across the City, and a review of the City’s then current version of the Leisure Services Plan. A copy of the Recommendations document produced is provided at Attachment H.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

As at 23 February 2015, the City held $855,270 in developer contributions (in a Restricted Assets Account) for the delivery of community and active recreation facilities within the Vasse Development Area. This sum consists of contributions generated through subdivision that has already occurred, together with the interest accrued in respect of those contributions.

It is recommended in the proposed VDADCSP that $150,000 of these available funds be retained and set aside for the (as yet to be determined) upgrading of Newtown Oval (see ‘Officer Comment’ section). This would then leave a balance of funding currently available for first stage works at the VCRP of $705,270.

The projected costs of constructing what is envisaged to be Stage One of the proposed VRCP area is presently estimated to be as follows:

·    First north-south oriented AFL oval (on the most westerly end of Lot 8113,

which would also be suitable for use as a soccer/rugby pitch                     ($1,150,000);

 

·    Construction of the first stage of car parking:                                                    ($220,000);

 

·    Construction of first stage changing room and toilet facilities

(male, female, unisex and disabled)                                                                      ($250,000)

 

It is therefore estimated that Stage One development of the VCRP would be likely to cost a combined total of approx. $1,620,000 - meaning that approx. $915,000 in additional funding will be required. It is anticipated that this estimated shortfall could be met by funding from the following sources:

 

·    An allocation from the City ‘Parks and Reserve Development’ budget, up to $150,000;

·    Pre-funded developer contributions by the Perron Group, up to approximately $600,000;

·    Future developer contributions within the Vasse Development Area, up to $250,000 (possibly more, dependent upon the pace and timing of the creation and sale of new lots.)

 

In current dollars, the total cost of delivering ALL of the facilities proposed as part of the Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct is projected to be in the order of $7,655,000. This sum has been reflected in the proposed VDADCSP, and does not include estimates for landscaped pedestrian linkages, which will be determined subject to later detailed design and costings. The current total may generally be ‘broken up’ as follows:

 

·   Two (2) north-south oriented AFL ovals PLUS one (1) ‘incorporated’ (separately line-marked and posted) full competition-sized AFL oval generally oriented on an east-west axis

across the same, contiguous grassed areas:                                                                         ($2,500,000);

 

NOTE: will also ‘incorporate’ two (2) soccer/rugby pitches, to be used seasonally within the same grassed sporting areas PLUS (1) north-south oriented, senior cricket oval, ‘incorporated’ seasonally within the same contiguous grassed area accommodating the AFL ovals (as described above);

 

·   Three (3) multi-purpose (basketball/netball/tennis) courts:                                            ($135,000);

 

·   Two (2) competition-standard bowling greens:                                                                      ($360,000);

 

·   Clubroom, changing rooms and multi-purpose community rooms:                           ($3,660,000);

 

·   Associated car parking for participants and spectators (# to be determined):           ($600,000);

 

·   Lighting for soccer/rugby pitches (1), multi-purpose courts and

bowling greens                                                                                                                                     ($400,000).

 

NOTE:     It may be possible to secure a mutually beneficial arrangement for the provision of an additional senior-sized AFL and cricket oval on DET land adjoining the Cape Naturaliste College on the opposite side of the Rails to Trails (Wadandi Track) reserve to the proposed VCRP. This could be achieved through the shared funding of an upgrade to the existing sporting and recreation oval there - and the collaborative use and management of that improved facility between the College and the local community. Such upgrading and improvement works would have an estimated likely capital cost of $900,000

 

The City has recently completed investigative work developing and refining its LTFP. As part of this process, significant resources were allocated to the upgrading and maintenance of existing sporting ovals - to enhance their attractiveness and ‘usability’, as well as identifying and planning for the anticipated future active open space needs of the City. It became increasingly clear during this exercise that such future needs would best be provided - in an efficient, sustainable and cost-effective manner - by consolidating and integrating community and recreational facilities, rather than in trying to manage and maintain a series of relatively small and ‘isolated’ open space areas.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendations of this report reflect Strategic Community Objective 2.1 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013, which is:

 

‘A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation and 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. Risks are only identified where the residual risk, once controls are identified, is ‘medium’ or greater. The most significant risks of implementing the ‘Officer Recommendation’ are considered to be reputational, and related to:

 

·    Not meeting the expectations of some members of the Vasse community that Newtown Oval will be upgraded to an appropriate standard within the next 6-12 months; and

·    Not being able to assemble the necessary funding and resources to develop Stage One of the proposed VRCP in the 2015/16 financial year.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The recommended changes to the VNODGP – involving the identification and prospective use of land for the provision of consolidated and integrated active open space facilities - have been proposed following discussions with a number of stakeholders, including representatives of the Perron Group (the current developer); the DET; and the DoW (in respect to strategic water allocations and licensing); the two existing schools in the locality (being Vasse Primary School and Cape Naturaliste College); the VDCC; and several sporting groups based in and around Vasse.

 

There has been a range of views and opinions expressed by the parties mentioned as to the ‘best way forward’ in respect the provision of quality community and active recreation facilities within the Vasse Development Area and it remains uncertain that a consensus position will ultimately be able to be agreed upon.

 

The ‘Officer Recommendation’ includes a requirement under Local Planning Scheme 21 for formal consultation regarding the draft changes proposed here. In addition to any public consultation endorsed by the Council, it is also proposed that City staff offer to meet again with key stakeholders prior to the subject proposed changes then being finally considered by the Council. This would be done in order to discuss openly and constructively with all interested parties any additional preferred options and/or desirable outcomes that may be identified through the formal consultation process, for the betterment and enjoyment of the overall community.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The specific DRAFT proposals that the Council is being asked to consider and endorse at this time are minor modifications to the endorsed Vasse Newtown Overall Development Guide Plan (VNODGP) to accommodate the proposed (integrated and consolidated) Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct (VCRP), and more significant revisions and updates to the endorsed Vasse Newtown Developer Contribution and Staging Plan (VNDCSP) to produce the proposed Vasse Development Area Developer Contributions and Staging Plan (VDADCSP). The revisions and updates to produce the latter may be summarised as follows:

1.    Incorporate into the proposed VDADCSP relevant parcels of land already forming part of the endorsed VNODGP area but not presently  included in the endorsed VNDCSP – these being a 21.5 ha parcel of land at Lot 250 Kaloorup Road, and a nexus of 14 properties on Bussell Hwy, near the junction of Napoleon Promenade and Orlando Boulevard, constituting what is known as the ‘original Vasse townsite’;

2.    Incorporate into the proposed VDADCSP a 13.85 ha area of land known locally as ‘Heron Lake’, which comprises Lot 9506 Heritage Drive and Lot 27 Rendezvous Road and borders the south-east corner of the endorsed VNODGP area. This land is currently subject to an independent DGP proposal for 63 x R12.5 residential allotments, together with a 6,700m2 Reserve for Recreation and 4 ha Reserve for Conservation. Lots 9506 and 27 are currently included in the Broadwater local precinct of the adopted ‘City of Busselton Development Contribution Area 1’ but are recommended to be transferred into the proposed VDADCSP area. Developer contributions generated by the future residential subdivision of ‘Heron Lake’ will, clearly, better serve the Vasse community of which Lots 9506 and 27 will form a logical extension and constituent part;

3.    Amend in small part the endorsed VNODGP to facilitate the development of a consolidated and integrated active open space area for local and district-level community and recreation facilities - on approx. 5 ha of land to the west of the proposed Vasse Village Centre and to the north of the Cape Naturaliste College. This particular site will be referred to in this Report as the Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct (VRCP) and will incorporate land recently ceded to the Crown by the Perron Group (Lot 8113), together with land that has yet to be ceded (Pt. Lot 9540).

4.     Incorporate reference to the Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct, and direct developer contributions towards its funding, within the VDADCSP. [NOTE: The relatively straightforward modifications to the VNODGP, together with proposed design amendments to the ‘Dawson’ and ‘Armstrong’ components (which are being currently prepared separately and are NOT subject to this Report), will necessitate the review and revision of the estimated lot yields and anticipated cash contributions listed for the Vasse Development Area. These and other recommended changes to the endorsed VNDCSP will allow cash contributions to be collected and distributed in large part to fund integrated and consolidated community and recreation facilities proposed for the VCRP within the Vasse Development Area.]

5.    The ‘monetisation’ of all future requirements for developer ‘in-kind’ contributions (other than land transfer requirements);

6.    The inclusion of the proposed Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct, as previously described;

7.    The allocation and direction of future cash contributions towards the development of the proposed Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct - with the retention of $150,000 of the developer contributions currently collected to be applied to upgrading Newtown Oval in a manner to be determined following public consultation;

8.    The removal of all reference to the upgrading of Newtown Oval as a formalised active sporting facility;

9.     Replacement of the reference to the provision of a 7,000m2 community purposes site ‘adjacent the Village Centre’. This site now corresponds to portion of the prospective VCRP and is to be ceded to the Crown by the Perron Group. This ceding should occur as soon as practicable after WAPC endorsement of the proposed VDADGP and proposed VDADCSP and prior to the clearance for subdivision of any subsequent allotments.

 

In stakeholder discussions, there seems to be broad consensus on most points above, but divergence in respect to points 7 and 8. More specifically, representatives of the Vasse Primary School (VPS), the VDCC and some other interested parties have expressed the view that the Newtown Oval should be upgraded and developed for junior sporting activities using developer contributions already held by the City. This is what, in essence, was proposed (as part of a mooted $700,000 funding allocation) in the endorsed VNDCSP.

It is understood that the primary reasons that the VDCC, VPS and some other interested parties have the view that the Newtown Oval should be upgraded to facilitate junior team sports are as follows:

·    This is what is currently provided for and specifically allocated in the endorsed VNDCSP;

·    The VPS oval is currently being used by members of the local community, but the playing surface is unable to cope with the pressures being placed on it from both school and community use and, as a consequence, the VPS may need to limit, or further limit, community access in the future;

·    Whilst the idea of a ‘consolidated and integrated’ community and active recreation precinct in the described location opposite the Cape Naturaliste College is generally supported in the long term, a strong sense of urgency prevails in seeking to provide junior sporting facilities at Newtown Oval in the short term, in order to meet reported local demand.

 

For reasons already expounded in this Report, and as a direct result of detailed assessments including the recent preparation of the latest LTFP, the provision of a consolidated, integrated facility such as is proposed at the VCRP is considered far preferable to the alternative management and upkeep of small and relatively ‘isolated’ areas of public open space.

 

It has also become increasingly evident that the first stage of development of the VCRP can be delivered in the fairly near term (potentially within the 2015-2016 financial year) and, given the timeframes involved in budgetary, design and project delivery processes, at or around the same time that Newtown Oval could be comprehensively upgraded to an appropriate and sustainable standard.

 

In order to ascertain the basic works required and funding needed to upgrade Newtown Oval from its present state to a well-established, attractive, properly engineered and sustainable community playing field and recreation area, the following estimated treatments and associated costs have been provided by Engineering and Works Services (in the context of limited detailed information about the VPS/DET water bore and irrigation facility, and no detailed engineering design works having been prepared at this stage): 

 

Required Works and Treatment for Basic Upgrade of Newtown Oval

 

Estimated Likely Capital Cost ($’s)

Spray out for weed eradication, grass kill, rotary hoe, blend and trim

5,000

Imported fill, lifting of oval surface by 100mm to improve drainage (there would be no sub-soil drainage introduced), levelling to improve growing medium etc

40,000

In field irrigation (basic reticulation)

65,000

Introduction of turf stolons (see estimated costings, below, for additional funds required for provision of ‘roll-on turf’)

40,000

 

150,000

Thus, even to provide basic surface treatment and engineered upgrading to Newtown Oval would cost the City in the order of $150,000. This sum has been proposed to be allocated to the project in the VDADCSP. Please note that the following additional costs have not been included at this stage:

·    Costs for the annual upkeep and maintenance of Newtown Oval , which could potentially cost the City $30-$40,000 per annum.

NOTE: the VDCC has expressed a desire and a willingness to contribute to this upkeep and maintenance responsibility, through (for example) the transfer to its incorporated body of an existing water allocation licence (7kl p.a.) held by a ‘local donor’ (see following section). This transfer, to be ‘gifted’ by the ‘donor’, has yet to be confirmed by the DoW, although has been supported in recent correspondence by the City. Any such future arrangement in practice would need to be formally negotiated and agreed to by the Council – including, importantly, the transfer of the VDCC water allocation licence (were it to actually occur) to the City of Busselton.

 

·    The successful establishment of turf stolons is largely dependent on the planting season (ideally April/May) and the sustained application of fertiliser, water and mowing. Even in optimum conditions a minimum establishment period of 8-12 months would be expected. Generally speaking, basic establishment costs could be estimated at $2,500 per month. An estimated likely minimum establishment cost, therefore, would be $20,000 (for 8 months).

 

·    The basic upgrade and maintenance schedule has been costed running the irrigation directly from the VPS water bore; with minor necessary alterations made at the VPS control cabinet and assuming that there is adequate infrastructure in place for a connection point between the VPS and the Newtown Oval. The VPS would, in effect, have full control over the scheduling, operation and management of the irrigated water provision. In order to have an isolated irrigation system, with an appropriately-sized water storage tank to service the Newtown Oval treatments, the following additional costs to the City would be incurred:  

 

Irrigation tank:                                                                                                  $40,000

Pump, pump shed and control:                                                                  $30,000

Electrical works:                                                                                               $30,000

Alterations to adapt VPS bore operation for tank fill:                        $10,000               

Total Additional Works Cost:                                                                       $110,000

 

·    To establish a separate and independent water bore on the City reserve for Newton Oval could potentially cost a similar amount ($110,000), although further investigations into estimated costings on this would be required to be undertaken by Engineering and Works Services;

 

·    The provision of ‘roll-on turf’ (rather than stolons) would cost an estimated $100,000 (an additional $60,000 to the cost of turf stolons);  

 

·    NOTE: Should the establishment and maintenance of any surface improvements be reliant on the provision of Scheme water, there could be an additional capital cost of around $30,000 (to install specific Scheme water reticulation infrastructure) - together with an additional annual supply cost of around $20,000 - required to be met by the City.

 

In light of the infrastructure, installation, supply and maintenance costs described above, it could be entirely feasible that anywhere up to an additional $300,000 of funding could potentially be required to fully treat, upgrade, manage and maintain the Newtown Oval to an essentially basic standard - meaning a potential overall cost of up to $450,000.

 

City officers are of the view that the upgrading of Newtown Oval beyond being a safe, healthy and attractive community recreational area (requiring a minimum capital cost outlay of $150,000) would NOT represent the optimum use of both available and prospective developer contribution funds in the Vasse Development Area for the following key reasons:

 

·    Newtown Oval, even once ‘rehabilitated’, is relatively small; in fact, only large enough for one (1) senior soccer/rugby pitch, and not large enough for AFL or cricket at senior level at all (i.e. beyond under thirteens). It is also ‘isolated’ from other locations where larger scale, contiguous grassed sporting areas can be established and consolidated, integrated community and recreation facilities can be developed. The provision of toilets, showers, changing rooms and other conveniences at the Newport Oval would clearly be uneconomic. Similarly, the ongoing management and maintenance costs relative to the limited sporting activities that could be accommodated and conducted on the Newport Oval would be relatively high;

·    There is now, unlike when the VNDCSP (2011) was first prepared, an alternative nearby location immediately available (being the VCRP) where a much larger, consolidated and integrated precinct can be efficiently and very effectively developed (as has been explained throughout this Report);

·    Utilising a significant proportion of the currently available (and future expected) developer contribution funding to upgrade Newtown Oval above a certain basic and appropriate level - this being to the standard of a well-established, attractive, properly engineered and sustainable community playing field and recreation area - could cost in the order of $450,000 in the relatively near term. Were funding allocated to finance this, it would mean that larger and better, more efficient and sustainable, consolidated and integrated community and active recreation facilities could not be developed at the VCRP until - at minimum - several years later than what would be possible otherwise;

·    Sustainable access to a licenced water supply allocation (of a minimum 7kl p.a.) ‘in perpetuity’ has NOT been secured at the time of writing although a recent update in respect to this is provided for Councillors below:

 

Application to the DoW (by VDCC) for Transfer of Existing Water Allocation Licence (to the VDCC) for Use at Newtown Oval

 

The VDCC has very recently advised City Officers that it is negotiating with the DoW for the transfer of an existing water licence (for 7kl p.a.) in the SW Ground Water Allocation Area from a ‘local donor’ who is reportedly prepared to ‘gift’ that licence across to the VDCC. The fundamental purpose of this transfer would be to enable the VDCC, on behalf of interested local community residents, to contribute positively and effectively to the regular upkeep and maintenance of the Newtown Oval - once it has been upgraded to an appropriate standard.

 

The Newtown Oval is currently in a degraded condition due, in the main, to difficulties over the years in securing a water source to enable its dedicated improvement by replanting, irrigation and affiliated engineering works to provide a safe and attractive recreational environment for the year-round use and enjoyment of the Vasse community.

 

The City of Busselton, in considering the strategic options available for the upgrading of Newtown Oval has always had special concern in respect to the potential difficulties and costs involved in establishing (inter alia) a properly-grassed, drained and irrigated playing surface - and managing and maintaining that playing surface responsibly into the future - without the prior secure provision of a sustainable licenced water supply.   

 

The VDCC has requested the City to provide necessary written support to its application to the DoW for the subject licence transfer, and has assured Officers of its full commitment to the use of that water allocation for the upkeep ‘in perpetuity’ of the Newtown Oval. Officers support the expressed intention of the VDCC to secure the transfer of the subject water licence in order to facilitate this, and have provided written support through the Acting CEO to the subject application.

 

It is further understood that the VDCC intends to finance the costs of both the transfer of the water licence (which is evidently to be ‘gifted’ by the subject ‘donor’) and the provision of the subsequent water supply to maintain the health and viability of the Newtown Oval into the future.

It is important to note that, as helpful as this recent development is in prospect, a formal undertaking in respect to necessary legal and management arrangements et al going forward will be required to be negotiated and agreed between the City and the VDCC - in the best interests of the Vasse community and the City of Busselton. Any such arrangements will need the prior endorsement of the Council. Of especial import will be the recommended transfer (anew) of any water allocation licence that the VDCC may be successful in attaining in respect to water supply for the Newtown Oval to the ‘stewardship’ of the City of Busselton. This is seen as necessary by City officers to vouchsafe the ongoing supply and provision of the ground water under all foreseeable future circumstances.

 

Finally, the provision of a secure, ‘in perpetuity’ ground water allocation and protected supply will be essential in respect to any proposed upgrading works being undertaken at Newtown Oval. Should the establishment and maintenance of any surface improvements be reliant on the provision of Scheme water, there could be an additional capital cost of around $30,000 (to install specific Scheme water reticulation infrastructure) - together with an additional annual cost of around $20,000 - required to be met by the City.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed changes to the endorsed Vasse Newtown Developer Contributions and Staging Plan (VNDCSP) and the endorsed Vasse Newtown Overall Development Guide Plan (VNODGP) are seen by City officers concerned as providing for the timely, efficient and sustainable development of highly cost-effective and contiguous community and recreation facilities at the proposed Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct (VCRP), for the maximum benefit of the whole community within the Vasse Development Area.

 

The retention of an allocation from developer contribution funding, of a minimum $150,000, is recommended for the upgrading of the Newtown Oval to an appropriate standard to provide a safe, healthy, sustainable and attractive community play and recreation area. The balance of current and all future developer contributions funding is recommended to be channeled towards the provision of quality, highly adaptable (because consolidated and integrated) community and active recreation facilities and resources at the VCRP – with initial, Stage One works and development being potentially completed in the 2015-2016 financial year.   

 

In respect to related matters mentioned in this Report, but NOT the specific subject of this Report (e.g. prospective legal agreements and financial arrangements), Councillors are advised that these shall be reported upon separately to the Council in due course and their formal consideration and endorsement sought as circumstances then require.     

 

OPTIONS

 

In general terms, the available alternative options for the Council to consider in respect to the matters raised in this Report are all inter-related, viz:

 

1)    Leave the Vasse Newtown Developer Contribution and Staging Plan (VNDCSP) as it is and proceed with the substantial upgrading and improvement of facilities provision at the Newtown Oval - once a secure water allocation licence (for ‘in perpetuity’ supply and provision) has been authorised and confirmed;

 

2)    As a result of 1), any development of the proposed Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct (VCRP) would be likely to be setback for a minimum of 2-3 years, by which time the ongoing costs to the City would be significantly greater (possibly by more than $600,000 over the course of 10 years) due to annual management and maintenance costs associated with the Newtown Oval, together with rising interest rates et al;

 

3)    As a result of 2), it would be impossible to see anything ‘on the ground’ at all in the VCRP in the 2015-2016 financial year – with no allocation of subsequent developer contributions coming in before this and other community and recreation facilities investment decisions can be determined. Essentially all momentum and progress in respect to the mooted consolidated and integrated community and recreational facilities within the VCRP would have to be deferred.       

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should the ‘Officer Recommendation’ be endorsed by the Council, formal public consultation in respect to those relevant endorsed recommendations would be expected to commence within one month. 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council pursuant to part 7 of the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme 21:

 

1.    Adopt, as draft modifications for the purpose of public consultation, proposed changes to the endorsed Vasse Newtown Development Guide Plan (to be subsequently referred to as the Vasse Development Area Development Guide Plan) and the endorsed Vasse Newtown Developer Contributions and Staging Plan (to be subsequently referred to as the Vasse Development Area Developer Contribution and Staging Plan) described throughout this Report and set out in Attachments B and G;

2.    Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to coordinate and convene a working group of City officers and local community representatives - including members of the Vasse and Districts Community Centre Committee, Cape Naturaliste College, relevant sporting and recreational clubs and community groups, the Vasse Primary School and any other relevant interested party identified - to investigate the feasibility of proposals for Newtown Oval.

 

 

 


Council

167

25 March 2015

11.1

Attachment a

Extract from endorsed Vasse Newtown Overall Development Guide Plan 2014 (in relation to proposed VCRP area)

 


Council

165

25 March 2015

11.1

Attachment b

Extract from proposed Vasse Development Area Development Guide Plan (showing incorporation of proposed VCRP)

 


Council

169

25 March 2015

11.1

Attachment c

Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct (VCRP) concept design (collocated oval facilities)

 


Council

167

25 March 2015

11.1

Attachment d

Vasse Community and Recreation Precinct (VCRP) concept design (separated oval facilities)

 


Council

171

25 March 2015

11.1

Attachment e

Aerial view of the Vasse Development Area indicating the general boundary of the current Vasse Newtown Development Contribution and Staging Plan

 


Council

169

25 March 2015

11.1

Attachment f

Aerial view of the Vasse Development Area indicating the general boundary of the proposed Vasse Development Area Development Contribution and Staging Plan

 


Council

175

25 March 2015

11.1

Attachment g

Currently endorsed Vasse Newtown Developer Contributions and Staging Plan (2011) showing ‘track changes’ suggested to deliver revised ‘replacement’ DRAFT Vasse Development Area Developer Contributions and Staging Plan

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

187

25 March 2015

11.1

Attachment h

Active Open Space Recommendations 2013

 


Council

191

25 March 2015

11.1

Attachment h

Active Open Space Recommendations 2013

 


Council

189

25 March 2015

11.1

Attachment h

Active Open Space Recommendations 2013

 


Council                                                                                      195                                                                25 March 2015

11.2           LOT 17 WEST STREET LANDUSE CONCEPT PLAN

SUBJECT INDEX:

Development

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:

Development Services and Policy

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Development Services - Anthony Rowe

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Revised Landuse Concept Plan

Attachment b    Concept Plan 09  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

City approval is required to advertise a revised Land Use Concept Plan affecting Lot 17 West Street, Busselton.

 

The purpose of the Land Use Concept Plan (LUCP) is to provide an appropriate layout for the future subdivision and development of Lot 17 West Street West Busselton.

 

The subject land (Lot 17 and some other adjoining parcels) is located in the Restricted Business Zone, but affecting this land in particular are the listing of Additional Uses and the inclusion of Special Provisions.  The Additional Uses explicitly provide for a Discount Department Store (DDS), and the Special Provisions provide that development should proceed in accordance with a Land Use Concept Plan.

 

Given the importance of the Land Use Concept Plan, in establishing the acceptable parameters that a development may follow, this report has envisaged, and brought forward potential development issues, including the integration of the development at the site in an orderly and efficient manner with its surroundings.

 

The assessment of the Land Use Concept Plan is proposed to be undertaken in a manner similar to that required for a Detailed Area Plan.  It requires public and agency consultation.  The endorsement of the WAPC is not required but ultimately it is the WAPC that will approve any subdivision to follow, and so it is envisaged that the draft plan be referred to the WAPC for comment as part of the consultation process; and the WAPC’s comments given considerable weight by the Council in considering the Land Use Concept Plan after consultation.

 

This report recommends adoption of a draft Land Use Concept Plan, subject to detailed changes, with consultation and further Council consideration to follow.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The City was advised of an intention to revise the Land Use Concept Plan in January 2014.

 

Since that time the City and applicant have investigated a number of preliminary and fundamental issues relating to the orderly arrangement of development of the site, especially traffic movement both internal and external to the site, storm water management and the interface with the New River wetlands.

 

A Land Use Concept Plan has now been submitted for Council’s approval to advertise the revised Land Use Concept Plan as provided by Part 7 in the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme.

The Scheme and Land Use Concept Plan will facilitate the development of Lot 17 and some adjoining parcels for a Discount Department Store, showrooms and other bulky goods retail and service commercial purposes.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The subject properties are zoned ‘Restricted Business’ under the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (the Scheme). That zoning ordinarily allows for showrooms, other bulky goods retailing, as well as other service commercial and light industrial purposes. The zoning does not, however, ordinarily allow for offices or for ‘shops’ (in town planning terms), such as supermarkets or discount department stores. Because of Additional Use 64 (A64), however, a discount department store can be approved on the site. A64 sets out that -

 

1.     The additional use specified shall be deemed to be a “D” (i.e. a ‘discretionary’ use) use for the purpose of Part 4 of the Scheme.

 

2.     Development shall be in accordance with a Land Use Concept Plan adopted by Council.  The additional use specified shall comprise a single discount department store with a gross leasable floor area of not less than 5,000m² and not more than 8,000m².

 

The Scheme also includes special provisions (SP26) that require that -

 

1.     Development shall be in accordance with a Land Use Concept Plan adopted by Council.

 

2.     Development of the land shall make provision for public access and dual use path connections between Prince Regent Drive and Bussell Hwy and West Street in the first stage of development, at the full cost of the developer and to the satisfaction of the local government.

 

3.     Development shall make provision for a foreshore and drainage reserve incorporating appropriate wetland buffers and providing for long term public access on site in the first stage of development, to the satisfaction of the City. The reserve is to be surrendered to the Crown free of cost for vesting in the local government.

 

4.     A Stormwater and Drainage Management Plan shall be prepared by the developer prior to any subdivision or development that addresses, inter alia, the management of stormwater on site, the provision of nutrient and pollution stripping mechanisms, and avoids adverse impacts on the adjacent wetlands, including during construction, to the satisfaction of the Department of Parks and Wildlife and the local government.

5.     Development shall address the interface with adjacent Residential zoned land to ensure an appropriate level of amenity and privacy by achieving low impact development outcomes adjacent to the Residential zoned land to the satisfaction of the local government.

 

6.     Dust and Noise Management Plans are to be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the City in order to maintain the amenity of adjoining residential areas.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Busselton Wetlands Conservation Strategy

 

The Wetlands Conservation Strategy was adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in late 2004 to provide a framework to guide the sustainable land use and management of the biodiversity and environmental values of the Busselton Wetlands, which extend from the Broadwater Wetlands to the Wonnerup Estuary. 

The area immediately adjoining the southern boundary of Lot 17 is identified in the Strategy as the New River Wetlands and is an existing Conservation/Recreation reserve.

 

The Strategy indicates that urban development should be confined to areas committed by zoning pursuant to the Scheme and any endorsed structure plans or planning strategies. 

 

Stormwater Policy

 

Stormwater is to be retained for use and/or infiltration within the lot at a rate of 1m3 per 40m2 of impervious area

 

Stormwater from the site does not adversely impact the quality of receiving waters, including drains, groundwater, waterways, wetlands and Geographe Bay through the use of Water Sensitive Urban Design techniques such as:

 

a)         Biofilters

b)        Infiltration trenches utilising amended soils for nutrient management

c)         Dry or ephemeral detention areas

d)         Living streams

e)         Constructed wetlands

 

A 5 Year ARI means the five year average recurrence interval, of a one hour duration, which for Busselton and Dunsborough areas equates to 25mm of rainfall. The volume of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces equates to 1m3 per 40m2.

 

Percent for Art Policy

 

The Percent for Art Policy requires a contribution of one percent of the estimated cost of development be provided towards the inclusion of artworks in built form and public spaces.  Art work/s associated with the project are to be approved by the Shire before approval of a building licence and installed prior to the issue of a Permit to Use.

 

Public art elements which fulfil the requirements of the policy could include pavement treatments, balustrading and the development of cultural and historical themes throughout the development, in addition to sculptural forms. 

 

Car Parking Policy

 

Shop (DDS)          1 space per 30m2 of ‘gross leasable area’ plus 1 loading bay per development

 

Showroom          1 space per 50m2 of ‘gross leasable area’ plus 1 loading bay per development

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The officer recommendation is to proceed to advertising of the revised Land Use Concept Plan.

 

There are no Long-term Financial Plan Implications arising from the Officer recommendation.

 

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 identified ‘downside’ risks only, rather than upside risks as well. The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve adopting the draft DAP for final approval. In this regard, there are no significant risks identified. 

 

CONSULTATION

 

Preliminary consultations have occurred with representatives of the Department of Parks and Wildlife, the Department of Water and the applicant and their team, in a meeting hosted by the City.

 

The Officer Recommendation is to commence formal consultation in accordance with the procedure described in the Scheme 21.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The proposal immediately before Council is a Land Use Concept Plan.  The applicant has provided a Concept Plan (No09) to assist interpretation of the land use concept Plan but it is not formally part of it.  The proposal overall before Council is not necessarily a comprehensive development to be undertaken by one land owner, it is instead envisaged that the land may be subdivided with the Land Use Concept Plan guiding a comprehensive and coordinated outcome.

 

As a precursor to development of Lot 17, and recognizing the role of the Land Use Concept Plan in directing the development to follow, it is therefore essential to assess the revised concept by imagining the land uses and development that will follow; to ensure the framework of control is consistent with achieving a vital development whilst protecting the community interest.

 

Since being initially presented with the revised concept in January 2014, City attention has focused upon two fundamental issues.  One being maintaining orderly and efficient movement of traffic external to the site, and the other being the location of development within close proximity to the Wetland. 

 

Importantly the Land Use Concept Plan is subservient to the Special Provisions listed in Schedule 3, and any revised Land Use Concept Plan must at least be consistent with them.  The Land Use Concept Plan is also subservient to other policy in the Scheme that may address related matters to the land division and development of the site.

 

The City considers that whilst the traffic issues have been agreed, and stormwater issues per se resolved to the level necessary at this stage of the process, wetland interface issues have not yet been fully resolved. A conventional reading of contemporary policy in relation to wetland interface and buffer issues could place the southern boundary of development 30 metres or more further north on the site. Officers nevertheless recommend the Land Use Concept Plan be advertised with the proposed development footprint as shown – Council will then need to carefully consider feedback from the Department of Water, Department of Parks and Wildlife, the community and, especially, the WAPC, in considering the final adoption on the Land Use Concept Plan.

 

In terms of traffic, following an extensive and cooperative traffic assessment process, the following overall approach to roads and traffic has been agreed (with the agreed approach reflected in the draft Land Use Concept Plan, subject to the proposed changes set out in the Officer Recommendation – noting there are some matters, as noted below, that officers and the proponents are not fully agreed on, and the Council will need to determine the City’s position through formal Council consideration) –

·    The new intersection with West Street (the ‘Main Street’/West Street intersection) should be a single lane roundabout, but located to allow expansion by the City to a dual lane roundabout when the City upgrades West Street to four lanes without having to relocate or modify the roundabout centre, and also located, and land ceded, to allow future upgrade to a dual lane roundabout whilst retaining sufficient space for footpaths on both sides of the road without any need for the City to secure land on the eastern side of West Street – the rationale for this is threefold: (1) The development creates the need for the roundabout, but does not make any significant difference in terms of when it will be necessary or appropriate to upgrade West Street to four lanes, notwithstanding that it does contribute significantly to that need, but we know that such an upgrade will be necessary and appropriate within the life of the development; and (2) The development should not compel the City secure other land without the developer meeting those costs. Officers understand that the proponents are comfortable with this approach.

·    5.0 metres should be ceded along the boundary of the site and West Street, to allow for the future upgrading of West Street to four lanes, as well as allowing for appropriate landscaping, stormwater management, footpaths and on-road cycling facilities, although the proponent has asked that this be 2.1 metres only, and that any additional land be secured from the other side of West Street – Officers are of the view that the ultimate desirable width of the West Street road reserve in this location is 25-30 metres (rather than 20 metres currently), the development contributes to the need for the widening, and the proponent’s position would require the City to secure 2.9-7.9 metres from the land on the opposite side of West Street (and given that such land would most likely need to be purchased, it is entirely a matter for the City whether it seeks to acquire land for a road widening from one or both sides of a road).

·    ‘Main Street’ should not be a public road – this is because the development will not create useful public space and traffic modelling indicates that the road in its current configuration will not create any significant benefit to the broader road network, so there is no public interest in the City being responsible for maintenance and  asset renewal. Officers understand that the proponents are comfortable with this approach.

·    Both intersections to Bussell Highway should be ‘left-in/left-out’ intersections only – that is very easy to understand in terms of the more easterly intersection and was agreed by City officers and the proponents early in the traffic assessment process. The most appropriate intersection for the more westerly intersection was harder to agree on. Ultimately, City officers have formed a view that a ‘left-in/left-out’ intersection is most appropriate because: (1) It is clear (although contested by the proponents to some degree) there is insufficient space within the existing Bussell Highway road reserve to accommodate two lanes of traffic in each direction, plus a right turn slip lane into the site for eastbound traffic, and neither the applicant nor the City is prepared to secure the land necessary to widen Bussell Highway; (2) There is also insufficient space for a roundabout, and the intersection is considered too close to the West Street/Bussell Highway/Albert Street signalized intersection to put either a roundabout or signals in place; (3) Modelling indicates there is no significant benefit to the broader traffic network from allowing right turn movements into or out of the site; and (4) A left-in/left-out intersection has the least potential to affect traffic flow or future changes to traffic management along Bussell Highway. Officers understand that the proponents are comfortable with this approach.

·    The Peel Terrace/West Street intersection should remain in its current state, although the easement that provides access from West Street, opposite Peel Terrace, should be gated, and only available for use by the beneficiary of the easement – this second element is safety related. The option of a roundabout in this location was considered, but City officers felt it was not necessary or appropriate to make that requirement of the development because: (1) The roundabout will be too close to the West Street/Bussell Highway/Albert Street signalized intersection; (2) There is insufficient space within the road reserve and/or proponent’s land to accommodate even a single lane roundabout, and we know that a dual lane roundabout would ultimately be needed; and (3) Traffic modelling and uncertainties about what changes may be made in the broader network (especially at the PeelTerrace/Queen Street/Causeway Road, Peel Terrace/Pries Avenue, Albert Street/Pries Avenue and Queen Street/Albert Street intersections) do not indicate any clear or significant benefits of a roundabout in this location. Officers understand that the proponents are comfortable with this approach.

·    Easements and/or common property arrangements put in place to allow for access through and within the site, including from Prince Regent Drive, as well as access to the rear of properties fronting Bussell Highway. Officers understand that the proponents are comfortable with this approach.

 

A number of detailed changes to the Land Use Concept Plan will be required to fully reflect the outcomes identified above, and they are set out in the Officer Recommendation. There are two other issues on which City officers are recommending changes to the Land Use Concept Plan, both of which the proponent has expressed concern with –

 

·    The Scheme requires, and the Land Use Concept Plan provides for, a dual-use path along the southern edge of the site, in land to be ceded as open space/wetland buffer. Ideally, that dual use path would continue through the adjoining Lot 16, which is not owned by the proponent, but is within the area that can be subject of the Land Use Concept Plan. Unfortunately, officers are not at all confident that Lot 16 will be developed within any foreseeable timeframe, and this would essentially be a ‘path to nowhere’, potentially indefinitely. The proponents have indicated that persons using the, until and unless the path is completed through Lot 16, can continue their journey along the footpaths or similar within the site. Whilst some people would no doubt do so, that kind of outcome is not at all consistent with good practice for cycle path planning, especially for a planned cycle path network which is intended to be part of a complete network of paths around a Nationally important wetland and estuarine system, and is intended to increase people’s exposure to and engagement with that very important system. The sustained and substantial pressure by the City and community that resulted in the Minister for Water setting up the Ministerial Taskforce into the waterways of the Vasse-Wonnerup and Lower Geographe Bay is evidence of the importance of this issue. City officers are therefore recommending that the Land Use Concept Plan be changed to identify a dual use path alignment, to be developed by the developers and ceded to the City, along the western and northern boundaries of Lot 16.

·    Requirement for basic design guidance to be set out on the Land Use Concept Plan, and then supplemented by more detailed design guidelines – the proponents have expressed some concerns with the proposed changes identified by officers, which officers are certainly very open to discussing and, as this may not be an issue of much broader community and agency interest, feel it is an issue that could be addressed in more detail in parallel with and following the proposed consultation period.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Land Use Concept Plan, subject to changes as set out in the Officer Recommendation, is seen as appropriate to be adopted as a draft for consultation and, is also seen as appropriate guidance to provide for the coordinated and appropriate development of the land.

 

OPTIONS

 

1.    Reject the revised Land Use Concept Plan in favour of the current Land Use Concept Plan.

2.    Approve the revised Land Use Concept Plan, as submitted 4 February 2015, for consultation.

3.    Approve the revised Land Use Concept Plan for consultation subject to different changes to those listed in the Officer Recommendation.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Implementation of the Officer Recommendation will occur within one month of the date of the decision.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council, pursuant to Section 7 of the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme 21, adopt the draft Land Use Concept Plan for Lot 17, West Street included as Attachment A, as a draft for consultation as a ‘Detailed Area Plan’, subject to the following changes prior to consultation commencing -

1.         The identification of the Main Street on the Land Use Concept Plan should be made and notation added in the provisions, at provision 4, that it will not be a public road.

2.         A condition should be added requiring the construction of the Main Street, connections to Bussell Highway and intersection treatments as part of the first stage of development.

3.         That a space of 5.0m (instead of 2.1m) should be shown on the Land Use Concept Plan, inside the eastern boundary, for the purpose of Road Widening.  That the building envelopes and the Main Street splay with West Street should be adjusted accordingly, and notation in the provisions be added that the land is to be ceded at the first stage of development.

4.         That the roundabout at West Street should be shown on the Land Use Concept Plan as a single lane roundabout only, but located such that, and land ceded such that, the roundabout can be upgraded to a dual lane roundabout in future without need to relocate the centre of the roundabout or for any additional land to be ceded to or acquired by the City.

5.         That at the easement shown along the northern boundary with Lot 500 on the Land Use Concept Plan should show the easement to be gated at the boundary with West Street, and only available for use by the existing easement beneficiary.

6.         That a contiguous public access way easement 8m wide should be shown on the Land Use Concept Plan at the southern boundaries of Lots 4, 401,300,143,144,100 and 22, but not to provide access to West Street.

7.         That on the Land Use Concept Plan, only “Left In” and only “Left Out” traffic movements should be shown at the Lot 3 and Lot 11 junctions with Bussell Highway.

8.         That the dual use path shown on the Land Use Concept Plan should be continued to run immediately around the western and northern boundary of Lot 16 before joining on to West Street.

9.         Provision 2 on Land Use Concept Plan, should be deleted as it will be a matter resolved in the process of the approval of the Land Use Concept Plan.

10.       Provision 8 on the Land Use Concept Plan should indicate  “Development adjacent Residential -zoned land “ should be single storey and incorporate measures to avoid light spill into the adjacent residential area and provide service areas that are enclosed and located to minimise noise and disturbance to the adjacent residential area.

11.       Provision 5 on Land Use Concept Plan should clarify that easements should be provided, common property created, or lots amalgamated to ensure secure rights of vehicle and pedestrian access, as well as provide secure access to and sharing of car parking areas.

12.       Provision 13 on Land Use Concept Plan, referring to the development of Design Guidelines, should be deleted in favour of:

a.      Design guidelines for the built form and provision of landscaping being provided on the Land Use Concept Plan that promote a simple architectural form, the expansive use of glass at ground floor level (70%) which faces the carparks, clear identification of building entries, contiguous verandahs, enclosure of storage areas, and the landscaping methodology proposed for car parking and roadways areas and at the landscaping approach proposed for interface to the Wetland.

b.     Design guidelines for the built form being provided on the Land Use Concept Plan addressing the southern face of any building which faces towards the Wetlands, to incorporate design elements that break the expanse of walls by bringing forward and setting back elements and creating features of interest though the use of light and shadow, colors and textures.

13.       Development of Lot 16 shall not occur unless and until the Land Use Concept Plan has been amended to incorporate Lot 16.

 

 

 


Council

201

25 March 2015

11.2

Attachment a

Revised Landuse Concept Plan

 


Council

199

25 March 2015

11.2

Attachment b

Concept Plan 09

 


Council                                                                                      203                                                                25 March 2015

11.3           DA14/0367: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO REFUSE OVERHEIGHT OUTBUILDING WITH REDUCED SETBACKS AT LOT 6 (HSE 31) CLOVER CRESCENT, BUSSELTON

SUBJECT INDEX:

Development 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 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   Site Plan

Attachment b    Location Plan

Attachment c    Development Application

Attachment d   Refusal Letter

Attachment e    Request for Reconsideration  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The City has received a request from Shaun Johnston to reconsider the decision to refuse planning consent for an over height outbuilding with reduced setbacks at Lot 6 (Hse 31) Clover Crescent, Busselton.

 

The City refused the application on 2 February 2015 on the basis that the height variations and reduced setbacks of the outbuilding will result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on visual amenity to adjoining landowners and subsequently does not comply with the Scheme objectives or the R-Codes.

 

The application for reconsideration has been reviewed by officers, and recommended that the refusal be upheld. In accordance with Delegation TPD1 and Condition 1.2, the application for reconsideration and officer’s recommendation was circulated to councilors on 27 March 2015 for a period of seven days, whereby a councillor may request the matter be brought to Council for decision.

 

A request for the matter to be determined by Council was received on 2 March 2015. Council is requested to consider the application for reconsideration of decision to refuse planning consent for the over height outbuilding with reduced setbacks at Lot 6 (Hse 31) Clover Crescent. 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Lot 6 (Hse 31) Clover Crescent is 612m2 in area and is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density code of R15. A Site Plan is provided at Attachment A. A location plan is provided at Attachment B. Land to the north of Lot 6 is currently vacant, although is zoned for future ‘Residential’ with a density code of R20 capable of future development.  

 

The City received a development application (Attachment C) for an outbuilding with dimensions of 5.8m by 6m (34.8m2) which proposed the following variations to the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes):

 

1.    A wall height of 2.7m and a second wall height of 4.409m. The R-Codes assesses the wall height of gabled ends as the mid-point between the ridge and wall height. Based on this the northern and southern elevations have a calculated wall height of 3.92m under the R-Codes.

However, this does not account for the second point and ‘dome’ like shape of the outbuilding and the R-Codes do not provide guidance on how to assess the wall height of structures such as this.

 

The R-Codes allow a 2.4m wall height and a ridge of 4.2m as ‘deemed to comply’ (no planning consent is required). The City’s Local Planning Scheme varies the R-Codes to allow a wall height of 2.7m, and a ridge of 4.5m in height as ‘deemed to comply’.

 

2.    A ridge height of 5.14m, in lieu of 4.5m permitted by the Scheme as ‘deemed to comply’. The R-Codes allows 4.2m as ‘deemed to comply’.

 

3.    A setback of 200mm to boundaries (in lieu of 1m to the east boundary and 1.1m to the north boundary).

 

The application was referred to all adjoining landowners for a period of 21 days for comments. No submissions were received.

 

The City refused the application on 2 February 2015 based on the reasons detailed in the refusal letter at Attachment D. Officers consider that the height variations and reduced setbacks of the outbuilding will result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on visual amenity to adjoining landowners and subsequently does not comply with the Scheme objectives or the R-Codes.

 

The applicant has requested that the decision to refuse be reconsidered (Attachment E) for the following reasons:

·    The outbuilding will not be visible from any street scapes;

·    Neighbours have not objected to the proposed variations;

·    The assessment of the impact on visual amenity is subjective and based on individual opinions of staff; and

·    Outbuildings of similar sizes have been approved on similar sized allotments.

 

A discussion on the reasons for reconsideration is provided in the Officer Comment section below.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The relevant statutory documents are set out in the Local Planning Scheme, and Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.  

 

The property is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density code of R15. Residential development is controlled by State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes (R-Codes).

 

The R-Codes provides ‘deemed to comply’ criteria which is permitted ‘as of right’ and do not involve the exercising of discretion by planning officers in decision making. Should an application not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ criteria of the R-Codes, the variations requested are assessed against whether they can meet the ‘design principles’ which are based on meeting objectives.

 

The deemed to comply criteria which applies to outbuildings in the Residential zones is provided at 5.4.3 (C3) of the R-Codes and permits:

 

                C3           Outbuildings that:

i)             Are not attached to a dwelling

ii)            Are non – habitable

iii)           Collectively do not exceed 60m2 in area of 10 per cent in aggregate of the site area, whichever is the lesser;

iv)           Do not exceed a wall height of 2.4m;

v)            Do not exceed a ridge height of 4.2,;

vi)           Are not within the primary street setback area;

vii)          Do not reduce the amount of open space required in Table 1; and

viii)         Comply with the setback requirements of Table 1, but in areas coded R15 or less, the rear setback requirements is determined by Tables 2a and 2b.

 

The proposed outbuilding does not meet the deemed to comply provisions of C3 (iv), (v) and (viii) and is therefore required to be assessed against the design principle which is as follows:

 

‘P3          Outbuildings that do not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties.’

 

The Scheme has the ability to vary certain development standards of the R-Codes and Clause 5.3.1(f) varies provision 5.4.3 (C3) as follows:

 

‘Notwithstanding the deemed to comply provisions of the R-Codes, outbuildings that do not exceed a wall height of 2.7 metres and ridge height of 4.5 metres are deemed to meet the relevant performance criteria’ 

 

The outbuilding does not comply with Clause 5.3.1 (f) and is to be assessed against the design principles of the R-Codes.

 

The outbuilding does not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ setback requirements of tables 2a and 2b in accordance with Provision 5.4.3 Outbuildings and specifically (C3 viii) of the R-Codes and therefore also requires consideration under Provision 5.1.3: Lot boundary setbacks. The setbacks required by Tables 2a and 2b are based on the wall height and wall length of a building and require 1m to the eastern boundary and 1.1m to the southern boundary. Variations to lot boundary setbacks are to be assessed against the design principles which are:

 

                “P3.1     Buildings setback from lot boundaries so as to:

·    Reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties;

·    Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and adjoining properties; and

·    Minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.

P3.2       Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this:

·    Makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living areas;

·    Does not compromise the design principle contained in Clause 5.1.3 P3.1;

·    Does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property;

·    Ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for adjoining properties is not restricted; and

·    Positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape”.

Clause 11.2 of the Scheme also outlines ‘Matters to be Considered’ in the determination of development applications. The following are considered to be relevant to the proposed outbuilding and are to be considered when assessing an application:

a)    “The aims and provisions of the Scheme and any other relevant Town Planning Schemes operating in the area;

b)    Any approved State Planning Policy pursuant to the Planning and Development Act;

c)    The preservation of the amenity of the locality;

d)    The relationship of the proposal to development on the adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal; and

e)    Any other planning consideration the local government considers relevant”.  

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Local Planning Policy 1J – Outbuildings

 

Local Planning Policy 1J provides further interpretation of the Residential Design Codes and the Scheme. It provides guidance on the construction of outbuildings on vacant residential lots, and also provides a variation to the size of outbuildings which will be accepted as ‘deemed to comply’.

 

The policy varies the R-Codes to allow outbuildings in Residential zones to be collectively 90m2 in area or 10% in aggregate of the site area, whichever is the lesser.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

The recommendation on this report is a planning determination.  It does not impose any direct financial implications upon the City. 

 

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.  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

 

The application was referred for a period of 21 days to all adjoining landowners. No submissions were received.

 

 

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The assessment of the outbuilding requires consideration of both provisions of the R-Codes and the Scheme, with particular attention to consideration of the preservation of amenity. The wall height and ridge height is inconsistent with surrounding development and will be clearly identifiable as out of scale with adjoining development. The height of the outbuilding will create a view of bulk to adjoining development and will have an adverse impact on visual amenity to adjoining landowners.

 

This combined with a reduced setback of 0.2m further compounds the impact of bulk and impact of the building on visual amenity to adjoining landowners.

 

The application was not supported initially as the outbuilding is inconsistent with the design principles of the R-Codes namely that:

 

·    For the reasons noted above, the outbuilding will create a view of building bulk to adjoining properties and have an unacceptable impact on visual amenity; and

·    It does not positively contribute to the prevailing development context as it is out of character with the scale of immediately surrounding development.

 

The reasons for refusal relate to visual amenity and therefore the application is also inconsistent with the provisions of the Scheme in Clause 11.2 – Matters to be considered. It should be noted that officers do not consider that the outbuilding will have a detrimental impact on visual amenity from the streetscape or result in unacceptable overshadowing on adjoining lots.

 

The request for reconsideration raised a number of points, some of which are not planning considerations. Issues raised in the request pertinent to the determination of the application for the holiday home are discussed below.

 

1.    The outbuilding will not be visible from any streetscapes;

 

The decision to refuse has been based on the unacceptable detrimental impact on visual amenity to adjoining landowners. Officers have not refused the application based on the visual impact to the streetscape.

 

2.    Neighbours have not objected to the proposed variations;

 

The R-Codes requires consultation with adjoining landowners to be undertaken when one or more aspects are being assessed against a design principle, and the proposal has potential to have an impact on the amenity of adjoining landowners and occupiers.

 

No objections to the proposal were received from adjoining landowners as part of the 21 day consultation process, and the applicant has now provided written consent from all four adjoining landowners to the outbuilding as part of the request for consideration. 

 

The decision maker, upon receipt of any comment is required to consider and balance comment(s) with its technical opinion when it exercises judgement to determine the proposal.

The comments from adjoining landowners inform the decision making process with regards to variations to the R-Codes, however do not override the obligation of the local government to provide a decision based on meeting the design principles. Although adjoining landowners have not objected in this instance, the proposed outbuilding does not meet the design principles of the R-Codes and it is the technical opinion of officers that the variations in the wall height, ridge height and reduced setbacks are expected will result in an unacceptable impact on visual amenity.  

3.    The assessment of the impact on visual amenity is subjective and based on individual opinions of staff; and

 

When applications do not meet ‘deemed to comply’ of the R-Codes, the local government is to exercise its judgment to consider the merits of the proposal having regards to objectives and balancing these with the consideration of design principles in the R-Codes. Judgement is only to be exercised for the specific element which does not comply with the relevant deemed to comply provision(s).

 

Exercising of judgement is to be considered against the objectives and provisions of the Scheme and R-Codes. In this instance the discretion exercised relates to visual amenity which has been assessed in terms of bulk, the prevailing development context and scale of immediately surrounding development.

 

The process of exercising discretion can be subjective, but is also restricted to considerations allowable by the R-Codes and Scheme which provides for fair and orderly planning decisions to be made. The process of refusing an application, through delegations, and also the process of applying for reconsideration relies on the exercising of judgement of a number of individuals to make and review the decision. 

 

4.    Outbuildings of similar sizes have been approved by the City on similar sized allotments.

 

There are outbuildings within the City that have been approved with similar dimensions and on similar sized allotments to this application. 

 

 In most of these cases no objections from adjoining landowners were received and outbuildings were approved on the basis that those that would be affected had provided support for the application.

 

Recently the City has had a number of these outbuildings of similar dimensions, where the City did not receive objections from adjoining landowners and the outbuildings were subsequently approved. However, following construction, there have been adjoining landowners which have then objected due to a view of ‘bulk’ and the detrimental impact on visual amenity. There have also been comments made by adjoining landowners that they were unaware of the ‘scale’ of the outbuilding from the plans provided, and that the City has an obligation to assess the impact on adjoining landowners.

 

The R-Codes require the City to balance comments provided by adjoining landowners in accordance with technical opinion and consideration of the design principles of the R-Codes. The previous approvals of similar outbuildings do not provide a precedent for approvals of outbuildings in other locations particularly as a consideration of the Scheme is to take into account the surrounding development context and scale of immediately surrounding development.

 

The City has an obligation to assess applications based on the provisions of the R-Codes and refused this application on the basis that it did comply with the R-Codes and the Scheme as it would have an unacceptable impact on visual amenity.  

 

It is recommended that the decision to refuse be upheld.

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed over height outbuilding with reduced setbacks is anticipated to impact on the visual amenity of adjoining landowners and is therefore inconsistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the Residential Design Codes of Australia. It is recommended that the decision to refuse be upheld.

 

OPTIONS

 

Should Council be satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the Local Planning Scheme No.21, Residential Design Codes and the orderly and proper planning of that locality and the preservation of the amenities of that locality, Council may choose to approve the application subject to conditions.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The proponent will be advised of the Council decision within two weeks of the Council making a resolution.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council resolve to uphold the decision to refused for the following reasons:

 

1.    The wall height as determined by the R-Codes exceeds the maximum wall height of 2.7m, and ridge height of 4.5m permitted by the Scheme (variation to the 2.4m wall height and 4.2m ridge height deemed to comply by the R-Codes). Therefore the application is to be assessed against the design principles of the R-Codes as outlined below. 

 

The outbuilding does not meet the design principles of the Residential Design Codes namely ‘Outbuildings that do not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties.’

 

The significant height variation of both the wall height and ridge height is inconsistent with surrounding development and will be clearly identifiable as out of scale with adjoining development. The height of the outbuilding will create a view of bulk to adjoining development and will have an adverse impact on visual amenity to adjoining landowners.

 

This combined with a reduced setback of 0.2m in lieu of 1m further compounds the increase on visual amenity. The design of the outbuilding contributes to the bulkiness of the building.

 

The reduced setbacks of the outbuilding are therefore considered to be inconsistent with the design principles of the Residential Design Codes namely that:

 

a)    For the reasons noted above the outbuilding will create a view of building bulk to adjoining properties and have an unacceptable impact on visual amenity; and

 

b)    It does not positively contribute to the prevailing development context as it is out of character with the scale of immediately surrounding development.

 

2.    Clause 11.2 of the Scheme outlines matters to be considered, in the determination of development applications. The following are considered to be of relevance to the subject proposal:

 

(a)          The aims and provisions of the Scheme and any other relevant town planning schemes operating in the area;

 

(c)           any approved State Planning Policy pursuant to the Planning and Development Act;

 

(n)          the preservation of the amenity of the locality;

 

(o)          the relationship of the proposal to development on the adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal; and

 

(bb)        any other planning consideration the local government considers relevant.

 

Approval of the proposal will result in unreasonable adverse impact to the amenity of adjoining landowners and in this regard the proposal conflicts with provisions (a), (c), (n), (o) and (bb) listed under Clause 11.2 of the Scheme.   

 

3.     Approval of this development would be inconsistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality for the reasons noted above.

 

 


Council

211

25 March 2015

11.3

Attachment a

Site Plan

 


Council

209

25 March 2015

11.3

Attachment b

Location Plan

 


Council

213

25 March 2015

11.3

Attachment c

Development Application

 


 


Council

215

25 March 2015

11.3

Attachment d

Refusal Letter

 


 


 


Council

219

25 March 2015

11.3

Attachment e

Request for Reconsideration

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

225

25 March 2015

11.3

Attachment e

Request for Reconsideration

 


Council

223

25 March 2015

11.3

Attachment e

Request for Reconsideration

 


Council

227

25 March 2015

11.3

Attachment e

Request for Reconsideration

 

 


Council                                                                                      225                                                                25 March 2015

12.             Engineering and Work Services Report

Nil


Council                                                                                      231                                                                25 March 2015

13.             Community and Commercial Services Report

13.1           MARKETING AND EVENTS REFERENCE GROUP OUTCOMES

SUBJECT INDEX:

Events

Regional Economic Development

Tourism Development

Sponsorship and Grant Applications

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Commercial Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Events Coordinator - Shane Walsh

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

A meeting of the Marketing and Events Reference Group (MERG) was held on Tuesday 3 March 2015.  This report presents recommendations from this meeting.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Council, at its meeting of 13 April 2011 (C1104/114), resolved to endorse the implementation of a differential rating system whereby properties rated within the Industrial and Commercial zones across the City would directly contribute toward the City’s continued support of tourism, marketing and event activities.  This resolution also endorsed the establishment of a ‘Key Stakeholders Reference Group’ (now known as the ‘Marketing and Events Reference Group’) to make recommendations to Council with respect to the marketing and events budget allocations.

 

Further to this, at its meeting of 22 June 2011 (C1106/201), Council resolved to introduce a 3% Differential Rate on the abovementioned properties and as a result, $180k was included in the 2011/2012 budget towards events and marketing. Following this, in 2012/2013, Council increased the Differential Rate to 6% resulting in the allocation of $270k for the purpose of events and $90k for the purpose of marketing, and in 2013/14 Council increased the Differential Rate to 7%, allocating $253k towards events and $126k towards marketing.

 

As part of the 2014/2015 adopted budget, the Differential Rate increased by 1% ($68k) from 7% to 8%, with $366k (75%) allocated towards events and $122k (25%) towards marketing.

 

A MERG meeting was held on Tuesday 3 March 2014, and the outcomes of that meeting were as following:

 

The key focus areas in the ongoing implementation of the City of Events Strategy include:

·    Development of a strategic events management report in mid-2015, which will focus on the long term direction/objectives of the event sponsorship programme

·    Recording of financial and in-kind support for events

·    Streamlining the event application process on line.

 

Key matters discussed at the meeting included:

 

·    The success of the long string of quality events each week from November to March.

 

·    In 2013/14 the economic impact of events was estimated at $53.8m in total direct spend by the 68,000 visitors to the 83 events held, of which 44 were sponsored by the City for a total of $648k. With the standard multiplier of 1.92 that equates to $103.3m in-direct event tourism economic impact for last financial year. City officers will prepare a press release on this outcome.

 

·    The launch of the CapeROC events website and its incorporation into the City’s new website and the website of AMRS, GBTA and AMRTA.

 

·    MERG noted the $2.5k savings in the Differential Rates Events Budget following the cancellation of the Wise Winery Half Marathon at Meelup Regional Park in April 2015.

 

·    The $50k post summer “Recharge” marketing campaign was discussed, and it was recommended that these funds be carried forward into the draft Marketing and Events Budget for 2015/2016, to be used in future marketing strategies to take place after the tourism associations merger, however it was noted that these funds are to focus on new strategies to specifically promote Busselton, Dunsborough and Yallingup.

 

·    It was recommended that Council  incorporates an increase in the Differential Rate of 1% from 8% to 9% in the draft Marketing and Events Budget for 2015/2016, and the split between Events and Marketing remains at 75:25 ( $417k/$139k)

 

·    Following advice of a successful funding application, it was recommended that Council amends the 2014/15 adopted budget to include an increase of $40k in revenue to 333-10530-1239-0000 and $40k expenses to 333-10530-3645 for the Healthway sponsorship of the three City Events (Jetty 150th Celebrations, Fringe Festival of Arts, and Jazz by the Bay)

 

·    Following advice of a successful funding application, it was recommended that Council amends the 2014/15 adopted budget to include $10k in revenue to 333-10530-1300-0000 and $10k expenses to 333-10530-3645-0000 for the BJECA contribution to the Busselton Jetty 150th Celebrations event.

 

·    Following advice of a successful funding application, it was recommended that Council amends the 2014/15 budget to include $5k in revenue to 333-10530-1300-0000 and $5k expenses to 333-10530-3645-0000 for the Landcorp contribution to Busselton Fringe Festival.

 

·    The funding request of $50k for the Australian Directors Guild (ADG) Conference to be held in Bunbury and Busselton was discussed and it was recommended that the request not be granted and that the ADG seek funding from the South West Development Commission and other State funding agencies.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Nil

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The recommendations are in line with Council policies.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

As part of the 2014/2015 budget process, Council increased the Differential Rate by 1% to 8%, allocating $366k towards events and $122k towards marketing.

 

In addition to employing Events staff and the funding of marketing and events through the Differential Rate, the City funds the following events through the municipal budget under multi-year funding arrangements as follows;

 

Events - Multi-Year Agreements funded through Municipal funds

2014/15

Busselton Jetty Swim

 $2,600

Ironman WA Busselton

$169,400

Busselton Ironman 70.3

$45,000

Geographe Bay Race Week

$10,000

Cinefest Oz

$50,000

Festival of Busselton

$6,000

Carols by the Jetty

$1,000

Australia Day

$3,000

TOTAL

$300,000

 

As at March 2014, $2.5k remains in the events budget, and $57k remains unallocated in the marketing budget.

 

As part of the 2015/16 budget development process, it is recommended by MERG that Council incorporates an increase in the Differential Rate by 1% to 9% ($556k), and that the split between marketing and events be 25:75, resulting in the allocation of $139k towards marketing and $417k towards events in the draft budget.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

The recommendations made by the MERG are in line with the Council endorsed Long Term Financial Plan, including the proposal for a 1% increase in the Differential Rate to 9% in 2015/16.

 

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter aligns with the City of Busselton’s endorsed Strategic Community Plan 2013, and principally with the following Strategic Goal:

 

Well planned vibrant and active places;

 

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The recommendations contained within this report are considered low risk and as such a formal risk assessment is not provided.

 

 

 

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation has been undertaken with members of the Marketing and Events Reference Group, consisting of representatives from the Busselton Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Dunsborough Yallingup Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Geographe Bay Tourism Association and the Busselton Jetty Environment and Conservation Association, and the City of Busselton.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The Marketing and Events Reference Group has been established with representatives from the City of Busselton, local Chambers of Commerce, and the Geographe Bay Tourism Association.  A Terms of Reference guides the operations of the Group and an Events Sponsorship Programme has been developed. 

 

Supporting the development and attraction of new events throughout the year, the Events Sponsorship Programme promotes the City of Busselton as an attractive host and event tourism destination for a range of events.  The City, through the programme has attracted exciting new events to boost the local economy through event tourism.

 

In 2013/2014, the City increased its number of major events from 61 to 83. Since the start of the 2015 calendar year, 130 major events have been registered with the City for this financial year.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Marketing and Events Reference Group (MERG) has been assigned by Council to make recommendations on the way in which funds raised through the Industrial and Commercial Differential Rate for the purposes of events and marketing are allocated.  This report contains the recommendations made at the March 2015 meeting, which if endorsed by Council, will result in the continuation of high quality events being held within the region, supported by successful marketing promotions.  All recommendations support Council’s vision of being recognised as the ‘Events Capital WA.’

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may choose to disagree with the recommendations made by the Marketing and Events Reference Group and resolve not to endorse part or all of the recommendations.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Following Council’s decision, the outcomes will be communicated to all members of the Marketing and Events Reference Group and relevant event organisers for their information and implemented where required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council;

 

1.    As part of the draft 2015/16 budget preparations, supports the inclusion of an increase in the Industrial and Commercial Differential Rate of 1% to 9% ($556k) in and that the funds are split 25:75 between marketing and events respectively.

 

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY REQUIRED

 

2.    Approves an amendment to the 2014/15 adopted budget to include an increase of $40k in revenue to 333-10530-1239-0000 and $40k in expenses to 333-10530-3645 for the Healthway sponsorship of the 150th Jetty Celebrations, Fringe Festival of Busselton, and Jazz by the Bay events.

 

3.    Approves an amendment to the 2014/15 adopted budget to include $10k in revenue to 333-10530-1300-0000 and $10k in expenses to 333-10530-3645-0000 for the contribution made by the Busselton Jetty Environment and Conservation Association towards the Busselton Jetty 150th Celebrations event.

 

4.    Approves an amendment to the adopted 2014/15 budget to include $5k in revenue to 333-10530-1300-0000 and $5k in expenses to 333-10530-3645-0000 for the contribution made by Landcorp towards the Busselton Fringe Festival.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      235                                                                25 March 2015

13.2           COMMUNITY SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND - SMALL GRANTS ROUND SUMMER

SUBJECT INDEX:

Leisure Services

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Community Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Community Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Community Development Coordinator - Jeremy O’Neill

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   CSRFF Small Grants Application Form

Attachment b    Approval for Draft GLC Building Budget 2015/16 Memo  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

Each year Local Government Authorities are required to rate and prioritise the Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) submissions received within their municipality.

 

In June 2009 several changes were made to the CSRFF program including the introduction of the Small Grant Round, which has a different timeline to standard grant round.  Small Grant Applications must be submitted by local government authorities to Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) by 31 March 2015. The purpose of this report is to meet the CSRFF criteria by outlining the submission received for a project within the City for this current funding round and request that Council rate the application prior to forwarding to DSR for final consideration.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

DSR administers the CSRFF program, with the purpose of providing State Government financial assistance to Local Government Authorities and local community groups (up to one third of the total capital cost), to develop well-planned facilities for sport and recreation.

 

In June 2009 several changes were made to the CSRFF program to improve the level of support the Western Australian Government provides to the sporting community. Of particular note is the introduction of the Small Grant Round, which has a different timeline to standard grant rounds. Small Grant Applications must be submitted to DSR from Local Government Authorities by the end of March and August each year. This requires local governments to assess and prioritise applications prior to submission. Successful Small Grants are required to be acquitted prior to 15 June each year.

 

In order to assist with the evaluation of submissions and to ensure projects are viable and appropriate, DSR has developed “Key Principles of Facility Provision”. Accordingly, each submission is to be assessed against those criteria.

 

Under the provision, Local Government Authorities are required to rate and prioritise local submissions using the following guide;

 

RATE

DESCRIPTION

A

Well planned and needed by the municipality

B

Well planned and needed by the applicant

C

Needed by the municipality, more planning required

D

Needed by the applicant, more planning required

E

Idea has merit, more preliminary work needed

F

Not recommended

 

Submissions for the current funding round closed on Friday, 27 February 2015. Following this date, each Local Government Authority is required to assess and prioritise the applications before forwarding all documentation to the South West Office of the DSR no later than 31 March 2015.

 

During April and May 2015 local applications (along with others received throughout the State) will be evaluated and ranked by relevant State Sporting Associations and the CSRFF Assessment Panel, prior to the outcome being announced by the Minister for Sport and Recreation. Funds for successful applications will become available around August 2015.

 

One (1) application was received for the current small grants round as follows:

 

1.            City of Busselton Application – Refurbishment of GLC dry change rooms

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Nil

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The refurbishment of the GLC dry change rooms is outlined in the City’s Social and Ageing Plan and forms part of the overall GLC Master Plan.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

The refurbishment of GLC dry change rooms has a total project cost of $101,049 (ex GST).  Based on this, it is estimated that $67,366 will need to funded by the City. This is based on the State Government contributing up to a maximum of 1/3 (one third) of the total project cost through the CSRFF funding.  The refurbishment of the change rooms has been identified as a priority for 2015/16 in the City’s building asset management plan, and is subsequently included in the City’s draft 2015/16 budget.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter aligns with the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan 2013 and principally with the following strategic goal:

 

Caring and Inclusive Community

1.3          A community that supports healthy, active ageing and services to enhance quality of life as we age.

 

Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Places

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

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential risks of implementing the Officers recommendation was undertaken, and as a result, no risks were rated as ‘medium’ or above were identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation has taken place between City Officers and staff from the South West Office of DSR in regard to the funding submission received. Consultation has also taken place between City Officers assessing the application and the GLC Coordinator in regards to the submission received.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

City of Busselton Application – Refurbishment of GLC (dry) change rooms - Total Project Cost   $101,049


The application for refurbishment of the GLC dry change rooms has been submitted.

Upgrades to the GLC undertaken in 2014/15 consisted of wet (aquatic) change room refurbishments, additions of a leased café and allied health suites, a dedicated cycle room, and gym and crèche expansions. One section of the facility that was not included in this major upgrade was the refurbishment of the dry (stadium users) change rooms.

The intent of this project is to refurbish male, female and universal access change room and ablutions that are used by stadium user groups.  These user groups include Basketball, Netball, Indoor Hockey, Vacation Care, Volleyball, Badminton, School Groups, Junior All Sports Program and Fun Net (junior netball) program. The total attendance figures for these groups in the 2013/14 financial year was 64,661 participants, an increase of 22% on the previous year.  The first half of 2014/15 saw a 7% increase from the previous year.

The wet (aquatic) change rooms were refurbished in 2014. This project will bring the stadium change room facilities up to the same standard, including the replacement of wall to ceiling tiles and vinyl flooring, and the upgrade of ceiling panels and lighting, toilet and shower cubicles, and vanity benches. 

This project will provide a much needed facility upgrade to cater for the growing user group attendees at the GLC and as a result it may increase participation in sport and recreation activities that the GLC has to offer. It is recommended that this project be assessed as a ‘high’ priority and that it is a (A) Well planned and needed by the municipality.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The application received for the 2015/16 CSRFF Small Grants funding round show sound reasoning and  justification, as such it is recommended that Council adopts the Officers Recommendation to allow the project to proceed should funding from DSR be forthcoming.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may choose not to support the City of Busselton Application – Refurbishment of GLC dry change rooms.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

DSR, South West Office staff will be advised in writing of the Council’s decision prior to the end of March 2015 when the full contents of the application are forwarded to the Bunbury regional office

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council as part of the 2015/16 CSRFF Small Grants Program supports in principle the Refurbishment of the GLC dry change rooms by the City of Busselton as proposed in their application, rating it as ‘A’ and number one priority for consideration.

 

 


Council

239

25 March 2015

13.2

Attachment a

CSRFF Small Grants Application Form

 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

245

25 March 2015

13.2

Attachment a

CSRFF Small Grants Application Form

 


 


 


Council

249

25 March 2015

13.2

Attachment a

CSRFF Small Grants Application Form

 


 


 


Council

253

25 March 2015

13.2

Attachment b

Approval for Draft GLC Building Budget 2015/16 Memo

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council                                                                                      263                                                                25 March 2015

14.             Finance and Corporate Services Report

14.1           LOCKE ESTATE VACANT LEASEHOLD SITE (ASSESSMENT OF EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST AND PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT)

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:

Propoerty and Corporate Compliance

REPORTING OFFICER:

Property and Corporate Compliance Coordinator - Sharon Woodford-Jones

Property Management Officer - Vaughan Williams

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Plan of Leased Premises

Attachment b    Standard Locke Estate Lease

Attachment c    Confidential EOI Evaluation and Recommendation Report   

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

Expressions of Interest were sought in relation to Campsite 14 at Locke Estate following the departure of the former lessee, The Lake Jasper Project Aboriginal Corporation (Lake Jasper).

 

This report outlines the EOI assessment process undertaken by City officers and makes a recommendation on the preferred proponent for consideration of Council.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Reserve 22674 also known as the Locke Estate is an 'A class' crown reserve vested with the City for the designated purpose of ‘Recreational Camp Sites and Group Holiday Accommodation only’. 

 

The Locke Estate consists of 16 campsites that are managed and operated by various not-for-profit organisations through leases entered into with the City of Busselton. When the leases expired on 30 November 2011, thirteen of the lessees renewed their leases for up to 21 years.

 

Lake Jasper was one of the lessees that remained in occupation of the site previously leased by the Gnuraren Aboriginal Corporation.  Lake Jasper was the entity that had managed the site for Gnuraren since 2009. 

 

In October 2011 Council considered a report detailing the renewal of all leases at the Locke Estate.  The Council resolved (in part) (C1110/313):

 

“Upon satisfaction of high risk health and building regulatory compliance issues (if any), authorises the CEO to enter into a lease agreement with Lake Jasper Project Aboriginal Corporation for the occupation of site 14 being a portion of Reserve 22674 Lot 5303 Caves Road, Siesta Park, in accordance with the following terms and conditions:

 

a)            the term of the lease to be for 2 years, commencing on 1 December 2011 and expiring on 30 November 2013, with a further option for 19 years commencing 1 December 2013 and expiring 30 November 2032 subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of the lease;

b)            The rent to commence at $800 per annum exclusive of GST;

c)            all costs for the preparation of the lease to be met by the Lessee; and

d)            otherwise generally in accordance with the Locke Estate Lease at Attachment 2.”

The new lease was entered into with Lake Jasper in accordance with the resolution and the exercise of the option was subject to Lake Jasper demonstrating a sufficient level of compliance with high priority building and health regulatory requirements and lease conditions. The 2 year term expired on the 30 November 2013 and although Lake Jasper had been working towards achieving compliance they gave notice of their intention to vacate the site at the expiry of the initial 2 year term citing, among other things, the increasing cost of compliance as a reason for doing so.

 

Despite the fact that Lake Jasper were under an obligation to remove all property and infrastructure from the site within 3 months of expiry of the lease, they failed to do so.  Various attempts were made by City staff to achieve compliance with these obligations, including the service of formal notices under the Lease.

 

Ultimately given the financial status of Lake Jasper and the cost of further enforcement action, the decision was made not to progress with further action to enforce the obligation to clear the site.  The City ended up bearing the cost of clearing the majority of the site of the remaining buildings at a cost of around $50,000.

 

The City left one building on the site that had the potential for refurbishment. The costs associated with any works on this building will be the responsibility of an ingoing lessee.  The lessee will have the option to either renovate the building prior to use or demolish it.  In the event of receiving a proposal to retain it, a structural and electrical report will need to be obtained beforehand. 

 

Given the cost to the City of clearing the site, it is proposed that the rent for this campsite be set slightly higher than the other sites at  $2500 per annum plus GST with annual CPI rent reviews or3% increased, whichever is greater.  The initial rent for other sites was set at $800.  The requirement for a contribution towards coastal protection works will remain the same as for other sites, being set at $4000 per annum for up to 12 years.

 

It is also proposed that the term of the lease should be such that it expires at the same time as the other Locke Estate Leases, to enable the most effective management of the site into the future.   This results in a term of 17 years and 6 months in relation to this site.  The increased rent and revised term formed part of the Expression of Interest documentation for the site.

 

The City commenced an Expression of Interest (EOI) process on 22 August 2014 which was scheduled to close on Friday 31 October 2014.  Following several requests from interested groups, the closing date was extended to Friday 7 November 2014.  A total of 5 submissions were received.  A summary of the submissions is set out in the “Officer Comment” section of the report.  Further details of which are set out in the Confidential Attachment to this report.

 

City officers conducted an information session and open day on 11 September 2014 as part of the EOI process.  Interested parties were provided with details of the obligations that would be imposed on them. This included matters such as coastal protection, conservation management and obligations relating to the infrastructure remaining on the site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The selection criteria is outlined below:

 

Criteria

Weighting

Organisational Intent

·    Describe the services the organisation intends to deliver and how those services comply with the prescribed uses of the site as set out in the lease

30%

Premises Use & Purpose

·    Provide a detailed development concept and plan for the site (10%)

·    Identify the key responsibilities required in the lease (10%)

·    Detail how the proposed use will comply and the proposed accommodation is appropriate to the site (10%)

30%

Applicants Resources

·    Applicant’s financial ability to provide and construct the required utility infrastructure, building and accommodation (15%)

·    The applicants experience and proficiency in managing similar land and property (15%)

30%

Demonstrated Understanding

·    Applicants should demonstrate their understanding of the purpose of the reserve as contained in the Management Order

·    Provide details of their understanding of the environmental requirements and how these will be addressed

·    How will the use of the site add value to the general social wellbeing of the community

10%

 

100%

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

When disposing of property whether by sale, lease or other means, a Local Government is bound by the requirements 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 members of which are not entitled 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 recommended group is such that this exemption applies.

 

Section 3.54 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the ‘Act’) empowers the City to control and manage reserve land vested in it or placed under its control.  Reserve 22674, known as the "Locke Estate" is vested with the City of Busselton with the power to lease for any term not exceeding 21 years for the designated purpose of "Recreational Camp Sites and Group Holiday Accommodation only" subject to the consent of the Minister for Lands.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Nil

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

The rent will be $2500 per annum plus GST with annual CPI rent increases or 3% increases, whichever is greater, plus a contribution of $4000 per annum from the Lessee for coastal protection works for up to a maximum of 12 years.  As explained above, the objective of setting of a higher rent for this site is to more accurately reflect the costs the City has and will incur in relation to the site.

 

As with all Locke Estate leases, the City will not incur any maintenance or compliance costs in relation to this site.

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendation to enter into a lease with the preferred submitter aligns with the following City of Busselton strategic priorities:

 

Key Goal Area 1: Caring and Inclusive Community;

·          A community that provides opportunities for our youth to learn, grow, work and become healthy adults.