COB-RGB

 

 

 

 

 

Council  Agenda

 

 

 

26 August 2015

 

 

 

 

 

ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

 

 

 


CITY OF BUSSELTON

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA – 26 August 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, 26 August 2015, commencing at 5.30pm .

 

Your attendance is respectfully requested.

 

 

 

Mike Archer

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

14 August 2015


CITY OF BUSSELTON

Agenda FOR THE Council  MEETING TO BE HELD ON 26 August 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 12 August 2015. 5

Committee Meetings. 5

9.2          Minutes of the Finance Committee held 6 August 2015. 5

9.3          Minutes of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee held 11 August 2015. 6

10..... Reports of Committee. 7

10.1        Finance Committee - 6/08/2015 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 30 JUNE 2015. 7

10.2        Finance Committee - 6/08/2015 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – JUNE 2015. 32

10.3        Meelup Regional Park Management Committee - 11/08/2015 - REVIEW OF COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE AND MEELUP GOVERNANCE/MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS. 60

11..... Planning and Development Services Report. 91

11.1        AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 21 - OMNIBUS AMENDMENT 1 - CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION FOR COMMUNITY CONSULTATION.. 91

11.2        HOLIDAY HOMES - REVIEW OF PLANNING POLICY. 215

11.3        PROPOSED LOCATION FOR A NEW SETTLEMENT (HAMLET) - LOTS 1, 2 & 1490 WILDWOOD ROAD AND PORTION OF LOT 115 BUSSELL HIGHWAY, CARBUNUP RIVER - CONSIDERATION FOR ADVERTISING FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION.. 224

12..... Engineering and Works Services Report. 239

Nil

13..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 240

13.1        COMMUNITY SPORT & RECREATION FACILITIES FUND - SMALL GRANT APPLICATIONS WINTER. 240

13.2        2015/16 COMMUNITY BIDS - FIRST ROUND ALLOCATION.. 376

14..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 387

Nil

15..... Chief Executive Officer's Report. 388

15.1        BUSINESS PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER REGIONAL AIRPORT. 388

15.2        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 399

16..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 412

Nil

17..... Confidential Reports. 412

Nil

18..... Questions from Members. 412

19..... Public Question Time. 412

20..... Next Meeting Date. 412

21..... Closure. 412

 


Council                                                                                      5                                                                    26 August 2015

 

1.               Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors

2.               Attendance 

Apologies

 

Nil

Approved Leave of Absence

 

Cr Jenny Green

3.               Prayer

                   The prayer will be delivered by Pastor Sandy 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 12 August 2015

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Council  Meeting held 12 August 2015 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Committee Meetings

9.2             Minutes of the Finance Committee held 6 August 2015

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

1)         That the minutes of a meeting of the Finance Committee held on 6 August 2015 be           received.

 

2)         That the Council notes the outcomes of the Finance Committee meeting held on 6            August 2015 being:

 

             a)            The Committee noted the Information Bulletin – June 2015

 

             b)            The Financial Activity Statements – Period Ending 30 June                                                          2015 Item is presented for Council  consideration at Item 10.1 of this                                       agenda

 

             c)            The List of Payments Made – June 2015 Item is presented for Council                                    consideration at Item 10.2 of this agenda

 

 

 

 

9.3             Minutes of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee held 11 August 2015

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)        That the minutes of a meeting of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee held on 11 August 2015 be received.

 

2)        That the Council notes the outcomes of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee meeting held on 11 August 2015 being:

 

a)            The Review of Committee Terms of Reference and Meelup Governance/Management Arrangements Item is presented for Council  consideration at Item 10.3 of this agenda

 

b)            The Committee noted the Meelup Regional Park Vegetation Monitoring using Multi-Spectral Imagery report

 

c)            The Committee noted the Meelup Regional Park Annual Report 2014/15

 

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

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      7                                                                    26 August 2015

10.             Reports of Committee

10.1           Finance Committee - 6/08/2015 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 30 JUNE 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 30 June 2015  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 6 August 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 30 June 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 30 JUNE 2015

  

Operating Activity

 

§  Operating Revenue

 

As at 30 June 2015, there is a variance of +69.6% in total operating revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

+30%

+$1,322

Other Revenue

-22%

-$132

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

+328%

+$47,363

Profit on Asset Disposals

+659%

+$75

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (+$1,322K)

This variance is attributable to a broad range of activities and includes both favourable and adverse variances. The major variance however relates to an advance payment of the 2015/16 WA Local Government Grants Commission Financial Assistance Grant, to the value of $1.1M. These funds were quarantined to the Untied Grants Reserve at financial year end, and as such did not impact on the closing surplus/ deficit position. Other minor favourable variances include workers compensation payment reimbursements, insurance reimbursements, additional fuel levy subsidies and a slightly higher than projected Emergency Services Levy operating grant.   

 

Other Revenue (-$132K)

This variance is primarily attributable to a shortfall in collective fines and penalties revenue, along with reduced income from the sale of scrap metals. As at 30 June 2015, parking fines and bushfire related fines fell short of annual budget estimates by $45K and $32K respectively. The main reasons for the revenue shortfalls were due to the continued education of landowners in respect of fire related matters, and also the ongoing presence of the City’s parking inspectors. Sale of scrap metal revenue fell short of annual budget projections by approximately $56K, with the reduced demand largely due to the continued fall in the iron ore price. However as this revenue source forms part of the overall waste activities, and is included in the end of financial year reconciliation process, the shortfall has no direct impact on the closing surplus/ deficit position. In addition to the above, a number of lesser variances were evident, including unbudgeted Mayoral Prayer Breakfast registrations of $11K, albeit this revenue was fully offset by associated expenditures.          

 

 

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (+$47,363K)

As with the Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions category, this variance is attributable to a broad range of activities and includes both favourable and adverse variances. The major favourable variance relates to the unbudgeted receipt of Busselton Regional Airport Development grant funding of approximately $45.9M. Other material favourable variances include the ‘accounting’ recognition of donated assets, which exceeded annual budget projections by approximately $7.5M, the unbudgeted receipt of a grant of $0.6M for the Busselton Jetty cruise ship landing platform, and the receipt of additional developer contributions totalling approximately $0.4M. Conversely, and primarily as a result of timing differences, adverse variances were evident in a number of grant funded activities including the Busselton Foreshore project (-$5.0M), bridge construction (-$1.0M), road construction (-$0.5M) and airport infrastructure works (-$0.3M). It is worthy of noting however that performance in this category has no direct impact on the closing surplus/ deficit position. For example, unspent grants are quarantined as at financial year end, donated assets are accounting entries, and developer contributions are transferred to equity upon receipt, via the ‘Transfers to Restricted Assets’ capital expenditure activity. In addition, where grant funds are not received, the associated expenditure is not incurred.       

    

Profit on Asset Disposals (+$75K)

This variance is 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. This is in addition to higher than projected changeovers on a range of light and heavy plant items. It should be noted that Profit on Asset Disposals represent accounting entries only, and have no direct impact on the closing surplus/ deficit position.    

 

§   Operating Expenditure

 

As at 30 June 2015, there is a variance of +0.9% in total operating expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Materials and Contracts

-11%

-$1,599

Depreciation on Non-current Assets

+21%

+$2,086

Insurance Expenses

-11%

-$89

Interest Expenses

-14%

-$170

Loss on Asset Disposals

+221%

+$146

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Materials and Contracts (-$1,599K)

Due to the nature of this expenditure category, variances are evident across a broad range of activities. The major variances as at 30 June 2015 include the following:

§ Collective consultancy expenditure fell short of budget estimates by approximately $539K, with the primary contributor being rubbish site development consultancies (-$333K); which was fully reserve funded. Other shortfalls were evident in a range of activities and were impacted in some instances by unsuccessful grant funding applications (e.g. cultural planning)  

§ Collective contractor expenditure fell short of annual budget estimates by approximately $480K. Major variances included Vasse & Provence specified area rate contract maintenance works (-$364K), coastal protection related contractors (-$188K), Busselton Jetty contractors (-$162K), and also numerous building contractor related works including the Nautical Lady demolition (-$122K).   Conversely, annual budget overspends included a range of Parks and Gardens expenditures (+$266K), road maintenance contractor expenses (+$108K), and recycling and refuse collection contractors (+$145K).

§ Building maintenance services (including contract cleaning and general maintenance) fell short of annual budget estimates by $210K

§ Collective Legal expenses fell short of annual budget estimates by $127K

§ Plant and equipment maintenance services fell short of annual budget estimates by $99K (primarily fuel, oils and grease)

 

The remainder of the variance is attributable to budget variances in a range of expenditure types including but not limited to, material purchases, maintenance services and non capital asset acquisitions.

 

Depreciation on Non-current Assets (+$2,086K)

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 closing surplus/ deficit position.                       

 

Insurance Expenses (-$89K)

This variance is primarily attributable to property and plant insurance premiums, which reflect annual budget variances of -$47K and -$49K respectively. The Insurance budget drives a significant range of operating budgets, and as such, needs to be locked in reasonably early in the budget development process, and generally before final premium amounts are provided by the City’s insurer.                 

 

Interest Expenses (-$170K)

This variance is primarily attributable to the later than projected drawdown of the Busselton Foreshore loan facility. The annual budget included two quarterly interest repayments in 2014/15 on this loan, amounting to $169K. Whilst budgeted at $6.8M, a reduced borrowing of $6.5M was drawn in mid May 2015. However, the first repayment is not due until September 2015, and as such the full 2014/15 budget allocation represents a current financial year saving. In addition to the $169K in interest expenses, a further $155K in principal repayments also represents a current financial year saving.      

 

Loss on Asset Disposals (+$120K)

This variance is primarily attributable to book losses on the disposal of obsolete computer equipment, sundry plant items and a range of light and heavy vehicles. It should be noted that Loss on Asset Disposals represent accounting entries only, and have no direct impact on the closing surplus/ deficit position.       

 

Capital Activity

 

§  Capital Revenue

 

As at 30 June 2015, there is a variance of -4.7% in total capital revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Proceeds from Sale of Assets

+10%

+$88

Transfers from Restricted Assets

+115%

+$3,922

Transfers from Reserves

-40%

-$5,737

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Proceeds from Sale of Assets (+$88K)

This variance is due to both the unbudgeted receipt of funds for the disposal of sundry assets (e.g. obsolete computer equipment and small plant), and also where the sale/ trade-in of light and heavy plant items exceeds annual budget estimates. It should be noted that the impact on the closing surplus/ deficit position is generally minimal, as higher sale proceeds from the disposal of heavy plant items is offset by reduced transfers from reserves.      

 

Transfers from Restricted Assets (+$3,922K)     

Due to the nature of this category, the annual budget is predominantly spread evenly across the financial year. The variance to budget primarily relates to the return of deposit and bond monies of $1.8M, and the transfer of $2.7M of the $6.5M Busselton Foreshore borrowing facility to recoup associated expenditures incurred during 2014/15. In both instances, no associated budget allocations had been raised. Other variances included the shortfall in budgeted transfers from unspent loans, contributions and government grants, as associated projects were not fully expended in 2014/15. Performance in this category has no direct impact on the surplus/ deficit position, as associated transactions are either ‘off’ balance sheet (deposits and bonds), or represent equity transfers to fund associated expenditures (i.e. unspent loans, contributions and government grants).    

 

Transfers from Reserves (-$5,737K)

The attachments to this report include a detailed listing of all budgeted transfers from each reserve, and the actual transfers processed as at 30 June 2015. In summary, the major shortfalls were associated with collective Waste activities (-$2,656K), the Railway House project (-$1,123K), collective Busselton Jetty capital and maintenance expenditure (-$703K) and the transfer of interest earnings on the unexpended Civic and Administration Centre loan funds (-$540K). Transfers from Reserves do not ordinarily impact on the closing surplus/ deficit position, as they recoup identified expenditures incurred, albeit the non-transfer of interest earnings on the Civic and Administration Centre loan funds has impacted on the closing position.                 

 

Capital Expenditure

 

As at 30 June 2015, there is a variance of +58.2% in total capital expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold: 

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Land & Buildings

-53%

-$4,802

Furniture and Office Equipment

-24%

-$143

Infrastructure

-41%

-$11,047

Transfers to Restricted Assets

+4,965%

+$53,856

Transfers to Reserves

+10%

+$2,778

 

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

 

Performance in the above activities is also measured as an Organisational Key Performance Indicator (KPI), namely ‘financial year completed with all works, projects, programs provided for in the budget completed’. The Organisational KPI report is to be presented to the Council imminently and will include commentary on financial performance in these areas.   

A summary of the remaining variances is provided as follows:

 

Transfers to Restricted Assets (+$53,856K)

Analogous with ‘Transfers from Restricted Assets’, the annual budget in this category is spread evenly across the financial year. The significant favourable variance at financial year end is predominantly due to the quarantining of the unbudgeted Busselton Regional Airport Development grant funding of $45.9M. Additionally, a $6.5M borrowing facility for the Busselton Foreshore was transferred to Restricted Assets upon drawdown, pending reimbursement to municipal funds to recoup earmarked expenditures incurred during 2014/15. Further variances were also evident as a result of the receipt of additional developer contributions above budget projections of approximately $380K, along with bond and deposit receipts totalling approximately $343K. As with ‘Transfers from Restricted Assets’, performance in this category has no direct impact on the surplus/ deficit position, as associated transactions are either ‘off’ balance sheet (deposits and bonds), or represent equity transfers to quarantine funds received in the form of, amongst others, grants, unspent borrowings and developer contributions. 

 

Transfers to Reserves (+$2,778K)

The favourable variance is primarily attributable to an unbudgeted advance payment of $1.1M in respect of 2015/16 WA Local Government Grants Commission Financial Assistance Grant, with these funds transferred to the Untied Grants Reserve. Other major contributors included additional end of financial year transfers (above budget projections) to the Airport (+$254K) and Waste (+$814K) Reserves, based on overall financial performance in the respective activities, along with the requirement to transfer an additional $340K to the Long Service Leave Reserve, with this transfer  impacting on the closing surplus position.  

 

BUDGET VARIATIONS AND OTHER ‘KNOWNS’

 

In considering the October 2014 Financial Activity Statements, the Council determined (C1412/338) to quarantine a number of windfall revenues and identified savings to the Infrastructure Development Reserve; summarised as follows:

 

Description

Amount

$

September 2013 Storm Damage Claim Reimbursement

99,092

Insurance Scheme Surplus Distribution

50,336

Loan Repayments – Civic and Administration Centre

83,919

TOTAL

233,347

 

CONCLUSION

 

As at financial year end, a closing surplus of $0.1M (net of carry-over items) was achieved, equating to a significant variance on the forecast surplus. Whilst the savings specifically identified in the Budget Review were generally achieved, a range of lesser previously unidentified variances also directly contributed to the reduced surplus closing position.  This outcome could also be viewed in part as a consequence of improved and more accurate budgeting processes and a greater level of achievement of the City’s works programmes.

 

In summary, it is considered that overall financial performance against budget in 2014/15 was considered satisfactory, with a small surplus closing position being an appropriate as at the close of the financial year.             

      

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 30 June 2015, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations.

 

 


Council

15

26 August 2015

10.1

Attachment a

Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 30 June 2015

 


 


Council

17

26 August 2015

10.1

Attachment a

Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 30 June 2015

 


Council

19

26 August 2015

10.1

Attachment a

Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 30 June 2015

 


 


 


 


 


Council

23

26 August 2015

10.1

Attachment a

Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 30 June 2015

 


Council

25

26 August 2015

10.1

Attachment a

Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 30 June 2015

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      31                                                                 26 August 2015

10.2           Finance Committee - 6/08/2015 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – JUNE 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 - June 2015  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 6 August 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 June 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 notes the payment of voucher numbers M111429 - M111620, EF040660 – EF041215, T007148 - T007155, and DD002491 - DD002511, together  totalling $54,129,688.08.

 

 


Council

35

26 August 2015

10.2

Attachment a

List of Payments Made - June 2015

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      61                                                                 26 August 2015

10.3           Meelup Regional Park Management Committee - 11/08/2015 - REVIEW OF COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE AND MEELUP GOVERNANCE/MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

SUBJECT INDEX:

Committee Meetings

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Services; Environmental Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Meelup Regional Park

REPORTING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Existing Committee Terms of Reference

Attachment b    Proposed Governance Arrangements  

 

This item was considered by the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee at its meeting on 11 August 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

NOTE: During debate and discussion of this item at the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee, a number of Committee members expressed significant concern with the general ‘tenor’ and some of the detailed discussion set out in the report, feeling that some of the content of the report was unjustified and/or inappropriate criticism of the Committee and that the report did not recognise the considerable achievements of the Committee in managing the Park over an extended period of time. City officers acknowledge that the report could and should have recognised those considerable achievements and feel that is a reasonable critique of the report. Those achievements have included: the development and review of a broad range of plans that have and will guide the management of the Park; the facilitation and support of significant and highly valued community and volunteer involvement in the management of the Park; and very considerable achievements in both understanding and protecting the extremely significant biodiversity values of the Park. Officers would also note, however, that recognition of those significant achievements was implicitly recognised within the report and its recommendations, in particular through: recommending the continuation of the Committee; recognising that facilitation and support of community and volunteer involvement has been such that it is appropriate to consider taking the ‘next step’ in seeking to establish a separate, incorporated, ‘Friends Group’; and also in seeking to identify means to support  greater community and volunteer involvement in management of other bushland reserves managed by the City. During informal discussion following the Committee meeting there was also further discussion of a matter that had been discussed during the formal discussion of this item, but not directly addressed in the resolution, which was the potential to retain provision for deputy community members in the terms of reference – and that has been included in an amended officer recommendation being presented by officers, which is otherwise consistent with the Committee recommendation.

 

PRÉCIS

 

City officers have undertaken a review of the terms of reference of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee, as part of a broader review of the governance and management arrangements for the Park. A number of changes are recommended to improve the City’s capacity to meet the challenges associated with managing the Park.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Council is asked to consider the outcomes of a review of the terms of reference of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee, as well as broader consideration of the governance and management arrangements for Meelup Regional Park, including the servicing of the Committee and broader support for management of the Park by City staff and contractors. It is recommended that the Council adopt revised terms of reference for the Committee, as an integral and important part of a revised broader governance and management structure, to come into effect following the upcoming, 2015 Council elections. It is also recommended that the Council support the consolidation of support for the Committee and Park management more broadly using City staff, rather than using a combination of City staff and a part-time contractor.

 

The proposed changes to governance and management arrangements are seen as being important to ensure that the City, as custodian of the iconic Meelup Regional Park on behalf of the people of Western Australia, can meet the growing challenge of managing the Park into the future in an effective and efficient manner; recognizing especially that the majority of the costs associated with managing the Park are being met by the City’s ratepayers, and the Council has a duty to ensure that ratepayers’ funds are spent in as effective and efficient a manner as possible. It considered by officers that there are elements of the current arrangements that mean that ratepayers’ funds are no longer being spent in the most effective or efficient manner, and changes are therefore recommended, the principal aim of which is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of Park governance and management, and to meet the significant and growing challenges associated with management of the Park.

 

Meelup Regional Park is one of the most well-known and highly-valued places in Western Australia, and is both unique and iconic - from a biodiversity, landscape, cultural, recreational and many other points of view. In many ways, Meelup is equivalent to Kings Park or Rottnest Island in terms of its importance and value. Given that, it is obviously important that effective governance and management arrangements are in place. There has not been a significant review of those arrangements for a number of years, however, and it is seen as appropriate that occur at this time, for five key reasons –

·        The current 1x1x1 year contract with the part-time, contractor, ‘Meelup Environment Officer’ expires in August 2015 – and a decision needs to be made as to how support is to be provided for the Committee and park management more broadly beyond that time, essentially whether to continue with the current arrangements, where support is provided using City staff and a contractor, or whether there should be a more consolidated approach, utilizing City staff only (conceivably, a shift could be made to use of contractor staff only, but such a shift is not reasonably practicable or appropriate – and the reasons for that are apparent from the discussion set out later in this report);

·        Approximately 18 months ago, responsibility for Meelup shifted from the Commercial Services Business Unit within the Community and Commercial Services Directorate to the Environmental Services Business Unit within the Planning and Development Services Directorate – and the staff relatively newly involved, including the author of this report, have now had a reasonable opportunity to assess the effectiveness of current arrangements and, in particular, identify whether and what changes might be appropriate;

·        There have been several issues recently that have proven quite difficult to resolve – specifically the Meelup Beach carpark upgrade, location of the Gourmet Escape Beach BBQ event at Castle Bay and planned development of mountain biking facilities in the Park – and those issues highlight certain inefficiencies and ambiguities with the current governance and management arrangements;

·        The challenges associated with managing the Park are growing, especially as the local and regional population is growing rapidly, meaning that there is increasing use of the Park throughout the year, not just during peak tourism periods – it also needs to be especially noted that the population of Dunsborough is growing rapidly, and there is little useable, publicly owned land in and around Dunsborough, and it can be expected that residents of Dunsborough will increasingly want to use Meelup for recreation, and there are in fact very few alternative locations for certain types of activity – if that is to occur without degrading the biodiversity values of the Park, it will need to be carefully and pro-actively managed; and

·        Meelup has outstanding and unique biodiversity values, values which are potentially under increasing threat from recreational use and human activity in and around the Park more generally, as well as being under potential threat from climate change – which is of particular concern considering the number of small, remnant and isolate plant and animal species/communities present in parts of the Park, and either unique to the Park, present nowhere else west of the Darling or Whicher Escarpments, or otherwise rare and/or vulnerable.

 

City officers have undertaken a review of the Committee’s terms of reference and broader governance arrangements, in consultation with the current Committee Chairperson, and some other Committee members. Underlying objectives in undertaking the review have been –

·        Establishing a framework that will allow the City to best grasp the opportunities and meet the challenges associated with management of the Park;

·        The need to clarify the overall governance and management arrangements for the Park, which means clarifying, and making clear statements about not just the role of the Committee, but also the roles of other key elements of those arrangements – i.e. the Council, City staff, volunteers and other stakeholders;

·        Supporting decision-making at the lowest, least formal level possible, but providing for matters to be quickly escalated to more formal, higher level decision-making processes where matters are not able to be efficiently and appropriately resolved at lower/informal levels;

·        Ensuring that the Council has an ability to identify its objectives and priorities for the management of the Park, and that those involved with management of the Park work proactively and productively to achieve those objectives and priorities; and

·        Ensuring that the full suite of relevant issues (e.g. environmental, community, recreational and financial considerations) is considered as part of decision-making processes.

 

It is understood that the Committee members consulted with by City officers in undertaking the review are supportive of some of the proposed direction set out in this report, but not necessarily all of the proposed direction. The purpose of this report is to obtain the current Committee’s collective view on the proposed direction, following which the Council, as the body which has created the Committee and is ultimately responsible for the Park, will consider the proposed direction.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Meelup Regional Park is Reserve 21629, and is Crown Land over which the City has a management order. The reserve purpose is ‘Conservation and Recreation’. The City has power to lease over the reserve, for a maximum period of 21 years and subject to the approval of the Minister for Lands (or their delegate), provided that any such lease is consistent with the reserve purpose. It is an ‘A-Class’ reserve, which means that any change to the management order requires Parliamentary consent. There is also a formal management plan for the Park, which has been adopted by both the Council and the Minister for Lands, pursuant to section 49 of the Land Administration Act 1997. Where a management plan has been adopted pursuant to s49, the management body is required to manage the land in accordance with the plan.

 

The Meelup Regional Park Management Committee is created pursuant to the Local Government Act 1995 (‘the Act’), specifically via a resolution of the Council pursuant to sections 5.8, 5.9(2)(c) and 5.17(1)(c) of the Act. That resolution also establishes the terms of reference of the Committee, and a copy of the current terms of reference is provided as Attachment A.

 

The current membership of the Committee is as follows (community members, other than where indicated otherwise)–

 

·    Mr Peter Randerson (the current presiding member)

·    Dr Bob Jarvis (the current deputy presiding member)

·    Mr Chester Burton

·    Mrs Shirley Fisher

·    Mr Albert Haak

·    Mr Matt Slocomb

·    Cr John McCallum (as one of the two Councillor representatives)

·    Cr Terry Best (as one of the two Councillor representatives)

·    Mr Greg Simpson (as the CEO’s representative)

 

There are also a number of deputy members –

 

·    Mr John Lang

·    Mr Bob Ginbey

·    Cr Tom Tuffin (as the deputy Councillor representative)

 

S5.8 of the Act sets out that; “A local government may establish committees of 3 or more persons to assist the council and to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government that can be delegated to committees” (note italicized text in particular). Establishment of a committee by a local government requires an absolute majority vote of the Council.

 

S5.9(2)(c) and S5.9(2)(d) of the Act set out that, inter alia, a committee may comprise; “council members (i.e. Councillors), employees and other persons; or…council members and other persons”. At present the Committee consists of Councillors, an employee and other persons (i.e. ‘community members’), but it could consist of just Councilors and other persons (as it once did), and the principal relevance of this is that it is in fact what is recommended – and there are also a number of other possible permutations (for instance, just Councillors and employees, just employees and other members, just Councillors or just other persons, but not just employees).

 

S5.11 of the Act sets out that, inter alia; “Where a person is appointed as a member of a committee…membership of the committee continues until…the next ordinary election day”. The effect of that is that, should the Committee continue beyond the next election due in October 2015 (which is recommended), the Council will need to reappoint or appoint Committee members after the election– neither the Committee nor committee membership extends automatically beyond the next election.

 

S5.16(1) of the Act sets out that; “Under and subject to section 5.17, a local government may delegate to a committee any of its powers and duties other than this power of delegation. An absolute majority resolution of the Council is necessary to delegate a power of the local government to a committee. S5.16(4) of the Act though also sets out that; “Nothing in this section is to be read as preventing a local government from performing its functions by acting through another person” (again, note italicized text in particular).

 

S5.17(1)(c) of the Act sets out that; “A local government can delegate…to a committee referred to in section 5.9(2)(c) (or) or (d)…any of the powers or duties that are necessary or convenient for the proper management of…the local government’s property”. Meelup Regional Park constitutes local government property for the purposes of the Act. It is understood that the establishment of the Committee pursuant, in part, to s5.17(1)(c) is the reason that the Committee is referred to as the ‘Meelup Regional Park Management Committee’, rather than simply the ‘Meelup Regional Park Committee’.

 

In addition to establishing the Committee, the terms of reference and associated Council resolution seeks to establish delegated powers (i.e. delegated authority), as follows –

 

The Meelup Regional Park Management Committee is delegated authority to:

Exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government under Section 3.54(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 as they relate specifically to Meelup Regional Park, in accordance with the City’s Strategic Plan, Park’s management plan and Council’s budget, with the exceptions that:

a)    Normal maintenance and servicing (e.g. building maintenance and operations, maintenance of grassed areas and surrounds, rubbish removal etc.) of the coastal foreshore recreation areas at the localities of Eagle Bay, Meelup Beach and Castle Rock are to be undertaken by the City; and

b)    All law enforcement (e.g. bush fire control, litter control etc.) is to be exercised by the City’s Ranger and Emergency Services.

 

The terms of reference unfortunately do not clearly establish what the Committee’s delegated powers actually are (and it should be noted that statement is not in any way a critique of the Committee itself), but it is very clear that they do not, either in law or in practice, constitute a situation whereby the Committee is ‘responsible for managing the Park’ – certainly not in any simplistic sense (there is an initial, small but important point to make in that exception (a), when interpreted in any kind of literal or legalistic sense, is a circular reference, as it refers to activities being undertaken by the City, but the Committee itself is clearly and unavoidably part of ‘the City’). It is worth setting out in some more detail why that is the case, why that is an issue that needs to be addressed, and also how the issue might be addressed.

 

The terms of reference delegate the City’s powers under S3.54(1) of the Act. S3.54(1) of the Act sets out that –

 

If land reserved under the Land Administration Act 1997 is vested in or placed under the control and management of a local government, the local government may do anything for the purpose of controlling and managing that land that it could do under section 5 of the Parks and Reserves Act 1895 if it were a Board appointed under that Act to manage and control the land and for that purpose a reference in that section to a by‑law is to be read as a reference to a local law.

 

Before setting out what delegation of these powers to the Committee might mean, it is first worth noting that the concept of a ‘board’, as set out in the Parks and Reserves Act 1995, is more analogous to the City as a whole, than it is to the Committee – that is the concept is of a distinct corporate entity, with overall responsibility resting with an actual board (analogous with the Council) that controls the corporate entity (analogous with the City as a whole), and which employs staff to implement the decisions and direction of the board and undertake the functions of the corporate entity (analogous with the CEO and City officers). The Committee, however, is not a distinct corporate entity, rather, it is part of the corporate entity that is the City of Busselton, and the Committee does not and cannot employ staff or engage contractors (and nor can any committee established by the Council – a distinct and separate corporate entity would need to be established for that to occur).

 

S5 of the Parks and Reserves Act 1995 then sets out that a Board appointed under that act may –

 

In the exercise of its general powers in respect of the land placed under its control, a Board may, among other things, do as follows —

(a)      fence in or otherwise enclose, clear, level, drain, plant, and form walks and carriage drives through and over the land, or any part thereof; and

(b)      construct dams and reservoirs for the retention and formation of sheets of water thereon; and

(c)       otherwise improve or ornament the land, and do all such things as are calculated to adapt the land to the purposes of public recreation, health, and enjoyment; and

(d)      establish and maintain zoological gardens therein; and

(e)       grant licences for the depasturing of animals on the land, and take for the same such fees as the Board may, by any by‑law, from time to time appoint; and

(f)       grant licences for the removal of any sand, gravel, or other earth or mineral, and for cutting and removing wood under such restrictions, and at such reasonable price, or such weekly, monthly, or yearly sum as the Board may think fit.

 

Before looking any further at the Parks and Reserves Act 1895 specifically, it is worth noting that the Act is, reflecting its age, quite archaic, and many of the powers that the Act provides to a local government would, in any case, arise from other aspects of the Land Administration Act 1997 and/or Local Government Act 1995, or subsidiary legislation, in particular the City’s Property Local Law 2010. It is interesting to note that the Parks and Reserves Act 1895 is now largely redundant in relation to management of regional parks in other parts of the State, which are either managed primarily under the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 or, in the case of Kings Park and Bold Park, under the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority Act 1998.

 

Returning to S5 of the Parks and Reserves Act 1995,  assuming that neither the Committee nor the Council itself has any desire to establish a zoological garden, or grant licences for either the depasturing of animals, the removal of sand or rock, or the cutting of wood in Meelup, the functions that have, in fact, been delegated to the Committee are functions that are actually, in the main and in an actual, practical sense, undertaken by City officers or contractors – both in Meelup and elsewhere in the City. Whilst the Committee and/or the Council will often set the overall direction, and the Council will set the budget that allows certain works and activities to be undertaken by City officers or contractors engaged by City officers on behalf of the City, in actually undertaking or commissioning those works and activities, City officers are usually exercising the functions of the local government as a result of the Council acting through the CEO and in turn other City officers.

 

In a practical sense, works and activities being undertaken in Meelup are usually of a nature that, once a budget has been adopted, do not require specific decisions of the Council, or a committee or officer with a specific delegation, in order for the City to undertake those works and activities. Given that the only way that either the Council or a committee can make a decision is through a formal resolution, in a formal meeting, it would clearly be impractical and unworkable if either the Council or a committee had to make all or even a significant proportion of those kinds of decisions.

 

There are, however, more informal ways in which Councillors (but not the Council, as such) or committee members (but again, not a committee, as such), can be consulted about decisions to be made by officers, who may either be acting under a specific delegation or authorization (noting that in most instances it is simpler and considerably more efficient for officers to make delegated decisions than it is for a committee to do so) or acting through. City officers do this currently and regularly, both with respect to Meelup and more broadly.

 

It needs to be very clear, though, that Councillors (other than the Mayor or Acting Mayor in some very limited circumstances) or committee members cannot direct City officers or make an actual decision themselves outside of a formal meeting. What is occurring when this kind of informal consultation takes place is that the issues are being outlined and discussed, following which, in a formal/legal sense,  City officers make a decision – hopefully, but not always, on the basis of consensus amongst and between the officers and the Councillors and/or other committee members involved. This is, in fact, true even in the case of works undertaken at Meelup by volunteers – those works are actually authorized by decisions of City officers. This kind of approach can work well when there is a good working relationship, agreement on fundamental values and an openness to criticism, debate and differing points of view – it does not work so well, however, if there is significant disagreement or, alternatively, groupthink or similar.

 

Another thing to note about the current terms of reference is that, if the broader context is not properly understood and especially if the terms of reference are seen as constituting a situation whereby the Committee is ‘responsible for managing the Park’, they could be interpreted as the Council delegating powers and duties to the Committee that are in fact powers and duties that rest with the CEO and not with the Council. The most significant examples relevant to managing the Park are the powers to determine applications for permits under both the City of Busselton Property Local Law 2010 and the City of Busselton Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2015. The issuing of permits under these local laws is the primary means by which events or trading are authorized in the Park, and therefore an important element of the management of the Park – especially with respect to some aspects that have been somewhat contested of late. Decisions about such permits, however, are decisions that must be made by the CEO or authorized person - subject to compliance with policies adopted by the Council and charging of fees established by the Council through the schedule of fees and charges. They are not decisions that the Council can make or delegate to a committee – but the Committee has effectively sought to make such decisions from time to time.

 

There is a further class of decisions that, whilst they are decisions that can be made by the Council and could conceivably be made by a committee acting under delegation, are also decisions that the CEO or authorized officers could also, and usually do, make, even in the absence of a specific delegation from the Council; decisions to approve plans for the undertaking of car parking, road or footpath works or similar are an example of this kind of decision. The Committee’s current terms of reference could also not unreasonably be interpreted as delegating the power to make such decisions to the Committee – that delegation would not, however, take away the right of the CEO or an authorised person to also make such a decision. That is a situation that creates obvious potential for confusion, and conflict if there are differences of opinion as to the best way forward.

 

What the above serves to illustrate is that the current terms of reference do not mean that the Committee is ‘responsible for managing the Park’, but the above also serves to illustrate that it would not be possible to draft a terms of reference that do, in fact, create a situation whereby the Committee is ‘responsible for managing the Park’ (effectively, the only way to do that would be for the Committee to become a separate, incorporated entity, contracted by [possibly via entering into a lease with] the City to manage the Park – a model of that kind is the Busselton Jetty). It is considered by officers, however, that a committee and indeed the Committee currently, is needed as an important element of the overall governance and management framework for the Park. It is also considered by officers, though, that the role of the Committee needs to be more clearly and properly described, and that in doing so it is also necessary to more clearly and properly describe the role of the other key entities, that also have important roles in managing the Park.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

A copy of the current Meelup Regional Park Management Plan can be made available on request. Particular aspects of the Plan worth noting are –

·   The Plan emphasizes the importance of conservation values in managing the Park, but also clearly supports a range of recreational uses of the Park;

·   The Plan clearly does not support commercial development in the Park;

·   The Plan broadly supports events in the Park, provided they are consistent with the broader objectives and values, but indicates that where events do occur in the Park, they should make contributions towards management of the Park; and

·   The Plan does not explicitly require that the City establish a committee, but clearly requires consultation with the community in relation to decisions about the management of the Park.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Overall, the net annual cost to the City’s ratepayers of managing Meelup Regional Park in the 2014/15 financial year budget, excluding the time of salaried City officers, was $386,088. Because the Meelup Beach car park upgrade project was deferred and carried over into the 2015/16 financial year budget, actual spend was lower, at approximately $250,000. The figure in 2013/14 had, however, been somewhat higher, at $499,912, and the budgeted figure for 2015/16 is higher again, at $635,970 (including $130,000 as a carryover from 2014/15 associated with the Meelup Beach car park upgrade – the significantly higher figure is also the result in part of an increase of $55,000 resulting from the recent review of the City’s long term financial plan).

 

It is worth comparing the net cost to the City’s ratepayers of managing Meelup with the net cost of some other elements of the City’s operations. The net budgeted cost in 2015/16 to the City of operating the Naturaliste Community Centre is $264,926 and for the Geographe Leisure Centre it is $909,916. The net spend on environmental management works on all other reserves undertaken by the City’s Environmental Planning team is $117,870. Whilst these expenditures are not necessarily equivalent or comparable to expenditure at Meelup, they do help to illustrate the scale of the financial commitment being made by the City’s ratepayers towards the management of Meelup Regional Park – which is considerable.

 

There are several other particular elements of the Meelup budget and financial arrangements more generally that are worth further highlighting and discussing: (1) the budget allocated to engagement of the contractor/consultant ‘Meelup Environment Officer’, and the costs and benefits of potential alternative ways of providing those services; (2) the proportion of the overall budget that comes from revenue sources other than rates or grants (or ‘own source revenue’); and (3) what financial support the City may provide to an incorporated ‘Friends of Meelup Park’ or similar organization, creation of which is one of the recommendations of this report. Each of these issues is discussed in more detail under appropriate sub-headings below.

 

Environment Officer Services

The current contract to provide ‘Meelup Environment Officer’ services expires on 21 August 2015 and provides for approximately 20 hours per week, at a cost of $69/hour (plus GST), up to a total cost of $67,000 pa (plus GST) – which actually equates to just over 20 hours per week on average, or just over 0.5FTE, if equated to an employee accruing four weeks annual leave each year. The budget allocated to engagement of the Meelup Environment Officer in the 2015/16 financial year budget is $75,560, which includes an allowance for cost indexation from 2012, when the current contract was put out to tender. Informally, Committee members have expressed a desire to see the role increased to the equivalent of 0.6FTE, or 3 days per week. At current contract rates that would equate to a cost of approximately $75,500 per annum, or if costs increased in line with the indexation assumptions in the budget, would equate to approximately $86,000 per annum.

 

Whilst not specifically budgeted or measured, additional officer time (other than EWS wages staff – the wages of whom are specifically budgeted and measured and included in the financial figures described above) allocated to Meelup are estimated as being: Director Planning & Development Services (equivalent to around 0.05FTE); Manager Environmental Services (equivalent to around 0.2FTE); Executive Support Officer to the Director Planning & Development Services (equivalent to around 0.05FTE); Minutes Officer (equivalent to around 0.025FTE); plus additional staff time typically equivalent to the order of 0.1-0.2FTE; resulting in a total allocation of in the order of 0.425-0.525FTE, with an estimated effective cost of approximately $75,000 per annum (including on-costs). The effective, overall cost to ratepayers of managing Meelup Regional Park in 2015/16 will therefore be approximately $710,000.

 

At current pay rates and including estimated on-costs, the budget allocated to engagement of the Meelup Environment Officer in the 2015/16 budget, if reallocated from the consultancy to the salary and related budgets, would allow for an increase in the total amount of time allocated to servicing the Park to between 0.7FTE (at Level 7.1 – which is what would typically be expected for a qualified environmental professional with a reasonable degree of experience) and 0.9FTE (at Level 5.1 – which is what would typically be expected for a less qualified or experienced person, but possibly one with a more practical, hands-on focus, which given the fact that the City already has two positions for qualified and experienced environmental management professionals, may be a viable option). There would also be some significant efficiency gains in terms of allocation of the time of other City officers – this is described in a little more detail later in this section of this report. There is also some currently unallocated salary budget within the Environmental Planning budget that could be combined with the reallocated consultancy budget, to potentially create a full-time position, predominantly but not entirely focused on Meelup.

 

Because of the personal situation of the incumbent contractor/consultant, it is necessary for the City to find an alternative person or persons to provide services, at least for some period into the future. Before being able to enter into any kind of longer-term contractor/consultant arrangement, however, the City would need to go out to tender – and future costs associated with a contractor would therefore generally be determined by the responses to the tender. For a variety of reasons, therefore, the City now needs to determine whether to advertise a tender for a contractor/consultant, or whether to advertise a vacancy for an employee, to provide ‘Meelup Environment Officer’ services.

 

Before looking specifically at the respective potential advantages and disadvantages of use of City staff or use of a contractor/consultant to provide the services the contractor is currently providing, it is perhaps worth looking more generally at the kinds of services that a local government would ordinarily engage contractors or consultants to provide – and also note that over recent years, reflecting direction from the Council itself, the City has progressively reduced use of consultants, and increased focus on using, securing, retaining and developing in-house skills. Typically, a local government would use consultants for projects or services which –

·    Are of a highly specialist nature, requiring expertise that City officers do not have;

·    Are required for a specific project or for a short period only; and/or

·    Where there is a need to ensure a very high level of independence – examples of this kind are appointment of auditors, or assessment of potentially controversial planning proposals where the applicant is a Councillor or senior officer.

 

The work involved is not of a highly specialist nature, and the City has a number of employees who have all of the relevant expertise, and a number of others who have a significant amount of the expertise required, as well as other complementary skills. The work is also obviously of an ongoing and continuing nature. There is also not seen to be a need to ensure a high level of independence. Given all this, it is clear that the work being undertaken by the Meelup Environment Officer is not work that a local government would ordinarily engage a consultant to undertake.

 

Officers have also sought to identify the positives and negatives of an employee providing services, as opposed to continuation of a contractor/consultant model. A summary of the potential advantages and disadvantages of moving from a contractor/consultant approach to an employee approach is provided below –

Potential advantages of change

•        Likely to be significantly more cost effective, as set out above

•        Significant reduction in ‘double handling’ associated with purchasing, report and correspondence writing and record keeping

•        Much improved access to other City staff, including those with management responsibilities

•        Records will be captured in the City’s records management systems

•        Direct access to the City’s IT systems – GIS, records, finance and agenda/minutes systems –the City’s GIS system, in particular, cannot be efficiently accessed externally at present (due to the sheer amount of data and bandwidth involved), but is an extremely valuable and useful tool

•        Ability for officer to be properly trained to  do the minutes for the Committee

•        Better understanding of how the City functions, greater opportunity to learn from, educate and work with other staff

•        Others in Environmental Planning team able to pick up projects when on leave and greater opportunities for others in the Environmental Planning team to assist on Meelup projects/work

•        Opportunities to work on non-Meelup projects, thereby getting exposure to other issues and broadening experience/capability

•        Greater opportunities to identify and benefit from synergies between Meelup and other Environmental Planning team work

•        Access to City training and professional development programmes

•        Clarity around OHS and other IR issues

•        Act more effectively as a ‘bridge’ between the Committee and the organisation as a whole

•        Significantly reduces risk of relying on a single individual

 

Potential disadvantages of change

•      May lead to erosion in time allocated to Meelup – although it should be noted that experience over recent years suggests that quite the opposite is most likely to occur, and the proposal being put forward explicitly provides for an increase

•      Committee may feel reduced level of ownership/control

•      Reduced ability to work from home or on-site (although this can be managed)

•      Potential erosion of Meelup ‘focus’

 

Having considered the financial and broader operational issues, City officers are of the view that the advantages of moving from a contractor/consultant model to a City employee model very significantly outweigh the disadvantages and are therefore recommending an amendment to the budget to transfer the uncommitted balance of the contractor/consultant budget to the salaries (and associated budgets) in Environmental Planning, to enable engagement of a City employee ‘Meelup Environment Officer’. The various amendments proposed allow for the completion of the current contract (which assumes that the person appointed would take up the superannuation co-contribution provisions of the City’s Enterprise Agreement, resulting in a total City contribution of 15.25% of salary) and are set out in the table below.

 

Budget line

Description

2015/16 adopted budget

2015/16 proposed budget

Difference

425-11170-3260-9650

Environmental Services – Meelup –  Meelup Regional Park - Consultancy – General Consultancy Services

$75,560

$15,180

-$60,380

421-10830-3001-0000

Environmental Services - Environmental Planning – Environmental Planning Administration - Salaries - Normal

$192,280

$240,584.00

$48,304.00

421-10820-3025-0000

Environmental Services - Environmental Planning – Environmental Planning Administration - Salaries – Superannuation (SGC)

$20,900

$25,368.12

$4,468.12

421-10820-3026-0000

Environmental Services - Environmental Planning – Environmental Planning Administration - Salaries – Superannuation (City Contribution)

$4,930

$7,828.24

$2,898.24

 

On-costs (to be allocated across the budget)

-

$4,709.64

$4,709.64

TOTAL

-

$293,670

$293,670

$0

 

It is envisaged that, if the proposed budget amendment is endorsed by Council, a 1.0FTE, full-time, fixed-term contract (up to 3 years) position, as a Level 5/6 position would be advertised, with the position title being ‘Meelup Management Officer/Environmental Volunteer Facilitator’, with the expectation being that three days per week would be allocated to Meelup, and two days per week allocated to other bushland reserves managed by the City. It should be noted that the City is currently undertaking a review of its Environment Strategy, and in the process of undertaking that review, a potential to significantly increase community engagement in environmental management, if the appropriate support is provided by the City, has been identified. Additional resources will be required to realise that potential, and the proposed shift to providing Meelup Environment Officer services in a more cost effective manner creates the potential to secure additional resources, at no additional financial cost to the City, whilst also increases the hours available for meelup-related work. Making the position a fixed-term contract position allows for a review of the success of the arrangements in three years, including whether, because of continued growth in the challenges of managing Meelup, a further increase in Meelup support is needed by that time.

 

Own Source Revenue

In the 2014/15 financial year, revenue from sources other than rates or grants was around $6,000, or around 1.5% of budgeted net annual cost. Currently, the only source of funds other than rates or grants is fees associated with permits for events held in the Park (there are other fees collected by the City for traders’ permits for traders that do, at some times, operate from the Park, but as those traders are not just permitted to operate in the Park only, it is not reasonably possible to allocate or estimate a proportion to the Park – and the figure would not be significant in any case). That proportion is considered to be quite low, and places the vast majority of the burden associated with management of the Park on the City’s ratepayers and on community volunteers. King’s Park, for instance, generates approximately 40% of its revenue from lease income, fees and sponsorship – and receives no revenue at all from ratepayers in the nearby local government areas. Whilst it may not be possible to reach that level, certainly not quickly, there is seen to be significant potential to increase revenue from other sources, and increase the City’s capacity to meet the challenges associated with management of the Park and/or reduce the burden on the City’s ratepayers.

 

Whilst neither fees to access the Park per se, or commercial development that would generate a financial return for the City, are seen as appropriate or something which should be contemplated, there are seen to be several potential sources of additional revenue that would be appropriate to explore. The first of those is fees associated with events held in the Park – and there has been an increased focus on that area of potential revenue recently. The second is associated with the permitting or licensing of traders operating from the Park – and that is an issue being investigated by officers currently. The third is donations – and that could be assisted by establishment of a charitable trust to enable donations to be tax deductible and ensure their effective management. The fourth and final area is sponsorship – and that is considered by officers to be the source with the greatest promise.

 

Friends of Meelup Park

The officer recommendation proposes that the City work with existing volunteers to establish an incorporated ‘Friends of Meelup Park’. The rationale for that recommendation is not financial, other than that the creation of a separate, incorporated body would allow for –

·    Potential accessing of grant programmes and other funding sources that are not open to local government;

·    Establishment of a charitable trust to enable tax deductible donations to be made towards the management of the Park (although there are also other, potential means of doing so, which may be more appropriate – at this stage that is not entirely clear); and

·    Greater flexibility and efficiency in purchasing associated with volunteers, including in terms of tools and equipment, PPE and materials.

 

In the absence of a separate, incorporated body, any purchasing by or for volunteers is either entirely private and individual (i.e. using the individual volunteers’ own money), or it is purchasing by the City, subject to the City’s purchasing policies and procedures, and any assets purchased are City assets, that should be managed in the same manner as other City assets. Whilst the City’s policies and procedures are appropriate for the City’s own operations, they are quite complex, bureaucratic and costly when applied to much of the work undertaken by volunteers.

 

At this point, officers have not identified in any detail exactly what sort of purchasing or financial decisions would need to be made by an incorporated ‘Friends Group’, assuming that direction is supported by the Council and successfully implemented. It is, though, clear to officers that, for such a group to be successful, an allocation of funds in the City’s budget each year would be necessary. As the aspiration is to have the group established during the current financial year, an amendment to the budget to allocate funds ($11,000) to the proposed group is recommended. The proposed amendment is set out in the table below.

 

Budget line

Description

2015/16 adopted budget

2015/16 proposed budget

Difference

425-11170-3186-0000

Environmental Services – Meelup –  Meelup Regional Park – Recreation Reserves Maintenance

$164,770

$153,770

-$11,000

425-11170-3640-0000

Environmental Services – Meelup –  Meelup Regional Park – Donations, Contributions and Subsidies

$0

$11,000

$11,000

TOTAL

-

$164,770

$164,770

$0

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Following the recent review, the City’s long term financial plan provides for a total allocation of around $5.1M from the municipal fund to management of Meelup Regional Park over the ten year period of the plan, broken down on an annual basis approximately as set out in the table below -

 

Year

2015/16

2016/17

2017/18

2018/19

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25

Budget ($)

505,970

531,431

480,541

559,820

566,436

484,591

464,785

440,038

529,021

541,739

 

Note that, as noted previously, the actual allocation in 2015/16 is somewhat higher than the figure above.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendations of this report reflect Strategic Objective 6.2 of the City’s Community Strategic Plan 2013, which is ‘Governance systems that deliver responsible, ethical and accountable decision making’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of implementing the recommendations of this report has been undertaken against the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment sought to identify ‘downside’ risks only, rather than ‘upside’ risks. Risks are only identified where the residual risk, once controls are considered, is ‘medium’ or greater.

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

Reputational risk if existing Committee members are not supportive of proposed changes

Ensure proposals well developed and effectively communicated.

Regular and open communication with Committee members.

Minor

Possible

Medium 8

 

CONSULTATION

 

City officers have had several meetings with the Committee Chairperson and some other Committee members in developing this report. City officers have also arranged several informal briefing sessions of the Council to outline and discuss the issues.

 

City officers have also undertaken research into the governance and management arrangements associated with other, similar places and contexts, including visits by City officers, in the company of several Committee members, to both the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority (BGPA - which manages Kings Park and Bold Park) and to the Regional Parks Unit of the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW), which manages a number of regional parks in the Perth Metropolitan Region (e.g. Darling Range Regional Park, Woodman Point). Those visits involved meeting with officers of both organisations, including the Chief Executive Officer and senior operational staff of the BGPA. Some of the notable things learned during those visits were –

·    Both DPaW and especially BGPA work with volunteers on the management of the respective parks, in the case of the BGPA those volunteers are all members of separate, incorporated ‘friends groups’ (there are five such groups) and in the case of DPaW, they are sometimes members of incorporated groups, and sometimes more informally organized;

·    Neither DPaW nor the BGPA has an equivalent of the Committee;

·    On a per hectare basis, BGPA has substantially higher resourcing levels than does the City with respect to Meelup, but DPaW resourcing levels with respect to the regional parks they manage are substantially lower; and

·    Local government ratepayers in the communities near the regional parks managed by DPaW and BGPA do not contribute financially towards the management of the parks, in the case of regional parks managed by DPaW, funding is almost entirely from State Government Consolidated Revenue, and in the case of parks managed by BGPA, funding is predominantly (around 60%) from State Government Consolidated Revenue, with the rest (around 40%) being own source revenue.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

It is recommended that the Council continue to form a committee, predominantly consisting of interested community members, and with a broad mandate to guide and coordinate management of the Park, in partnership with City officers and the Council itself. A committee of that kind is seen as important to ensure broad community support for the City’s management of the Park, and also to facilitate and support continued and hopefully growing volunteer involvement in management of the Park.

 

Officers are also of the view, however, that the existing arrangements require some change to ensure that the City and community are best able to meet the challenges and embrace the opportunities associated with management of the Park into the future. The changes that are recommended are principally aimed at: improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the management of the Park; providing greater clarity around the roles and responsibilities of the different parties involved; ensuring that the Council provides City officers and others involved in managing the Park with clear direction as to the Council’s priorities and objectives in relation to the management of the Park; and establishing mechanisms to ensure that City officers and others involved in managing the Park are accountable to the Council on a periodic and regular basis. The changes that are recommended are discussed below under the following sub-headings -

1.    Governance structure, committee role, terms of reference and membership;

2.    Key focus areas;

3.    Formation of ‘Friends of Meelup Regional Park Incorporated’; and

4.    Environment Officer services.

 

Governance structure, committee role, terms of reference and membership

A revised terms of reference for the Committee, as part of a  proposed overall governance structure, is provided as Attachment B. As has been noted in a number of places in this report, because of the difficulties of clearly articulating the role of the Committee in isolation from the other elements of the overall governance structure, the document not only seeks to establish terms of reference for the Committee, but also seeks to make positive statements about the roles of the other elements of the governance structure – the Council itself, City officers and volunteers. It should be noted that the proposed governance structure in many respects actually more closely reflects how decisions about management of the Park are being made today than does the existing terms of reference. Some of the key aspects of the proposed governance arrangements are as follows –

·    It is recommended that the Committee be renamed the ‘Meelup Regional Park Committee’, excluding the word ‘Management’, which may have been the source of some confusion, although it is still recommended that the Committee continue to have a level of delegated authority, albeit more clearly defined, and play an important role in the management of the Park.

·    It is recommended that the Committee have delegation to adopt non-statutory plans, but there are not seen to be any other management decisions where a formal delegation to the Committee is seen as necessary or workable.

·    Notwithstanding the point above, it is seen that the Committee members, in an informal setting, would continue to have a very important role to play in guiding City officers and others. The proposed governance arrangements make it very clear that City officers will regularly brief the Committee on the management of the Park, including any proposed works or events, and seek Committee members’ informal feedback. The proposed arrangements also make it clear that, where a formal decision of the Council is not necessary (in a statutory sense), City officers will not make a decision contrary to the consensus view of the Committee members. Instead, what is proposed is that City officers would be expected to present a formal report to the Committee that sought a formal Committee recommendation to the Council, so that the Council itself could then determine the direction. That is, in fact, what has occurred in recent times on some of the more difficult decisions that have had to be made – but it is seen as useful to clearly describe that process in the governance arrangements. What is not seen as workable is a situation in which areas of disagreement or failure to achieve consensus between Committee members and City officers are sought to be resolved through informal Council briefings.

·    Providing Committee agendas, including agendas for informal discussions with Committee members, earlier than is currently the case, allowing Committee members more time to review and consider reports before being asked to formally consider the reports and their recommendations. In parallel with that, however, it is also proposed that a ‘pulled item’ type procedure, as applies in relation to Council meeting deliberations, be put in place, requiring Committee members to present alternative motions, and the reasons for the alternative proposed, at least 24 hours before the Committee meeting. That will ensure that other Committee members and City officers are able to properly consider any alternative motions before the Committee is actually asked to make a decision.

·    Only requiring formal meetings to be held when there is a reason to do so, but still have regular informal meetings – analogous to the ‘concept forum’ meetings that take place currently. It should be noted that some of the matters now subject of formal reports, including many of the issues addressed in the ‘Environment Officer’ report, are not seen as requiring formal reports and decisions.

·    Formation of an incorporated ‘Friends of Meelup Regional Park’ group – which is outlined in some more detail under the relevant sub-heading below.

·    Setting of annual ‘key focus areas’ - which is also outlined in more detail under the relevant sub-heading below.

·    No longer having a City officer on the Committee. As the City officer is there as a nominee of the CEO, with a role to consider and vote on the recommendations of a report from the CEO (all reports are, effectively, reports from the CEO, regardless of who the actual authors are), regardless of the arguments that may be made during debate, the City officer cannot reasonably do anything other than support the officer recommendation. City officers are nevertheless seen as having a very important role in Committee deliberations in providing information to Committee members, but that is also potentially at odds with a formal role in voting on the motions put before the Committee.

·    A more important role for the Council itself in identifying when and how positions on the Committee should be filled. The Committee is formed by the Council, and whilst in a formal sense the Council has continued to play the role of determining the Committee’s membership, in a practical sense the process of filling community positions on the Committee has been undertaken by the Committee itself in recent years. From a good governance principle, it is seen as important that, as the Committee is formed by the Council, the Council itself plays a pro-active role in identifying the kinds of skills, backgrounds and interests it would like to see represented on the Committee. That does not mean that the existing Committee members at any given time should not have a role to play in those decisions, but it is clear the process should not be led or effectively controlled by the existing Committee members.

 

·    In terms of Committee membership more generally, City officers are of the view that, once an incorporated friends group has been formed, that representatives of the friends group should be invited to be members of the Committee. It is considered, however, that the Committee would be in a better position to represent and consider the full range of issues that need to be considered in making decisions about the management of the Park if there was less representation of people with a primary or strong interest in environmental and amenity issues, and greater representation from people with a recreational or social focus. These are not, however, the kinds of changes that can be made quickly, and in particular it is seen that the formation of an incorporated friends group would need to occur before the Committee could cease to perform one of the key roles it performs currently – i.e. as a ‘quasi-friends group board’. As such, in the nearer-term, no change to Committee membership is proposed, other than no longer having an officer on the Committee, as described above.

 

Key focus areas

The Council sets the budget annually and determines the allocations to be made toward the management of the Park in its Long Term Financial Plan. The Council also adopts the Park management plan and a number of other documents that establish the strategic direction for management of the Park. What the Council does not do currently, however, is establish key performance indicators or set priorities on an annual basis that would guide City officers, the Committee and others involved in the management of the Park. That is somewhat different to the approach taken with respect to other areas of the City’s operations that are of comparable financial or strategic importance, such as the Geographe Leisure Centre or the City’s planning and building functions. Whilst the financial and planning documents that have been developed do provide a significant amount of direction, they do not establish clear priorities on a year-to-year basis, and mean that City officers in particular do not feel as though it is clear what the Council’s priorities and direction are, and therefore what issues should be focused on.

 

Given the nature of the Park and the nature of both the existing and proposed governance arrangements, quantitative or highly prescriptive ‘key performamce indicators’ are not proposed at this time. What is instead proposed, and is reflected in the proposed terms of reference, is that the Council, upon receipt of an officer report and Committee recommendation, establishes ‘key focus areas’ for Meelup for each year, shortly after budget adoption. The process envisaged is, in fact, similar to what is proposed for this year in this report. Following internal discussion as well as informal discussion with Committee members, the following key focus areas are proposed for 2015/16 –

 

§ Completion of the Meelup Beach car park project

This is fairly self-explanatory, and as Councillors would be aware, the design is now complete and the project included on this year’s budget.

 

§ Complete design and costing of the Point Picquet whale watching platform project

Again, this is fairly self-explanatory, and it may be possible to advance further on this project this financial year, but given the importance of the project and the work that has already occurred, it is seen as important that the project advance to a complete design and costing this current financial year, with a view to being able to secure funding to complete the project next financial year.

 

§ Obtain environmental approvals and site remediation planning to allow for commencement of the first stage of the mountain bike trails project in the 2016/17 financial year

The mountain bike trails project has been quite problematic, and at times it has not necessarily been seen as a core project for the City in terms of the management of the Park. City officers are of the view that it is a very important project, both in terms of meeting recreational needs for the Dunsborough community, but also in terms of managing the Park and discouraging inappropriate and unmanaged use of the Park by mountain bikers. It is also City officers view that the project will only be able to be successfully implemented if it is seen as being primarily a ‘City project’.

 

Documentation to obtain environmental, mostly clearing, approvals has now been prepared, and work on remediation planning is well under way. The first stages of the project will not, however, be able to be implemented until such time as environmental approvals have been obtained and remediation planning is complete – and, importantly, the City has identified how remediation works are to be funded and staged.

 

§ Prepare a five year financial plan for Meelup Regional Park, which is consistent with the City’s adopted Long Term Financial Plan

Councillors would be aware that a ten year financial plan for Meelup has been developed and reviewed several times in recent years, but has not always been entirely consistent with the City’s overall Long Term Financial Plan. It is seen as important that City officers and the Committee work together to develop a Meelup financial plan consistent with the City’s overall Long Term Financial Plan, with the focus to be on the first five years. It is envisaged that work will assist in the identification of key focus areas for 2016/17 and beyond.

 

§ Establish an incorporated ‘Friends of Meelup Regional Park’ group and memorandum of understanding between that group and the City

This is discussed further under the sub-heading below.

 

§ Investigate potential alternative means of securing funds to assist with meeting the costs associated with managing the Park

This relates to discussion in the ‘Financial Implications’ section of this report, which notes that the Park’s proportion of ‘own source revenue’ isonly around 1.5% of the overall financial cost of managing the Park and, further, that there may be opportunities to identify additional sources of revenue. This is seen as important to ensure that the City and community can meet the growing challenge of managing the Park, whilst containing the financial burden placed on ratepayers and/or dependence on State and/or Federal grant programmes – which are uncertain and finite sources of funding.

 

It is recommended that the Council endorse the key focus areas outlined above and also, through the revised terms of reference and governance arrangements, endorse the process of identifying annual key focus areas for the management of the Park.

 

Formation of ‘Friends of Meelup Regional Park‘ Incorporated

Having discussed this matter with some members of the Committee, there is understood to be a level of support for the formation of an incorporated ‘Friends’ group. It is officers’ view that the formation of such a group will greatly clarify and simplify the working relationship between the City and volunteers, as well as conferring a number of other practical benefits. It also overcomes what officers consider to be one of the inherent ambiguities with the current governance arrangements, where the Committee is both a committee of the Council, charged with providing advice to the Council, but is also, as noted previously, a ‘quasi-friends group board’, fulfilling a very important function, but a function which is not always consistent with being a committee of the Council.

 

If this direction is supported by the Council, it is seen as important that the City supports the Friends group in terms of both its initial establishment and on a more ongoing basis. To that end, it is proposed that the City (primarily through its Legal Services staff), work with the existing volunteers to develop a constitution and arrange for the incorporation of the group, as well as developing a memorandum of understanding between the group and the City, both in consultation with existing volunteers, including those that are members of the Committee. It is also proposed that the Council maintain its commitment to existing volunteer support, but also allocate funds in the budget that would become a contribution to the group, allowing the group to commence operations. At this stage a fairly notional allocation is proposed ($11,000), but it is envisaged that further consideration of the scale of financial capacity that the group would require would occur over coming months and in any case prior to preparation of the City’s 2016/17 budget. It should be noted that this is not intended to be additional expenditure, rather it should displace existing expenditure by the City in support of volunteers.

 

Environment Officer services

This is an issue that was outlined and discussed at some length in the Financial Implications section of this report. As noted in that section of the report, officers are of the view that the potential advantages of moving to an employee model are much more significant than the potential disadvantages, and are therefore recommending that the Council indicate support for that direction, and that the Council also amend the budget to allow that direction to be implemented.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The recommendations of this report are seen as providing for an improved overall governance framework for Meelup Regional Park, reflecting the objectives identified by officers at the commencement of the review process, which were as follows -

·        Establishing a framework that will allow the City to best grasp the opportunities and meet the challenges associated with management of the Park;

·        The need to clarify the overall governance and management arrangements for the Park, which means clarifying, and making clear statements about not just the role of the Committee, but also the roles of other key elements of those arrangements – i.e. the Council, City staff, volunteers and other stakeholders;

·        Supporting decision-making at the lowest, least formal level possible, but providing for matters to be quickly escalated to more formal, higher level decision-making processes where matters are not able to be efficiently and appropriately resolved at lower/informal levels;

·        Ensuring that the Council has an ability to identify its objectives and priorities for the management of the Park, and that those involved with management of the Park work proactively and productively to achieve those objectives and priorities; and

·        Ensuring that the full suite of relevant issues (e.g. environmental, community, recreational and financial considerations) is considered as part of decision-making processes.

 

OPTIONS

 

Given the range of issues addressed in this report, there are clearly a number of options and alternatives that the Council may wish to consider.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

It is envisaged that implementation of the recommendation would be complete by the end of the 2015 calendar year.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Adopt draft revised governance structure and terms of reference for the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee, to commence after the next ordinary Council election, as set out at Attachment B;

 

2.    Identify the following key focus areas in relation to the management of Meelup Regional Park for the balance of the 2015/16 financial year, with progress to be reviewed and reported on to the Council by no later than June 2016, and key focus areas for the following financial year to be identified early in the next financial year –

 

2.1          Completion of the Meelup Beach car park project;

 

2.2          Complete design and costing of the Point Picquet whale watching platform project;

 

2.3          Obtain environmental approvals and site remediation planning to allow for commencement of the first stage of the mountain bike trails project in the 2016/17 financial year;

 

2.4          Prepare a five year financial plan for Meelup Regional Park, which is consistent with the City’s adopted Long Term Financial Plan;

 

2.5          Establish an incorporated ‘Friends of Meelup Regional Park’ group and memorandum of understanding between that group and the City; and

 

2.6          Investigate potential alternative means of securing funds to assist with meeting the costs associated with managing the Park and provide an update to the Council by no later than the end of March 2016;

 

3.    Support formation of an incorporated ‘Friends of Meelup Regional Park’ group to facilitate, coordinate and support volunteer engagement and involvement in the management of Meelup Regional Park, including through –

 

3.1          Continuing to make the person(s) providing ‘Meelup Environment Officer’ services available to assist and work with volunteers;

 

3.2          Developing a constitution and undertaking the administrative processes associated with incorporation, in consultation with existing volunteers;

 

3.3          Developing a memorandum of understanding to describe and guide the working relationship between the City and the incorporated group; and

 

3.4          Amending the adopted 2015/16 Financial Year Budget to allocate funds to allow the incorporated group to commence, as follows -

 

Budget line

Description

2015/16 adopted budget

2015/16 proposed budget

Difference

425-11170-3186-0000

Environmental Services – Meelup –  Meelup Regional Park – Recreation Reserves Maintenance

$164,770

$153,770

-$11,000

425-11170-3640-0000

Environmental Services – Meelup –  Meelup Regional Park – Donations, Contributions and Subsidies

$0

$11,000

$11,000

TOTAL

-

$164,770

$164,770

$0

 

4.    Support providing ‘Meelup Environment Officer’ services through use of City staff, rather than contractor/s, subject to 4.1 and 4.2 below, and amend the adopted 2015/16 Financial Year Budget to facilitate that, as follows –

Budget line

Description

2015/16 adopted budget

2015/16 proposed budget

Difference

425-11170-3260-9650

Environmental Services – Meelup –  Meelup Regional Park - Consultancy – General Consultancy Services

$75,560

$15,180

-$60,380

421-10830-3001-0000

Environmental Services - Environmental Planning – Environmental Planning Administration - Salaries - Normal

$192,280

$240,584.00

$48,304.00

421-10820-3025-0000

Environmental Services - Environmental Planning – Environmental Planning Administration - Salaries – Superannuation (SGC)

$20,900

$25,368.12

$4,468.12

421-10820-3026-0000

Environmental Services - Environmental Planning – Environmental Planning Administration - Salaries – Superannuation (City Contribution)

$4,930

$7,828.24

$2,898.24

 

On-costs (to be allocated across the budget)

-

$4,709.64

$4,709.64

TOTAL

-

$293,670

$293,670

$0

 

4.1          The Presiding Member of the Committee being invited to sit on the selection panel for the new position; and

 

4.2          The position description and operational role of the new position including a capacity to enforce local laws and other regulations relevant to management of the Park.

 

 

 

AMENDED OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Adopt draft revised governance structure and terms of reference for the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee, to commence after the next ordinary Council election, as set out at Attachment B, subject to the incorporation of provision for two community members;

 

2.    Identify the following key focus areas in relation to the management of Meelup Regional Park for the balance of the 2015/16 financial year, with progress to be reviewed and reported on to the Council by no later than June 2016, and key focus areas for the following financial year to be identified early in the next financial year –

 

2.1          Completion of the Meelup Beach car park project;

 

2.2          Complete design and costing of the Point Picquet whale watching platform project;

 

2.3          Obtain environmental approvals and site remediation planning to allow for commencement of the first stage of the mountain bike trails project in the 2016/17 financial year;

 

2.4          Prepare a five year financial plan for Meelup Regional Park, which is consistent with the City’s adopted Long Term Financial Plan;

 

2.5          Establish an incorporated ‘Friends of Meelup Regional Park’ group and memorandum of understanding between that group and the City; and

 

2.6          Investigate potential alternative means of securing funds to assist with meeting the costs associated with managing the Park and provide an update to the Council by no later than the end of March 2016;

 

3.    Support formation of an incorporated ‘Friends of Meelup Regional Park’ group to facilitate, coordinate and support volunteer engagement and involvement in the management of Meelup Regional Park, including through –

 

3.1          Continuing to make the person(s) providing ‘Meelup Environment Officer’ services available to assist and work with volunteers;

 

3.2          Developing a constitution and undertaking the administrative processes associated with incorporation, in consultation with existing volunteers;

 

3.3          Developing a memorandum of understanding to describe and guide the working relationship between the City and the incorporated group; and

 

3.4          Amending the adopted 2015/16 Financial Year Budget to allocate funds to allow the incorporated group to commence, as follows -

 

Budget line

Description

2015/16 adopted budget

2015/16 proposed budget

Difference

425-11170-3186-0000

Environmental Services – Meelup –  Meelup Regional Park – Recreation Reserves Maintenance

$164,770

$153,770

-$11,000

425-11170-3640-0000

Environmental Services – Meelup –  Meelup Regional Park – Donations, Contributions and Subsidies

$0

$11,000

$11,000

TOTAL

-

$164,770

$164,770

$0

 

4.    Support providing ‘Meelup Environment Officer’ services through use of City staff, rather than contractor/s, subject to 4.1 and 4.2 below, and amend the adopted 2015/16 Financial Year Budget to facilitate that, as follows –

Budget line

Description

2015/16 adopted budget

2015/16 proposed budget

Difference

425-11170-3260-9650

Environmental Services – Meelup –  Meelup Regional Park - Consultancy – General Consultancy Services

$75,560

$15,180

-$60,380

421-10830-3001-0000

Environmental Services - Environmental Planning – Environmental Planning Administration - Salaries - Normal

$192,280

$240,584.00

$48,304.00

421-10820-3025-0000

Environmental Services - Environmental Planning – Environmental Planning Administration - Salaries – Superannuation (SGC)

$20,900

$25,368.12

$4,468.12

421-10820-3026-0000

Environmental Services - Environmental Planning – Environmental Planning Administration - Salaries – Superannuation (City Contribution)

$4,930

$7,828.24

$2,898.24

 

On-costs (to be allocated across the budget)

-

$4,709.64

$4,709.64

TOTAL

-

$293,670

$293,670

$0

 

4.1          The Presiding Member of the Committee being invited to sit on the selection panel for the new position; and

 

4.2          The position description and operational role of the new position including a capacity to enforce local laws and other regulations relevant to management of the Park.

 

 

 


Council

85

26 August 2015

10.3

Attachment a

Existing Committee Terms of Reference

 

EXISTING TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

MEELUP REGIONAL PARK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

 

*          Proposed for re-establishment on 9 October, 2013.

 

Terms of Reference

 

1.         Introduction

 

The Council of the City of Busselton establishes a Meelup Regional Park Management Committee under the powers given in Section 5.8, 5.9(2)(c) and 5.17(1)(c) of the Local Government Act 1995.

 

The Council appoints to the Committee those persons whose names (shall) appear in section 4.0 below.  Membership of the Committee shall, unless otherwise specified, be for a term ceasing on 17 October, 2015, after which time the Council may appoint members for a further term.

 

The Committee shall act for and on behalf of Council in accordance with provisions of the Local Government Act 1995, local laws and policies of the City of Busselton and this document.

 

2.0      Name

 

The name of the Committee shall be the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee.

 

3.0      Objectives

 

3.1       To develop a strategic plan for the regional park that ties into Council’s Strategic Plan, to be endorsed by Council, and to annually review the five-year plan of capital and operating expenditure and income, to be endorsed by Council.

 

3.2       Care for, control and manage all areas of Meelup Regional Park (except any areas specifically excluded by Council).  

 

4.0      Membership

 

2 Elected Members shall be appointed to the Committee

 

Councillor

Councillor

 

1 Deputy elected member shall be appointed for the Committee

 

Councillor

 

The CEO or his appointed delegate shall be appointed to the Committee

Delegate -

 

6 Community Members shall be appointed to the Committee

 

Deputy Members may be appointed as required

Other persons (or representatives of organisations) may participate in meetings of the Committee (or any sub committees the Committee may establish) as determined by an ordinary majority of the Committee. Such persons will not be entitled to vote on any matter brought before the Committee.

 

5.0          Presiding Member

 

The Committee shall appoint a Presiding Member and Deputy Presiding Member to conduct its business.  The Presiding Member shall ensure that minutes of the proceedings are kept and that business is conducted in accordance with the Shire of Busselton Standing Orders Local Law.

 

6.0      Meetings

 

The Committee shall meet at least four times annually, and shall report to Council twice a year as a minimum.

 

6.1      Notice of meetings shall be given to members at least 3 days prior to each meeting.

 

6.2      If any member is absent from 3 consecutive meetings without leave of the Committee, they shall forfeit their position on such Committee.  The Council shall be informed, who will appoint a replacement for the balance of the Committee’s term of appointment.

 

6.3      The Presiding Member shall ensure that detailed minutes of all meetings are kept in accordance with the Shire of Busselton Standing Orders Local Law.

 

6.4      All members of the Committee shall have one vote.  If the vote of the members present is equally divided, the person presiding shall cast a second vote.

 

7.0      Quorum

 

Quorum for a meeting shall be at least 50% of the number of offices, whether vacant or not.  A decision of the Committee does not have effect unless it has been made by a simple majority.

 

8.0      Delegated Powers

 

The Meelup Regional Park Management Committee is delegated authority to:

 

Exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government under Section 3.54(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 as they relate specifically to Meelup Regional Park, in accordance with the City's Strategic Plan, Park's management plan and Council's budget, with the exceptions that:

a)        normal maintenance and servicing (eg. building maintenance and operations, maintenance of grassed areas and surrounds, rubbish removal, etc) of the coastal foreshore recreation areas at the localities of Eagle Bay, Meelup Beach and Castle Rock are to be undertaken by the City; and

b)        all law enforcement (eg bush fire control, litter control, etc) is to be exercised by the City's Ranger and Fire Services.

 

9.0      Conditions

 

As identified in the delegation (above).

 

10.0    Termination of Committee

 

Termination of the Committee shall be:

 

a)            In accordance with the Local Government Act 1995; and

b)            At the direction of Council, not exceeding 17 October, 2015.

 

11.0    Amendment to the Terms of Reference

 

This document may be altered at any time by the Council.

 

12.0    Committee Recommendations/Decisions

 

Committee recommendations shall not be binding on Council and must be endorsed by Council to take effect.  Decisions made under delegated authority shall not be binding on Council if such decisions are in conflict with the delegated powers.

 

History

 

9 October, 2013

 

12 October, 2011

C1110/315

 


Council

87

26 August 2015

10.3

Attachment b

Proposed Governance Arrangements

 

PROPOSED GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS – MEELUP REGIONAL PARK

 

The City of Busselton is the management body for Meelup Regional Park, which is ‘A Class’ Reserve 21629, for the purpose of ‘Conservation and Recreation’, and with a formal management plan adopted by the Council and the Minister for Lands pursuant to section 49 of the Land Administration Act 1997. In addition to the Council and City officers, there are two other key elements of the governance arrangements that the Council has established to ensure appropriate management of the Park –

 

·    The Meelup Regional Park Committee (the terms of reference for which are set out below); and

 

·    The ‘Friends of Meelup Regional Park Incorporated’ (which has not yet been formed).

 

The roles of the four key elements of the governance arrangements are generally as described below –

 

·    Council:

1.    Establishes the Committee membership and terms of reference;

2.    Sets strategic direction having considered advice provided by the Committee and City officers;

3.    Adopts statutory plans relating to the Park, both at draft adoption and final adoption stage having considered advice provided by the Committee and City officers;

4.    Adopts non-statutory plans if there is no consensus between the Committee members and City officers;

5.    Sets the annual budget and long term financial planning;

6.    Sets annual ‘key focus areas’ for the Committee and City officers;

7.    Determines direction (through formal Council meeting processes) on other matters where there is no consensus between Committee members and City officers; and

8.    Requires that City officers work pro-actively with the ‘Friends of Meelup Regional Park Incorporated’ with the aim of ensuring its viability and sustainability.

 

·    Committee:

1.    Provides advice to the Council about Committee membership and terms of reference;

2.    Provides advice to the Council about strategic direction;

3.    Provides advice to the Council about statutory plans relating to the Park;

4.    Adopts non-statutory plans if there is consensus between the Committee members and City officers and if it is not appropriate for such plans to be adopted by a decision formally made by City officers;

5.    Provides advice (through formal Committee meeting processes) to the Council on other matters where there is no consensus between Committee members and City officers;

6.    Through informal meetings of City officers and Committee members, provides regular information and feedback to City officers on matters relating to and affecting the management of the Park; and

7.    Especially, until such time as the ‘Friends of Meelup Regional Park Incorporated’ has been formed, in partnership with City officers, assists in the encouragement, coordination and facilitation of volunteer involvement in the management and promotion of the Park.

 

·    Friends of Meelup Regional Park Incorporated:

1.    In partnership with City officers, encourages, coordinates and facilitates volunteer involvement in the management and promotion of the Park;

2.    Through informal meetings of City officers and Committee members, provides regular information and feedback to the Committee on volunteer activities and other matters relating to and affecting the management of the Park;

3.    Nominates representatives to be on the Committee, subject to Council endorsement; and

4.    Other matters as set out in a memorandum of understanding with the City that is to be developed.

 

·    City officers:

1.    Provide advice to the Council about Committee membership and terms of reference.

2.    Provide advice to the Council and Committee about strategic direction;

3.    Provide advice to the Council and Committee about statutory and non-statutory plans relating to the Park;

4.    Provide regular (generally monthly) briefings to Committee members through informal meetings of City officers and Committee members on matters relating to and affecting the management of the Park;

5.    Provide periodic (generally  twice annual) briefings to Councillors on matters relating to and affecting the management of the Park;

6.    Following receipt of information or feedback  at informal meetings of City officers and Committee members, present proposed annual budget and long term financial plan allocations to the Council for consideration;

7.    Where the context requires, or there is no consensus between City officers and Committee members, present formal reports to the Committee, so that the Committee can make a formal recommendation to the Council in relation to those matters (Where the Committee makes a recommendation to the Council inconsistent with the officer recommendation presented to the Committee, City officers may also present an alternative officer recommendation to the Council when such matters are formally presented to the Council);

8.    Implement the Council’s budget with respect to the Park;

9.    Maintain roads, paths, ablution facilities and other basic infrastructure, in partnership with the ‘Friends of Meelup Regional Park Incorporated’ where appropriate;

10.  Apply and enforce laws that relate to management of the Park in accordance with relevant Council Policy; and

11.  In partnership with the Committee and/or ‘Friends of Meelup Regional Park Incorporated’, encourage, coordinate and facilitate volunteer involvement in the management and promotion of the Park.

 

 

Meelup Regional Park Committee Terms of Reference

 

1.         Introduction

 

The Council of the City of Busselton has established the Meelup Regional Park Committee pursuant to sections 5.8 and 5.9(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1995.

 

2.0      Purpose

 

2.1       To assist the Council in managing and promoting Meelup Regional Park.

 

2.2       To ensure that the full range of issues relevant to the making of decisions about the management and promotion of the Park are considered, including environmental, amenity, recreational, community, social, economic and financial considerations.

 

2.3       To build and maintain productive working relationships between the Council, City officers, volunteers and users of the Park, as well as other stakeholders.

 

3.0      Membership

 

3.1       Two elected members as appointed by the Council, as follows –

 

To be added

 

3.2       One deputy elected member as appointed by the Council, as follows –

 

To be added

 

3.3       Six community members as appointed by the Council (Note: once the ‘Friends of Meelup Regional Park Incorporated’ has been formed, the intention is that the Council will progressively move towards a model of three community members being representatives of that group, with the other three being independent members), as follows –

 

To be added

 

3.4       Membership of the Committee shall, unless determined otherwise, be for a term of approximately two years, ceasing on the day of the next ordinary Council election.

 

3.5       If any member is absent from the Committee for three consecutive meetings without approved leave of absence from the Committee, the Chief Executive Officer shall present a report to the Council so that the Council may determine whether to continue that person’s membership of the Committee.

 

4.0          Presiding Member

 

The Committee shall appoint a Presiding Member and Deputy Presiding Member to run its meetings. The Presiding Member shall ensure that business at formal meetings is conducted in accordance with the City of Busselton Standing Orders Local Law.

 

5.0      Formal Meetings

 

5.1       Formal meetings of the Committee shall be scheduled when the need for a meeting is identified by either the Presiding Member or Chief Executive Officer, and only when there is a need for a matter to be subject of a formal decision of the Committee and/or the Council, and in any case no less often than twice annually and no more frequently than once a month.

 

5.2      Formal meeting agendas shall be distributed by the Chief Executive Officer to Committee members no less than seven days prior to the meeting.

 

5.3      Where a Committee member wishes the Committee to consider an alternative to the officer recommendation in relation to any particular item, they shall indicate in writing (preferably email) to the Chief Executive Officer or Chief Executive Officer’s nominee and the Presiding Member their intention to do so, setting out their proposed alternative and the reasons for that alternative, no less than 24 hours prior to the scheduled commencement of the meeting. The Chief Executive Officer or Chief Executive Officer’s nominee shall provide officer comment on the proposed alternative in writing to Committee members prior to the scheduled commencement of the meeting.

 

Note: In relation to alternative recommendations put forward by Committee members, City officers are able to assist in the drafting of alternative recommendations, but that should not be construed as indicating officer support for any alternative that may be proposed.

 

5.4      The Chief Executive Officer shall ensure that minutes of formal meetings are kept, presented for review and adoption at the subsequent formal meeting, and provided to the Council for information as part of the first practicable ordinary Council meeting agenda following the formal Committee meeting.

 

5.5      Where the Committee makes a decision in a formal meeting that involves the making of a recommendation for consideration by the Council, the Chief Executive officer shall ensure that the recommendation is presented to the Council as part of the first practicable ordinary Council meeting agenda following the formal Committee meeting. In cases where the Committee recommendation is not consistent with the officer recommendation to the Committee, the Chief Executive officer may present an alternative officer recommendation for consideration by the Council.

 

5.6      Quorum for a meeting shall be at least 50% of the members (i.e. four).

 

5.7      Meetings shall be open to the public, unless items are of a nature that can be considered confidentially pursuant to the Local Government Act 1995.

 

6.0      Delegated Powers

 

Pursuant to section 5.17 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Committee, when constituted for a formal meeting, is delegated to adopt plans, policies or documents that relate to management of the Park, other than where those plans, policies or documents require adoption pursuant to a particular statutory power.

 

7.0       Informal Meetings

 

7.1       Informal meetings of Committee members and City officers involved in management of the Park shall be scheduled when the need for a meeting is identified by either the Presiding Member, the Chief Executive Officer or the Chief Executive Officer’s nominee, and in any case no less often than every two months and no more frequently than once per month (notwithstanding that, the Committee members and City officers may agree to establish informal working groups or similar charged with addressing particular issues and which may meet as deemed appropriate), and when a formal meeting is also scheduled in the respective month, informal meetings shall take place immediately following the formal meeting.

 

7.2       The purpose of informal meetings of Committee members and City officers shall be to discuss matters relating to and affecting the management of the Park, and where necessary and possible, agree a consensus position on the approach to be taken with respect to those matters.

 

7.3       Where consensus on a particular matter is achieved at an informal meeting of Committee members and City officers, City officers where delegated, authorized or otherwise empowered to do so, shall take the necessary steps to ensure that the consensus position on a particular matter is implemented.

 

7.4       Where a consensus position on any particular matter cannot be achieved, the Chief Executive Officer shall ensure that a report is prepared to be presented to and considered by the Committee in a formal meeting, following which the matter will be presented for formal consideration at an ordinary meeting of the council.

 

7.5       The Chief Executive Officer or the Chief Executive Officer’s nominee shall ensure that notes of informal meetings are prepared and distributed to all Committee members and the City officers present at the meeting for their review within seven days of the meeting. If the Committee members or City officers present at any particular meeting have any concerns with the notes prepared, they should advise the Presiding Member and Chief Executive Officer or the Chief Executive Officer’s nominee as soon as possible and in any case prior to the next informal meeting, and where that occurs the Presiding member shall ensure that the matter is resolved to the extent necessary and practicable at the next informal meeting, with the outcome to be reflected in the notes of that next informal meeting. Notes shall record the outcomes of discussions, but not the content of those discussions.

 

7.6       Informal meeting agendas shall be developed in consultation between the Presiding Member (or Deputy Presiding Member in the Presiding Members’ absence) and Chief Executive Officer or the Chief Executive Officer’s nominee, and shall be distributed to Committee members no less than three days prior to the meeting.

 

7.7       Informal meetings shall not generally be open to the public, although the Presiding Member may agree to invite members of the public to be present when particular matters of interest are being considered, following consultation with Chief Executive Officer or the Chief Executive Officer’s nominee.

 

 

History

 

9 October, 2013

 

12 October, 2011

C1110/315

 

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      93                                                                 26 August 2015

11.             Planning and Development Services Report

11.1           AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 21 - OMNIBUS AMENDMENT 1 - CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION FOR COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

SUBJECT INDEX:

Town Planning Schemes and Amendments

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Senior Strategic Planner - Helen Foulds

Planning Officer - Kelley Nilsson-Linne

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   CapeROC Summary of Recommendations

Attachment b    Zoning table tracked changes

Attachment c    Busselton City Centre Proposed Zoning

Attachment d   Dunsborough Town Centre Proposed Zoning

Attachment e    Table of Scheme Map Amendments

Attachment f    Scheme Amendment Maps  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is requested to consider initiating for advertising an omnibus amendment (proposed Scheme Amendment No. 1) to Local Planning Scheme 21 (LPS21).

 

The purpose of this report is to outline the range of proposed changes and their rationale. It is recommended that Amendment No. 1 to LPS21 be initiated and adopted for the purposes of community consultation.

 

BACKGROUND

 

On 15 October 2014, the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (LPS 21) was published in the Government Gazette.  LPS 21, which incorporates the Scheme text and Scheme map, controls and guides development and growth within the City of Busselton.

 

It is common practice to undertake a periodic, relatively minor review of town planning schemes. These reviews are usually undertaken as an ‘omnibus amendment’ to the scheme and in response to a number of matters which, amongst other things, include changes brought about by ongoing planning strategy and policy formulation, and/or to effect general improvements for administration purposes.

 

The Council is asked to consider an omnibus amendment proposing a number of changes to LPS21. City officers are of the view that the various changes proposed are necessary for the more efficient and effective administration of the scheme, to reflect the Council’s identified strategic direction, and will provide rational guidance for land use and development within the City generally.

 

The intent and scope of the changes proposed in the amendment are to:

 

•          Implement the recommendations of the CapeROC initiative that investigated providing a more liberal and consistent approach to regulatory development in the rural zones of the Augusta-Margaret River and Busselton Schemes, noting that the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River has now already completed a similar exercise;

•          Implement a number of the recommendations from the Local Commercial Planning Strategy, Local Cultural Planning Strategy and Council endorsed Conceptual Plans for the Busselton City and Dunsborough Town Centres;

•          Rationalise and clarify the Scheme area boundary along the coast;

•          Correct text anomalies that occurred during the conversion of District Town Planning Scheme No. 20 into the ‘Model Scheme Text compliant’ form as Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and to update the Scheme generally;

•          Relax building height controls across the City;

•          Place a prohibition on development of new ‘drive-through facilities’ within the ‘Business’ zone; and

•          Address a number of mapping corrections that have been identified through the process of adopting the new Local Planning Scheme and other minor modifications to the Scheme maps.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key elements of the statutory environment in relation to the draft amendment are set out in Local Planning Scheme No. 21, the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Town Planning Regulations 1967.  These Regulations are expected to be superceded by the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations, which are nearing completion and may be Gazetted during 2015.  This Scheme Amendment has been drafted having regard to the draft Regulations and the new Model Scheme Text contained therein.  The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant statutory environment.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The key policy implications with respect to the proposal are set out in the following, which are discussed below under appropriate subheadings:

 

·    the City’s Local Commercial Planning Strategy (LCPS);

·    the City’s Local Cultural Planning Strategy;

·    the Busselton City and Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plans; and

·    the draft Bushfire Regulations and WAPC’s associated draft State Planning Policy 3.7.

 

Local Commercial Planning Strategy

 

The Local Commercial Planning Strategy (LCPS), adopted by Council on 10 November 2010, provides the long term strategic land use planning and strategic direction for the development of commercial land within the District. 

 

The LCPS considered and made recommendations on urban design improvements in and around the Busselton City Centre and Dunsborough Town Centre, including:

 

·    A wide reaching Scheme amendment to facilitate mixed uses and more intensive development in the Business zone, particularly with a revision of the policy statement to provide greater support for residential development in the Business zone;

·    Review of the current building height controls of the Scheme;

·    Amending the Scheme to relax height controls in the Busselton City and Dunsborough Town Centres; and

·    Increase the R-coding of selected Residential zoned land adjacent to the Dunsborough Town Centre.

 

The Busselton City Centre and Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plans further developed the recommendations of the LCPS and have in turn guided this Scheme Amendment.  These plans were adopted by Council at its meeting of 29 January 2014 following a period of public consultation in April and May of the previous year.

 

Local Cultural Planning Strategy

 

The Local Cultural Planning Strategy (“the Cultural Strategy”) was adopted by Council on 24 August 2011 and aims to build on recommendations of the City’s Cultural Plan (2005) by identifying and recommending strategies which underpin the cultural identity of the City and serve to embed arts and culture into the City of Busselton corporate and planning processes. 

 

Some of the key changes to planning direction for the Busselton City and Dunsborough town centres identified in the LCPS were further considered and recommended on in the Cultural Strategy, specifically:

 

·    Encouraging the development of mixed-use development and more places for informal social interaction – including via development incentives; and

·    The creation of home based creative industry hubs – enterprises accommodated in single residential housing. 

 

This has formed the basis for some of the recommendations for the Busselton City and Dunsborough Town Centres.

 

Bushfire related policy

 

The proposed Planning and Development (Bushfire Risk Management) Regulations 2014 are expected to be in place later this year, following an order by the FES Commissioner designating bushfire-prone areas.   

 

The existing WAPC Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guidelines (2010) have been reviewed and from this review a new draft State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning for Bushfire Risk Management (SPP 3.7) has been prepared.  SPP 3.7 assists in reducing the risk of bushfire to people, property and infrastructure by encouraging a conservative approach to strategic planning, subdivision, development and other planning decisions proposed in bushfire-prone areas.

 

Revised Planning for Bushfire Risk Management Guidelines are proposed to supplement the SPP to assist in their interpretation and provide advice on how bushfire risk is to be addressed when designing or assessing a proposal within a bushfire-prone area.

 

The Regulations, when introduced, will complement SPP 3.7 and the associated Guidelines. These instruments apply to different stages of the planning process but work together to achieve the objective of reducing the impact of bushfire damage on lives and property.  The City’s existing policy related to bushfire protection will be substantially superceded when these documents become active later in the year.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are considered to be no direct financial implications arising from the implementation of the Officer Recommendation.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Nil

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The proposed amendment is considered to be consistent with the following community objectives of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 –

 

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

3.1       A strong, innovative and diverse economy that attracts people to live, work, invest and visit.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the Officer Recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment identified ‘downside’ risks only, rather than upside risks as well.  The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve initiating the proposed scheme amendment and referring it to the Environmental Protection Authority.  In this regard, there are no significant risks identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

There is no requirement under the Planning and Development Act 2005 to advertise a proposed scheme amendment prior to it being initiated by the Council. Accordingly, no advertising has occurred to date. However, a number of the proposals included in the amendment reflect outcomes of earlier consultation undertaken by the City.

 

If the Council resolves to initiate the proposed amendment, the relevant amendment documentation would be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for consideration of the need for formal assessment under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Should the EPA resolve that the amendment does not require formal assessment it will be advertised for 42 days in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The proposed changes fall into five main categories as follows:

 

1.   Implementation of the recommendations of the CapeROC initiative that investigated the approach to planning and development control in the rural zones of the Augusta-Margaret River and Busselton Schemes;

2.   Implementation of a number of the recommendations from the Local Commercial Planning Strategy, the Local Cultural Planning Strategy and Council endorsed Conceptual Plans for the Busselton City and Dunsborough Town Centres;

3.   Rationalising and clarifying the Scheme area boundary along the coast and identification of ‘mean high water mark’ on the Scheme map;

4.   Miscellaneous Scheme text modifications incorporating the correction of text anomalies, a prohibition on drive-through facilities in the Business zone and relaxing general height controls across the City; and

5.   Amendments to the Scheme maps.

 

1.       CapeROC initiative

 

Several years ago, CapeROC supported an initiative to identify means of appropriately reducing barriers to economic development within rural areas.  The analysis focused on rural zones where agriculture and associated industries were the primary land use, and excluded other rural zones which are primarily for residential and conservation purposes.  The process of assessment included a comparative analysis of use class titles, definitions and permissibilities, and a summary of recommendations relating to both the City’s and Shire of Augusta-Margaret River’s schemes.  Use classes relating to rural production, sales and services were considered together, as were land uses relating to tourist accommodation.  Key aims were to adopt a more liberal and, in particular, consistent approach to planning in rural areas either side of the municipal boundary.

 

The recommendations resulted in a number of proposed modifications to the City’s scheme as follows:

 

*       Modifying the following use class titles and/or their definitions –

-     Abattoir

-     Agriculture (to Agriculture – Extensive)

-     Intensive Agriculture (to Agriculture – Intensive)

-     Animal Establishment

-     Animal Husbandry (to Animal Husbandry – Intensive)

-     Chalet Development (to Chalet)

-     Residential Enterprise (to Home Business)

-     Hotel

-     Cottage Industry (to Industry – Cottage)

-     Rural Industry (to Industry – Rural)

-     Market

-     Place of Public Worship (to Place of Worship)

-     Plant Nursery

-     Reception Centre

-     Roadside Stall (to Rural Stall)

-     Service Station

-     Forestry (to Tree Farm)           

-     Tourist Accommodation

-     Veterinary Hospital (to Veterinary Centre)

-     Winery

 

*       Creating the following new use classes, associated definitions and permissibilities within the zoning table –

-     Ancillary Accommodation

-     Brewery

-     Exhibition Centre

-     Home Office

-     Park Home Park

-     Rural Produce Sales

-     Rural Pursuit

-     Wind Farm

 

*       Remove the following obsolete or out-dated use classes, associated definitions and permissibilities within the zoning table –

-     Poultry Farm

-     Recreation Agriculture

-     Recreation Area

-     Rural Enterprise

 

*       Increase permissibilities for the following existing uses –

-     Animal Husbandry – Intensive   >>>   A to D in Viticulture and Tourism zone

-     Agriculture – Intensive   >>>   D to P in Viticulture and Tourism zone

-     Chalet   >>>   A to D in Agriculture & Viticulture and Tourism zones

-     Industry – Cottage   >>>   D to P in Agriculture & Viticulture and Tourism zones

-     Industry – Rural   >>>   A to D in Viticulture and Tourism zone

-     Rural Stall   >>>   D to P in Agriculture & Viticulture and Tourism zones

 

In relation to the above, note that :

·     ‘P’ is a permitted use provided the use complies with the relevant development standards;

·     ‘D’ means the use is permitted if the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval; and

·     ‘A’ means the use is permitted if the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval following public consultation.

 

Use classes where the definition was to be altered have been compared with the Model Scheme Text (MST) contained within the draft Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2014 as required by the Department of Planning.  The majority of these definitions have been brought into line with the draft MST and where they vary from those requirements, justification has been provided.  The summary of the CapeROC assessment recommendations is provided as Attachment A to provide the justification for each proposed change, along with the proposed modifications to the zoning table at Attachment B.

 

A number of provisions within the Scheme have been updated to reflect the changes to various use classes and definitions as recommended through this process.  This includes the modifications proposed to:

*       Clause 4.5 – Exceptions to the Zoning Table (see recommendation 1.2);

*       Clause 5.14 – ‘Residential Enterprise’, to become ‘Home Business’ and to align with definition provided in draft MST (see recommendation 1.3);

*       Clause 5.16 – ‘Cottage Industry’, to become ‘Industry – Cottage’ and to align with definition provided in draft MST (see recommendation 1.4).

 

2.       Busselton and Dunsborough Town Centres

 

A number of recommendations have arisen from the Local Commercial Planning Strategy (LCPS) and Local Cultural Planning Strategy (the Cultural Strategy) for the Busselton City and Dunsborough Town Centres.  The City and Town Centre Conceptual Plans for both Busselton and Dunsborough, which were adopted by Council on 29 January 2014, further elaborated on some of these recommendations and as such are reflected in this amendment to be implemented.  These recommendations, which encompass text and mapping changes, are split into four main themes and are discussed below.

 

2A.      Incorporation of residential uses into the Business zone and associated height provisions

 

The LCPS identifies the need to consider a wide reaching Local Planning Scheme amendment to facilitate mixed uses within the Business zone of the Busselton City Centre and the Dunsborough Town Centre (Recommendation 21 of the LCPS).  The Cultural Strategy further supported the concept for mixed use development in the City and Town Centres along with the application of development incentives, which are proposed to be applied through plot ratio standards discussed below (Recommendations 8.1 and 8.2 of the Cultural Strategy). 

 

The spatial extent of areas that should accommodate mixed use development was considered in the preparation of the respective City and Town Centre Conceptual Plans, which identified a range of proposed works and strategies to improve the vitality of the Centres.  This support for mixed use development is limited to the Busselton City Centre and Dunsborough Town Centre areas such that the availability of commercial land in most smaller commercial centres is maintained.

 

‘Mixed Use development’ is defined by the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) as:

 

“Buildings that contain commercial and other non-residential uses in conjunction with residential dwellings in a multiple dwelling configuration.”

 

The introduction of a residential density coding into the Scheme maps for the Busselton City Centre and Dunsborough Town Centre (see recommendations 2.8a and 2.8b and Attachments C and D) will provide for the establishment of standards for residential and mixed use development, as determined by the R-Codes.  The application of the standard R-AC3 code for activity centres has been proposed over the subject areas.

 

Specifically for land along Dunn Bay Road, the LCPS recommends rezoning to encourage higher intensity and mixed use development (Recommendation 28b). Rezoning the ‘Tourist’ and ‘Special Purpose’ zoned land to ‘Business’ will support a wider range of commercial land uses and the introduction of a residential density coding will provide for the establishment of standards for residential and mixed use development (see recommendation 2.8c).

 

This area is identified in the Local Tourism Planning Strategy as Strategic Tourism Precinct No. 6, which is recommended as appropriate for rezoning to accommodate a wider range of commercial and residential land uses. While the Tourism Strategy identifies the potential need to set a minimum number of accommodation units which are subject to a length of stay restriction, the City considers that:

 

1.         It is not practical to determine a consistent and appropriate limitation for all land in this area;

 

2.         Such a control is likely to significantly impede redevelopment of the area;

 

3.         Tourist accommodation will remain a significant component of the residential mix due to the attractions of the location and the dwelling types which exist (and will result).

 

Alongside the incorporation of residential uses into the Business zone, the LCPS recommends the rezoning of land in the Clarke Street Industrial Area to ‘Restricted Business’ or similar, including ‘Shop’ and ‘Office’ as additional permissible land uses (Recommendation 14).  To strictly achieve this objective a change of zoning and new additional use area would be required, however in the context of proposing a new additional use area over ‘Residential’ zoned land adjoining the town centre, it is considered preferable to rezone the Clarke Street area consistently with the broader town centre (see recommendation 2.8d).  This meets the objective of the LCPS, while reducing some of the complexity of zoning within the Centre.

 

Conflict between non-conforming industrial land uses and future residential development will be managed on a case by case basis, however there is not considered to be any overarching, significant conflicts given the current situation of this small industrial area in relation to existing residential areas.

 

In association with the introduction of residential/mixed use into the Busselton City Centre and Dunsborough Town Centre, modifications to certain provisions within the Scheme are necessary to accommodate future development.  The amendment of the Policies relating to the ‘Business’ zone (see recommendation 2.1) will clarify the intent of the zone in accommodating medium to high density residential and mixed use development within the two centres.

 

It is also proposed to replace the existing clause 5.19, which requires residential development to be a ‘component only’ of commercial development, with one that provides development standards and incentives designed to encourage mixed use development and improve the vitality and viability of the Busselton City Centre and Dunsborough Town Centre (see recommendation 2.5). In mixed use developments, building bulk and scale is controlled by setting a maximum plot ratio, which is the ratio of the gross floor area of buildings on a development site relative to the area of land in the site boundaries (so for instance and in simple terms, a two-storey building with 500 square metres on each floor, so a total floor area of 1,000 square metres, on a 1,000 square lot, would have a plot ratio of 1.0). In order to be able to provide for incentives a base standard in terms of development density/potential needs to be established. Therefore, a plot ratio figure of 1.5 is proposed to be applied to development on land zoned Business and designated with a residential density coding of R-AC3. Incentives would then apply as follows:

 

-    Defined increases in plot ratio which provide an incentive for the development of residential and short stay accommodation within the Business zone, designed to increase the vitality of the two main centres; and

 

-    Defined increases in plot ratio for the development of active commercial land uses which provide for informal social interaction such as taverns and restaurants (this could also include such uses as Club, Recreation Facility, and Exhibition Centre).

 

Given that these incentives vary from the R-Codes, a new sub-clause is proposed to be inserted into clause 5.3 ‘Special Application of the R-Codes’ that references back to the new clause 5.19 (see recommendation 2.2).

 

Recommendations 25 (Busselton) and 30 (Dunsborough) of the LCPS identify the need to relax height controls within the Busselton City Centre and Dunsborough Town Centre to encourage further commercial and residential development within these centres.  Parts 2.3 and 2.4 of the recommendation therefore seeks to align the height controls within the two centres to the R-Codes, which specifies varying height limits for walls constructed on boundaries (7m) or set back from boundaries (18m), walls with a concealed roof (19m) and the overall height of a pitched roof (21m).  This would effectively enable buildings within the Busselton City Centre and Dunsborough Town Centre to be constructed with four to five storeys, without need for a discretionary planning decision – providing certainty for investors seeking to develop such projects, but also not preventing discretionary assessment of taller development proposals.

 

Due to the changes proposed above, a review of Schedules 2 (Additional Uses) and 3 (Special provision areas) is necessary and changes are recommended for the relevant areas.  These are set out, with the reasoning, in the table below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provision

Details

Justification

Schedule 2

Additional Use 73

 

Delete

Lot 8 (House 226) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough

Additional Use 73 provides for ‘Shop’ and ‘Office’ land uses in addition to the ‘Restricted Business’ zoning of Lot 8 (226) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough. It is proposed to rezone this lot to ‘Business’ with an R-AC3 density coding, which provides for these land uses and therefore negates the need for this specific Additional Use provision (see recommendation 2.6c).

Schedule 3

Special Provision 20

Delete

Lot 1 (House 61) Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough

The purpose of SP20 is to limit vegetation removal and ensure satisfactory possum relocation. Significant development of Lot 1 (61) Dunn Bay Road site will involve clearing of vegetation that will necessitate the consideration of ‘significant impact’ on Western Ringtail Possum habitat under the requirements of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and as such SP20 is duplicative and unnecessary (see recommendation 2.7b).

Schedule 3

Special Provision 46

Delete

Lots 1-11 (House 15) Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough

The purpose of SP46 is to provide for additional land uses commensurate with the ‘Business’ zone, including residential development, while retaining a minimum component of tourist accommodation (one-third). This site is proposed to be included within the ‘Business’ zone which negates the need for this provision, and it is not considered necessary to retain a control on tourist accommodation as discussed in reference to the rezoning of this area (see recommendation 2.7c).

Schedule 3

Special Provision 49

Delete

Lot 202 (House 24) Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough

The purpose of SP49 is to provide for additional land uses commensurate with the ‘Business’ zone, including residential development, while retaining a minimum component of tourist accommodation (one-quarter). This site is proposed to be included within the ‘Business’ zone which negates the need for this provision, and it is not considered necessary to retain a control on tourist accommodation as discussed in reference to the rezoning of this area (see recommendation 2.7d).

 

2B.      Incorporation of low impact commercial uses into Residential zone on fringes of City/Town Centres

 

The LCPS recommends allowing ‘Office’ land uses to be developed in a limited area of ‘Residential’ zoned land adjoining the Busselton City Centre and Dunsborough Town Centre (Recommendation 3 of the LCPS).  The Cultural Strategy explored the idea of recognising the value of existing residential infrastructure as a resource for home business and arts and recommended that the Scheme be reviewed to provide more flexibility and encouragement in that regard (Recommendation 8.4 of the Cultural Strategy).  This was further identified on the Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plan, where selected residential areas were identified for mixed use – business/residential/tourism.

 

The introduction of an Additional Use area as identified will permit ‘Office’ and similar land uses as ‘D’ uses, providing increased commercial opportunity in proximity to the Busselton and Dunsborough Centres as envisioned in the Strategy (see recommendation 2.6a).  Other uses that are proposed to be included under the Additional Use are:

 

·    Guesthouse;

·    Medical Centre;

·    Professional Consulting Rooms;

·    Restaurant;

·    Shop; and

·    Tourist Accommodation.

Maintaining the underlying ‘Residential’ zoning will ensure these areas contain a mixture of uses but remain residentially dominant, and this can be reinforced through the implementation of the objectives and policies of this zone.  The suitability of individual properties for these additional uses would be considered on a case-by-case basis through the development application process, where such issues as parking and open space will be assessed.

 

A number of conditions are proposed to be attached to the Additional Use to assist in guiding appropriate development.  ‘Shop’ land uses will be permitted only at ground floor level and may only occupy up to 50% of the total development floor space.  Furthermore, where development proposes an active frontage a zero street setback could be considered.  The proposed conditions also clarify that the cash in lieu of car parking provisions in the Scheme (clause 5.23) will apply for development proposing any of these commercial uses in the affected areas.

 

The following items within Schedules 2 and 3 also require change due to the recommended changes:

 

Provision

Details

Justification

Schedule 2

Additional Use 63

 

Delete

Lot 60 (House 191) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough

The purpose of A63 is to provide for ‘Office’ as an additional use on the lot, which is zoned ‘Residential’.  Given the site is proposed to be included within a broader Additional Use area which includes ‘Office’ as a discretionary land use, this therefore negates the need for the specific Additional Use provision over this property (see recommendation 2.6b).

Schedule 3

Special Provision 41

Modify – remove reference to “Limited Office Use”

Lots 15, 16, 24 & 38 Duchess Street, West Busselton

Reference to “Limited Office Use” in the “Zone” column was placed to recognise the small, limited ability for office uses within the Residential zone (‘Home Office’, ‘Home Occupation’ and ‘Restricted Business’).  The land is now proposed to be included within the new Additional Use 74 and so to avoid potential confusion the existing Special Provision is to be corrected (see recommendation 2.7a).

 

2C.      Lot 106 Cyrillean Way, Dunsborough

 

Lot 106 Cyrillean Way, Dunsborough is identified on the Scheme map as ‘Recreation’ Reserve and is located adjacent to the Dugalup Brook reserve that runs through the Dunsborough Town Centre.  The lot is privately owned and currently vacant.  The LCPS identifies that the identification of the site as ‘Recreation’ reserve is not necessary or appropriate, and recommends a rezoning to ‘Special Purpose’ to allow for the development of the site for a limited range of commercial land uses, such as art gallery and café/restaurant (Recommendation 35 of the LCPS).

 

This proposed rezoning is intended to facilitate development of this site in a manner sensitive to the adjoining reserve.  However, as this will be achieved more significantly by appropriate development form rather than land use, it is proposed to maintain the consistent zoning over Dunsborough that this omnibus amendment is seeking to achieve by rezoning Lot 106 to ‘Business’ with a residential density coding of R-AC3 (see recommendation 2.8e).  Design guidelines for the Dunsborough Town Centre are intended to be developed in the near future as recommended by the Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plan.  Lot 106 would be included within these design guidelines.

 

2D.      Increase the density coding for Residential land directly adjacent to Dunsborough Town Centre

 

The LCPS recommends increasing the residential density coding of selected R15 coded land within proximity to the Dunsborough Town Centre to R40-80 (Recommendation 30 of the LCPS).  The Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plan also references an increase to a R80 coding.  This proposed increase in residential density will increase the population within a walkable catchment of the town centre and provide for a transition of land use and development form from the Centre into nearby residential areas (see recommendation 2.8f).

 

Note that for all areas with a residential density coding, the boundary setbacks are determined with reference to the lower adjoining code (cl. 5.1.3 C3.3 of the R-Codes).  In terms of this proposal the R80 properties will have a rear boundary setback requirement of 6 metres, due to the R15 coded properties at the rear.

 

3.       Amend the Scheme Area to Low Water Mark and identification of Mean High Water Mark

 

3A.      Amend Scheme Area to LWM

 

The Scheme area is identified by clause 1.3 of the Scheme, which specifies the area as follows:

 

“1.3    SCHEME AREA

 

The Scheme applies to the Scheme area which covers the entire local government district of the City of Busselton as shown on the Scheme map.”

 

In August 2012 the City of Busselton received a letter from the Department of Local Government advising the City that Landgate had received advice outlining that where the term “Shore” has been used to define the ocean boundary of a local government, it refers to High Water Mark (HWM). 

 

The effect of this, together with changes to the location of the shoreline itself is that there are several parcels of ‘land’, most in public ownership, that are outside the Scheme area, creating uncertainty and confusion as to what controls would relate to development on that land. To address that issue, this omnibus amendment proposes to redefine the Scheme area to the LWM or the Scheme map, whichever is the greater area, and also including Lot 350 Queen Street, Busselton, the lot which encompasses the Busselton Jetty (see recommendation 3.5a). 

 

Officers are investigating whether it is possible to have a scheme area boundary which differs from the district boundary in the manor proposed. If this is not possible, the consideration would need to be given to amending the district boundary. This involves a process under the Local  Government Act. It is not proposed to commence this process at this point in time as there are other implications of alterations to the district boundary, including potential legal liability for activities in the area between the high water and low water marks, which need to be considered. It is proposed that further work associated with this issue be done while the scheme amendment is being advertised and anything further which needs to be done will be identified prior to or at the time it is proposed to adopt the amendment.

 

Other Scheme changes to address this issue are outlined below.

3B.      Interpretation of land between the HWM and LWM

 

Due to coastal processes the HWM and LWM are not static ‘lines’.  Landgate provide the City with updated cadastral data on a daily basis and because of this ever-changing boundary, clause 3.3 ‘Local Reserves’ is proposed to be amended to appropriately capture all land between the HWM and LWM that may otherwise be ‘unzoned’, with resultant uncertainty and ambiguity with respect to how the Scheme applies to the land. 

 

Clause 3.3 ‘Local Reserves’ is to be amended from:

 

“3.3    LOCAL RESERVES

 

Local Reserves are delineated and depicted on the Scheme map according to the legend on the Scheme map.”

 

to read as follows:

 

“3.3    LOCAL RESERVES

 

Local Reserves are delineated and depicted on the Scheme map according to the legend on the Scheme map, and in addition land between High Water Mark and Low Water Mark shall, unless identified otherwise in the Scheme map, be considered to be ‘Recreation Reserve’.”

 

The land between HWM and LWM that would otherwise appear as having ‘no zone’ will be interpreted as ‘Recreation’ Reserve for the purposes of the Scheme (see recommendation 3.2).

 

Given the proposed inclusion of reference to the LWM and HWM in the Scheme text, respective definitions are to be inserted into Schedule 1 as follows (see recommendation 3.3a):

 

“Low Water Mark”, in relation to tidal waters, means lowest water mark at spring tides.”

 

“High Water Mark”, in relation to tidal waters, means ordinary high water mark at spring tides.”

 

Whilst the definition for HWM has been sourced directly from the Land Administration Act 1997, there are no formally recognised definitions for LWM.  The above definition for LWM instead reflects Landgate’s approach to the interpretation of this term. 

 

3C.      Amend definition of Mean High Water Mark and add to the Scheme Maps

 

The definition of MHWM in the Scheme currently states:

 

"Mean High Water Mark" means the demarcation line on the Scheme map that identifies the interface of the ocean and land, and shall exclude any demarcation of natural inland water systems or man-made harbours/canals.

 

The Scheme utilises the MHWM in two ways:

 

 

1.         For the purposes of providing a demarcation line from which an area can be designated for building height controls – clause 5.8 ‘Height of Buildings’ and Schedule 4 ‘Old Dunsborough Special Character Area’ specify a height control of 7.5 metres for land within 150 metres of the MHWM, with another limit for land outside of this area.  The height control relating to the Eagle Bay Special Character Area, though, references “high water mark”, which is proposed to be modified as part of this omnibus amendment to ‘MHWM’ for consistency with the remainder of the Scheme and to enable the line to be demarcated on the Scheme maps.

 

2.         For the purposes of specifying development that is not exempt from requiring planning approval – clause 9.2 ‘Permitted Development’ identifies that on land below the MHWM, the development of a single house (9.2.1(b)(vii)), dam, filling, excavation (9.2.1(d)(iv)) or clearing of vegetation (9.2.1(e)(vii)), is not exempt from requiring planning approval, notwithstanding that it may otherwise be exempt.

 

It needs to be noted that neither of these sets of controls are prohibitions on development. Rather, they are triggers that require the making of a discretionary decision by the City before certain development may occur.

 

The location of the MHWM has not been specifically shown on the Scheme maps other than as the Scheme area boundary and the height control areas have in the past been provided on the City’s internally accessed Intramaps system.  This method has not necessarily been accessible by the public without the assistance of City staff.

 

As part of this suite of changes, it is proposed to amend the definition of MHWM to provide clarification for the purposes of the clauses that make reference to this line (see recommendation 3.3b) and to identify the MHWM on the Scheme maps (see recommendation 3.5b).   

 

The definition is proposed to be simplified to the following:

 

"Mean High Water Mark" means the demarcation line on the Scheme map as provided by Landgate on the day of 22 June 2015, that identifies the interface of the ocean and land, and shall exclude any demarcation of natural inland water systems or man-made harbours/canals.

 

The MHWM demarcation line on the Scheme map will thenceforth be a fixed line at a point in time, the purpose of which is to act as a reference point for provisions within the Scheme and Local Planning Policies. There is no requirement for MHWM line to be the most up to date demarcation line as provided by Landgate, the fixed point in time is sufficient for the purpose it serves within the Scheme.

 

The vast majority of properties near the coast will now be outside of the 150 metres due to this correction to the alignment of the MHWM, enabling a higher building to be developed without necessitating a discretionary decision.  The trigger for when a determination would be necessary on the maximum height of a proposed building may be affected for a small number of properties around Norman Road, Broadwater and near Wonnerup Beach (Layman Road, McCormack Street and Estuary View Drive).  This will be offset by the proposal as part of this omnibus amendment to raise height controls from 7.5 metres within the 150 metres of the MHWM to 9 metres, as discussed in Part 4F of this report.  As such the height controls for these properties may drop from 10 metres to 9 metres.  The benefit of providing the MHWM on the Scheme map will provide certainty for land owners and developers.

3D.      Amend Schedule 4, Part 5 ‘Eagle Bay Special Character Area’ from HWM to MHWM

 

Currently Part 5 of Schedule 4 ‘Special Character Areas’, relating to the Eagle Bay Special Character Area, references the ‘high water mark’ in relation to height controls.  As discussed above, this is inconsistent with other references to height controls in the Scheme, which refer to the ‘mean high water mark’.  This is considered to be an error in the drafting as the intention was to retain consistency with the remainder of the Scheme. 

 

The recommendation is therefore to amend Schedule 4, clause 5(d) of the ‘Eagle Bay Special Character Area’ to modify the reference to “high water mark” to “mean high water mark” (see recommendation 3.4).  The minor text modification to this clause combined with the demarcation of the MHWM on the Scheme map, as described above, will improve the functionality of the Scheme and provide certainty for the landowners within the Eagle Bay Special Character Area in relation to height controls. 

 

4.       Miscellaneous Scheme Text Modifications

 

4A.      Modifying clause 4.4.2

 

With the conversion of Scheme 20 to Scheme 21, a small number of drafting errors or anomalies have occurred with the transfer to the new Scheme layout.  Clause 4.4.2 for example, previously being the “Uses Not Listed” clause of Scheme No. 20, should refer to “objectives and policies of the particular zone…” at sub-clauses (a) and (c), as per sub-clause (b). The clause requires amendment to correct the omission of the words “and policies” (see recommendation 4.1).

 

4B.      Anomalies within Clause 4.5 – ‘Exceptions to the Zoning Table’

 

In the attempt to keep Scheme 21 policy neutral and compliant with the Model Scheme Text, clause 4.5 accumulated into one location a number of exemptions to the zoning table that were previously scattered throughout Scheme 20. The resulting complexity of the clause has led to the incorrect drafting of the provision relating to the use of rural/primary production lots in the Rural Residential zone for Intensive Agriculture. Clause 85(22) of Scheme 20 stated:

 

“(22)   Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Scheme, “Intensive Agriculture” may be permitted within the “Rural Residential” Zone only where such lots are greater than 20 hectares or are identified for rural or primary production on an approved Subdivision or Development Guide Plan with such application being subject to advertising procedures consistent with Clause 12 of the Scheme.”

 

Whilst clause 4.5.2 of the current Scheme No. 21 covers the use of Rural Residential lots greater than 20 hectares, including for Intensive Agriculture purposes, ‘rural/primary production lots’ identified on Development Guide Plans have not been included (these lots can consist of an area as small as 13 hectares). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 4.5.3(d) of Scheme No. 21 states:

 

“4.5.3       Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 4.3 and Table 1, the following development shall be deemed an “X” use –

(d)       within the Rural Residential zone on any lot that is not over 20 hectares in area and/or is identified for rural or primary production on a development guide plan, intensive agriculture;…

 

This clause effectively states that Intensive Agriculture is not permitted on any Rural Residential lot less than 20 hectares, even if it is identified as a rural/primary production lot.  This is clearly not the intention of the clause it is attempting to replicate.  It is also important to note that Intensive Agriculture is already an ‘X’ use in the Rural Residential zone by virtue of the zoning table.  It is therefore recommended that sub-clause (d) is deleted and replaced by a new clause within 4.5 that accurately reflects the provision from the previous scheme.  This new clause is proposed to be inserted at 4.5.4(h) (see recommendations 4.2a and b).

 

Also within the “Exceptions to the zoning table” clause, sub-clause 4.5.4(a) references uses that should be deemed a “D” use and subject to advertising specifically on land with an R-Code of R30 or greater.  These uses include multiple dwellings (i.e. flats, apartments or similar, as opposed to units, villas, townhouses or similar), the permissibility associated with which was modified as part of Omnibus 6 to the previous Town Planning Scheme (Amendment 125, Gazetted 20 August 2013) from a use requiring advertising (‘A’ use) to a discretionary use (‘D’ use) in the Residential zone.  Given that the recent change to the Scheme attempted to remove the requirement for advertising in the Residential zone this clause should also be amended to correspond to that modification.  As such reference to multiple dwellings should be removed from sub-clause 4.5.4(a) (see recommendation 4.2c).

 

4C.      Modifications to the Zoning Table

 

A minor modification to the Zoning Table is proposed whereby the permissibility of ‘Community Centre’ is to be relaxed from ‘D’ use (discretionary) to ‘P’ use (permitted) in the Business zone (see recommendation 4.3). This proposal seeks to expand on the permitted uses from the work that was conducted with the last omnibus to Scheme 20 (Amendment 125, Gazetted in 2013) with the intent to reduce the requirement for unnecessary approvals for changes of use in the Business zone. The Business zone is seen as generally the most appropriate location for Community Centres (as the main centres are, for most people, the most accessible locations) and given that these are often run by not-for-profit organisations it is considered appropriate to reduce the constraints on this type of use.

 

4D.      Deleting reference to multiple dwellings on R30 coded land

 

The revised R-Codes, in effect since 2 August 2013, now provide for Multiple Dwellings on R30 coded land where the previous versions of the R-Codes did not.  To allow for this form of development in R30 areas, the Scheme has referred to development of a multiple dwelling to comply with the site requirements for the R35 code as per the R-Codes.  Now that the R-Codes have been amended to provide for multiple dwellings within codes ranging from R10 and up, this clause (clause 5.3.1(g)) is obsolete and deletion is recommended (see recommendation 4.4).

 

 

4E.       Drive-through facilities in the Business zone

 

Recent work on the Busselton City and Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plans, and associated ongoing works, have focused on enhancing aspects of the pedestrian environment, such as ‘permeability’ and ‘walkability’, and also on reducing vehicular congestion by improving traffic flows and car parking.  As an adjunct to this, consideration has been given to the takeaway food industry and associated drive-through facilities, especially within the Business zone.   

 

Existing use classes that could incorporate a drive-through component might typically include ‘Takeaway Food Outlet’ (including fast food and/or coffee outlets), ‘Shop’ (liquor store), ‘Hotel’ and ‘Tavern’.  It is noted that commercial enterprises in some places are increasingly employing drive-through facilities for banks and pharmacies, whilst the transient ability to shop at a department store or receive ‘flu-shots’ via a drive-through facility is purportedly also becoming increasingly popular.

 

However, there are a number of potentially undesirable impacts from the provision of drive-through facilities, especially in town or city centres such as Dunsborough and Busselton including: queued traffic interfering with on-site and off-site vehicular and pedestrian flow, lighting and ambient noise from idling cars and voice amplification equipment, a lack of civic and retail amenity, and reduced ‘main street’ activation, community interaction and vibrancy.  There are also potentially detrimental commercial flow-on effects, in that businesses which do not offer ‘drive-through convenience’ may suffer from a lack of patronage and resultant viability.  It is considered, therefore, that drive-through facilities should not be encouraged in the central shopping, commercial and pedestrian areas, which are those areas normally corresponding to the Business zone. 

 

A modification to the Scheme is proposed to remove the ability for drive-through facilities to seek to operate in the Business zone, in order to stimulate and promote active pedestrian environments within the Busselton City and Dunsborough Town Centres.  This is consistent with the Strategic Objective 1.1 of the City of Busselton, in which a Community objective is to foster “a community where people… enjoy a sense of good health and wellbeing”.  This Scheme modification would involve:

 

·   the provision of a new clause within Part 5 “General Development Requirements” to expressly prohibit new ‘drive-through facilities’ operating within the Business zone (see recommendation 4.5b); 

·   an additional sub-clause at clause 5.5 “Variations to Site and Development Standards and Requirements” to further clarify and emphasise the prohibition (in addition to the proposed amendment related to clarification of advertising signage requirements, as discussed in section 4K of this report) (see recommendation 4.5a); and

·   inserting a new definition for “Drive-through facility” into Schedule 1 of LPS21: “Interpretations” (see recommendation 4.5c).

 

The Scheme denotes ‘Takeaway Food Outlet’, ‘Hotel’ and ‘Tavern’ as an ‘A’ use (requiring advertising) in the Business, Restricted Business and Tourist zones.  ‘Hotel’ and ‘Tavern’ are also denoted as ‘A’ uses in the Agriculture and Viticulture & Tourism zones; whilst Tavern is also an ‘A’ use in the Industrial zone.  However, a ‘Shop’ is a permitted use only in the Business zone. 

 

The appropriate location of a drive-through facility could be considered as part of a planning application that may be received for a relevant use, outside the Business zone. 

The proposed definition of Drive-through facility will focus on that facility being incidental to a predominant use, rather than being a specific Use Class in its own right:-

 

‘Drive-through facility’ means a facility incidental to another use, such as shop or takeaway food outlet, whereby a product or service is sold or provided directly to customers or patrons seated in a motor vehicle.”

 

4F.       Increasing the general permitted height for buildings

 

Notwithstanding controls elsewhere in the Scheme, the height of buildings within the City of Busselton is controlled by clause 5.8, Height of Buildings.  The general height provisions for buildings provides for 7.5 metres above natural ground level for properties within 150 metres of the mean high water mark and 10 metres for all other properties. 

 

The current wording of clause 5.8.1 is as follows:

 

“5.8.1 A person must not erect any building that -

 

(a)       contains more than two storeys or exceeds a height of 7.5 metres where land is within 150 metres of the mean high water mark; or

 

(b)       contains more than three storeys or exceeds a height of 10 metres where land is more than 150 metres from the mean high water mark, except where otherwise provided for in the Scheme.”

 

Along the areas of the Geographe Bay coast residential development is largely required to provide an amount of fill to achieve a minimum finished floor level to provide a level of protection from coastal flooding and storm surge events.  This can often be as much as 2 metres of fill, causing difficulties for some landowners in achieving the 7.5 metre height controls from the natural ground level for a standard two storey single dwelling.  This often then results in an application for planning approval for a discretionary decision on an over-height building, which can be considered under clause 5.8.3.

 

This amendment is therefore proposing to modify the general height provisons for properties within 150 metres of the mean high water mark from 7.5 metres to 9.0 metres and properties further than 150 metres from the mean high water mark from 10 metres to 12 metres (see recommendation 4.6). 

 

This modification will bring the general City of Busselton height limitations more in line with those provided by the R-Codes, being 9 metres generally for two storey development and 12 metres for development on three levels (these heights indicate to the top of a pitched roof).   

 

It is important to note that this proposal to amend the height limitation will only affect clause 5.8.1 and not the controls specified elsewhere in the Scheme for properties within the ‘Rural Residential’, ‘Rural Landscape’ and ‘Conservation’ zones and the varying height requirements in the Special Character Areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

4G.      Permanent/Residential Occupation of Tourist Developments

 

Clause 5.18 ‘Permanent/Residential Occupation of Tourist Developments’ is proposed to be updated to reflect the appropriate use classes and to enable a more flexible approach to the use of Caravan Parks and Park Home Parks where they may be considered within the Residential zone. 

 

Currently the clause is worded as follows:

 

“5.18  PERMANENT/RESIDENTIAL OCCUPATION OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENTS

 

5.18.1    No person shall occupy a tourist accommodation unit, chalet, caravan, camp or any other form of tourist accommodation for more than a total of 3 months in any one 12 month period.

 

5.18.2    Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.18.1 and subject to consideration of the need to make available adequate tourist accommodation the local government may grant planning approval for the permanent occupancy of up to 15% of caravan sites within a caravan park only on land in the Residential zone or Tourist zone.”

 

The clause is proposed to be worded as follows (see recommendation 4.7):

 

“5.18  PERMANENT/RESIDENTIAL OCCUPATION OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENTS

 

5.18.1    Outside the residential zone, occupation by any person of the following use classes approved under the Scheme as short stay accommodation is limited to a maximum of 3 months in any 12 month period. This applies to the following use classes:

 

(a)       Guesthouse;

 

(b)       Chalet;

 

(c)       Caravan Park;

 

(d)       Park Home Park;

 

(e)       Tourist Accommodation.

 

5.18.2    Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.18.1 and subject to consideration of the need to make available adequate tourist accommodation the local government may grant planning approval for the permanent occupancy of up to:

 

(a)       100% of caravan sites within a Caravan Park or Park Home Park on land in the Residential zone; and

 

(b)       15% of caravan sites within a Caravan Park or Park Home Park on land in the Tourist zone.” 

 

The intent is to facilitate Caravan Park and Park Home Park uses within the Residential zone, where they are not intended for predominantly tourist purposes.  A typical example of this type of development is where park homes are utilised as aged housing units, where a different living environment and often a lower cost of accommodation can be offered.  The lack of clarity in the Scheme in providing for this type of development has led to the need for an amendment to clause 5.18.  There is no minimum or maximum number of ‘units’ that are permitted for long stay under the Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Regulations 1997, instead the number of ‘units’ available for long term stay is considered and determined as part of a planning application.  There are not currently any caravan parks or park home parks in the residential zone.

 

4H.      Deleting clause relating to Fire Management in Rural Areas

 

Clause 5.29 currently reads as follows:

 

5.29  FIRE MANAGEMENT IN RURAL AREAS

 

5.29.1    Within the Rural Residential, Rural Landscape, Conservation and Bushland Protection zones, a fire management plan must be approved by the local government and implemented by the developer prior to subdivision, and thereafter its requirements shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the local government.

 

5.29.2    Fire management plans prepared for land in the Conservation and Bushland Protection zones must ensure minimal disturbance to vegetation, wetlands and fauna and generally be consistent with the conservation values of the land.

 

5.29.3    Within the Rural Landscape zone, on land identified within a fire control buffer as shown on a Development Guide Plan, fuel reduction measures shall be implemented and maintained where required and strategic firebreaks shall be constructed in accordance with a fire management plan.

 

5.29.4    All dwellings in the Rural Landscape zone are required to incorporate bush fire protection measures in accordance with AS3959 to the satisfaction of the local government.”

 

Since the adoption of the City’s Bush Fire Protection Local Planning Policy Provisions and now the drafting of the Planning and Development (Bushfire Risk Management) Regulations 2014, associated State Planning Policy, Guidelines and State Bushfire-Prone Area Map, clause 5.29 has become obsolete.  The Regulations and associated documents work together to achieve the objective of reducing the impact of bushfire damage on lives and property, with the Guidelines providing advice on how bushfire risk is to be addressed when designing or assessing a proposal within a bushfire-prone area.  Applications for scheme amendments, development guide plans, subdivision and development, as well as applications for building approval, will be required to have regard to the new Regulations and related documents from their commencement date, which is expected to take place in the second half of 2015. 

 

Whilst clause 5.29 provided specific requirements for properties within the Rural Residential, Rural Landscape, Conservation and Bushland Protection zones, the provisions are covered by the draft provisions more broadly.  For example, draft State Planning Policy 3.7 Planning for Bushfire Risk Management introduces an objective recognising the need to balance bushfire risk management with biodiversity and environmental conservation values, regardless of the zone, where clause 5.29.2 only specified this for the Conservation and Bushland Protection zones.  Further, the draft Planning for Bushfire Risk Management Guidelines recognises that the planning assessment should consider the advice of any State authorities responsible for conservation and any relevant planning policies and publications or other documents identifying the environmental values of the site.  In the Conservation and Bushland Protection zones specifically, the objectives and policies and relevant development requirements (Part 5) of the Scheme ensure that development must not detrimentally impact on these values.

 

Clause 5.29.3 stipulated requirements for Rural Landscape zoned land identified within a ‘fire control buffer’ on a development guide plan.  Of the very few development guide plans (three) over Rural Landscape zoned land (fourteen properties), none identify any land as a ‘fire control buffer’.  This terminology is not utilised by the draft Regulations and associated document however the intent – to ensure fuel reduction measures are implemented – is addressed in other parts of the planning framework and therefore this provision in the Scheme is no longer necessary.

 

Given the above, Clause 5.29 “Fire Management in Rural Areas” is an obsolete clause and is recommended to be deleted (see recommendation 4.8).

 

4I.        Setbacks from Caves Road, Bussell Highway and Vasse Highway

 

This omnibus amendment is seeking to combine the two clauses that relate to the development setbacks from Bussell Highway, Caves Road and Vasse Highway (see recommendation 4.9).

 

The proposed modification with respect to clauses 5.35.2 and 5.35.3 is designed to overcome an anomaly from the conversion of Scheme 20 to Scheme 21.  The two clauses were worded very similarly, with the slight difference relating to whether a property would be directly adjacent to the road reserve or not. 

 

For instance, clause 5.35.2, specifying the setback from Caves Road, would require that property to have a common boundary to the Caves Road road reserve.  In contrast, clause 5.35.3, relating to Bussell Highway and Vasse Highway, had no requirement for a common boundary and applied a setback from the road reserve itself.

 

A limited number of properties are affected by this, however, in each of those cases the change is not likely to have an impact as the properties in question are either large enough to accommodate development elsewhere on the property or would require a planning application to be submitted for consideration of any significant development, regardless of the setback.

 

4J.       Amending Schedule 1

 

A minor modification to Schedule 1 is proposed by removing the definition for ‘Health Care Professional’ (see recommendation 4.10).  It was brought to the attention of officers at the City of Busselton during the final stages of preparing LPS21 that the definition of ‘Health Care Professional’ needed to be revised due to referencing obsolete legislation.  Currently the definition reads as follows:

 

"Health Care Professional" means a person who renders professional health services to members of the public, and includes –

(a)       a podiatrist registered under the Podiatrists Act 2005;

(b)       a chiropractor registered under the Chiropractic Act 2005;

(c)       an osteopath registered under the Osteopaths Act 2005;

(d)       a physiotherapist registered under the Physiotherapists Act 2005;.

(e)       an optometrist registered under the Optometrists Act 2005; or

(f)        a naturopath, herbalist or practitioner of a like nature.

 

The purpose for the definition of ‘Health Care Professional’ is solely to assist in the interpretation of ‘Professional Consulting Rooms’.  It is felt that the definition for ‘Professional Consulting Rooms’ can be interpreted correctly without needing to separately define ‘Health Care Professional’ and as such that definition is recommended to be deleted.

 

4K.      Schedule 14 – Exempted Advertisements

 

Schedule 14 was included into the Scheme with the final omnibus amendment to District Town Planning Scheme No. 20 to incorporate relevant sections from the Signs Local Law.  The wording in Schedule 14 was incorrectly transferred where it refers to an “Information Sign” and does not correspond to the definitions, also within Schedule 14, where it is referred to as an “Information Panel”.  Omnibus 1 is therefore attempting to correct this error (see recommendation 4.11a).

 

It has also been identified that a clarification is necessary with respect to the Control of Advertisements.  Currently at clause 5.40, the Scheme states:

 

“Advertisements that advertise goods or services which are not produced, displayed or offered for sale, or which is otherwise not relevant to, the land upon which the advertisement is located, are prohibited.”

 

However within Schedule 14 – Exempted Advertisements, clause (B)1 states:

 

“(B)     Any advertisement will require planning consent if it:

 

1.         Advertises goods or services which are not produced, displayed or offered for sale, or which is otherwise not relevant to, the land upon which the advertisement is located.”

 

These provisions of the Scheme have caused uncertainty in the intent to not permit off-site advertising.  This Amendment therefore proposes the addition of a sub-clause at clause 5.5 “Variations to Site and Development Standards and Requirements” to further clarify the prohibition expressed by clause 5.40.  This proposed sub-clause will, if supported, work in conjunction with the proposed amendment related to Drive-through facilities in the Business zone, as discussed in section 4E of this report and is proposed as follows:

 

“5.5.2    Notwithstanding clause 5.5.1 above, the following development is expressly prohibited:

 

(a)      Drive-through facilities in the Business zone, as specified in clause 5.20; and

 

(b)      Advertisements that advertise goods and services which are not produced, displayed or offered for sale, or which is otherwise not relevant to, the land upon which the advertisement is located, as specified in clause 5.40.”

 

This proposed modification to clause 5.5 of the Scheme is located at 4.5a of the recommendation. 

 

The addition of a note following clause (B)1 of Schedule 14 is also recommended to assist interpretation of the Scheme, to read as follows (see recommendation 4.11b):

 

“Note:   Advertisements that advertise goods and services which are not produced, displayed or offered for sale, or which is otherwise not relevant to, the land upon which the advertisement is located, are prohibited as specified by clause 5.40.”

 

5.       Amendments to the Scheme Maps

 

A number of changes to the Scheme maps are proposed in order to provide up to date and accurate Scheme maps (see recommendations 5.1-5.60).  The changes comprise ‘fix-ups’ to address cadastre updates from Landgate, zoning errors and historic zoning which no longer serves a purpose.  A small number of targeted map amendments (rezonings) are also included. 

 

Cadastre updates are provided by Landgate on a regular basis, over the years these updates have resulted in a number of discrepancies between the gazetted Scheme maps and the most up to date data sets.  Therefore the outcome is that the zoning and cadastre does not line up, which results in lots having small ‘slivers’ of zoning they shouldn’t have or areas of no zones. Approximately 8000 cadastre/zoning slivers have been identified in the Scheme maps.  These will be amended accordingly. 

 

In order to avoid this issue in the future the City shall be seeking a service agreement with the Department of Planning (DoP). This agreement will give the DoP the responsibility of preparing and updating the Scheme maps with the most up to date information and data and the City will review this data, providing a level of additional quality control.

 

Zoning errors have occurred in a number of ways over the years and are mostly related to data errors via mapping data received by the City of Busselton or the DoP.  A service agreement with the DoP to supply and update the Scheme maps will significantly reduce the event of errors occurring in the future.

 

Historic zoning has resulted mainly from changes to landownership where land has been in public ownership and then subsequently transferred to private ownership.  Historic zoning also relates to obsoletes uses which are no longer required for example, old tramway reserves zoned for public purpose.

 

The amended Scheme maps will more accurately reflect the intent of the Scheme and the updates will aid a smoother transfer of the City’s mapping from the City to the DoP for future updates and amendments.

 

Specific map amendments and justification for each are set out in Attachment E, with the Scheme Amendment maps provided at Attachment F.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The purpose of the amendment is to improve the functionality and provisions within the Scheme, to update the Scheme’s currency and to refine and correct scheme provisions where these have been found to be deficient.  The information contained within this report confirms that the amendments proposed are an appropriate outcome consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the City of Busselton and as such, it is recommended that the draft amendment be initiated for public consultation.

 

OPTIONS

 

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

 

1.            Resolve to decline the request to initiate the proposed amendment in its entirety and     provide a reason for such a decision.

 

2.            Resolve to initiate the proposed amendment subject to modification(s).

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve the provision of the amendment documentation to the Environmental Protection Authority and this will occur within one month of the resolution.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

A.    That the Council, in pursuance of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2005, adopts draft Amendment 1 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 for community consultation, for the purpose of:

 

1.      CapeROC Initiative

 

1.1       Amending Table 1 “Zoning Table” by –

a.      Amending the following Use Class titles:

i.          ‘Agriculture’ to read ‘Agriculture – Extensive’;

ii.         ‘Intensive Agriculture’ to read ‘Agriculture – Intensive’;

iii.        ‘Animal Husbandry’ to read ‘Animal Husbandry – Intensive’;

iv.        ‘Chalet Development’ to read ‘Chalet’;

v.         ‘Residential Enterprise’ to read ‘Home Business’;

vi.        ‘Cottage Industry’ to read ‘Industry – Cottage’;

vii.       ‘Rural Industry’ to read ‘Industry – Rural’;

viii.      ‘Place of Public Worship’ to read ‘Place of Worship’;

ix.        ‘Roadside Stall’ to read ‘Rural Stall’;

x.         ‘Forestry’ to read ‘Tree Farm’; and

xi.        ‘Veterinary Hospital’ to read ‘Veterinary Centre’;

and associated references throughout the Scheme accordingly.

b.     Inserting the use classes ‘Ancillary Accommodation’, ‘Brewery’, ‘Exhibition Centre’, ‘Park Home Park’, ‘Rural Produce Sales’, ‘Rural Pursuit’ and ‘Wind Farm’.

c.      In relation to the ‘Residential’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Ancillary Accommodation’, insert the symbol ‘P’;

d.     In relation to the ‘Residential’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Park Home Park’, insert the symbol ‘A’;

e.     In relation to the ‘Residential’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Brewery’, ‘Exhibition Centre’, ‘Rural Produce Sales’, ‘Rural Pursuit’ and ‘Wind Farm’, insert the symbol ‘X’;

f.      In relation to the ‘Business’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Ancillary Accommodation’, insert the symbol ‘D’;

g.      In relation to the ‘Business’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Brewery’ and ‘Exhibition Centre’, insert the symbol ‘A’;

h.     In relation to the ‘Business’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Park Home Park’, ‘Rural Produce Sales’, ‘Rural Pursuit’ and ‘Wind Farm’, insert the symbol ‘X’;

i.       In relation to the ‘Restricted Business’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Brewery’ and ‘Exhibition Centre’, insert the symbol ‘A’;

j.       In relation to the ‘Restricted Business’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Ancillary Accommodation’, ‘Park Home Park’, ‘Rural Produce Sales’, ‘Rural Pursuit’ and ‘Wind Farm’, insert the symbol ‘X’;

k.      In relation to the ‘Tourist’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Park Home Park’, insert the symbol ‘D’;

l.       In relation to the ‘Tourist’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Brewery’ and ‘Exhibition Centre’, insert the symbol ‘A’;

m.    In relation to the ‘Tourist’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Ancillary Accommodation’, ‘Rural Produce Sales’, ‘Rural Pursuit’ and ‘Wind Farm’, insert the symbol ‘X’;

n.     In relation to the ‘Industrial’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Brewery’, insert the symbol ‘D’;

o.     In relation to the ‘Industrial’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Ancillary Accommodation’, ‘Exhibition Centre’, ‘Park Home Park’, ‘Rural Produce Sales’, ‘Rural Pursuit’ and ‘Wind Farm’, insert the symbol ‘X’;

p.     In relation to the ‘Agriculture’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Ancillary Accommodation’ and ‘Rural Pursuit’, inserting the symbol ‘P’;

q.     In relation to the ‘Agriculture’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Rural Produce Sales’, inserting the symbol ‘D’;

r.      In relation to the ‘Agriculture’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Brewery’, ‘Exhibition Centre’ and ‘Wind Farm’, inserting the symbol ‘A’;

s.      In relation to the ‘Agriculture’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Park Home Park’, inserting the symbol ‘X’;

t.      In relation to the ‘Agriculture’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Industry – Cottage’ and ‘Rural Stall’, replacing the symbol ‘D’ with the symbol ‘P’;

u.     In relation to the ‘Agriculture’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Chalet’, replacing the symbol ‘A’ with the symbol ‘D’;

v.      In relation to the ‘Viticulture and Tourism’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Ancillary Accommodation’ and ‘Rural Pursuit’, inserting the symbol ‘P’;

w.    In relation to the ‘Viticulture and Tourism’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Rural Produce Sales’, inserting the symbol ‘D’;

x.      In relation to the ‘Viticulture and Tourism’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Brewery’, ‘Exhibition Centre’ and ‘Wind Farm’, inserting the symbol ‘A’;

y.      In relation to the ‘Viticulture and Tourism’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Park Home Park’, inserting the symbol ‘X’;

z.      In relation to the ‘Viticulture and Tourism’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Agriculture – Intensive’, ‘Industry – Cottage’ and ‘Rural Stall’, replacing the symbol ‘D’ with the symbol ‘P’;

aa.   In relation to the ‘Viticulture and Tourism’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Animal Husbandry’, ‘Chalet’ and ‘Industry – Rural’, replacing the symbol ‘A’ with the symbol ‘D’;

bb.   In relation to the ‘Rural Residential’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Ancillary Accommodation’, insert the symbol ‘P’;

cc.    In relation to the ‘Rural Residential’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Rural Pursuit’, insert the symbol ‘A’;

dd.   In relation to the ‘Rural Residential’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Brewery’, ‘Exhibition Centre’, ‘Park Home Park’, ‘Rural Produce Sales’ and ‘Wind Farm’, insert the symbol ‘X’;

ee.   In relation to the ‘Rural Landscape’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Ancillary Accommodation’, insert the symbol ‘D’;

ff.     In relation to the ‘Rural Landscape’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Rural Produce Sales’ and ‘Rural Pursuit’, insert the symbol ‘A’;

gg.   In relation to the ‘Rural Landscape’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Brewery’, ‘Exhibition Centre’, ‘Park Home Park’, and ‘Wind Farm’, insert the symbol ‘X’;

hh.   In relation to the ‘Conservation’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Ancillary Accommodation’, insert the symbol ‘D’;

ii.      In relation to the ‘Conservation’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Rural Produce Sales’, insert the symbol ‘A’;

jj.     In relation to the ‘Conservation’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Brewery’, ‘Exhibition Centre’, ‘Park Home Park’, ‘Rural Pursuit’ and ‘Wind Farm’, insert the symbol ‘X’;

kk.   In relation to the ‘Bushland Protection’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Ancillary Accommodation’, insert the symbol ‘D’;

ll.      In relation to the ‘Bushland Protection’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Brewery’, ‘Exhibition Centre’, ‘Park Home Park’, ‘Rural Produce Sales’, ‘Rural Pursuit’ and ‘Wind Farm’, insert the symbol ‘X’; and

mm. Removing the use classes ‘Poultry Farm’, ‘Recreation Agriculture’, ‘Recreation Area’ and ‘Rural Enterprise’ and associated permissibilities.

1.2       Modifying clause 4.5 “Exceptions to the zoning table” by amending clause 4.5.3(a) to read as follows:

“(a)        within the Rural Residential zone on any lot less than 4,000 m² in area, any purpose other than a single house (including any incidental development), ancillary accommodation, guesthouse, holiday home (single house), home business, home office, home occupation, bed and breakfast or public utility;”

1.3       Amending clause 5.14 “Residential Enterprise” to read as follows:

“5.14         HOME BUSINESS

5.14.1    A home business shall –

(a)       not occupy an area greater than 50m2, provided further that the area within which it is conducted is not visible from the street or a public place;

(b)       be conducted only between the hours of 8.00am and 6.00pm on weekdays, 9.00am and 5.00pm on Saturdays and is not conducted on Sundays and public holidays;

(c)       not have more than one advertising sign and the sign displayed does not exceed 0.2m2 in area; and

(d)       not involve the presence, use or calling of a vehicle more than 3.5 tonnes tare weight.

5.14.2    Where a local government grants planning approval for a home business, such planning approval –

(a)       must be personal to the person to whom it was granted;

(b)       must not be transferred or assigned to any other person;

(c)       does not run with the land in respect of which it was granted; and

(d)       must apply only in respect of the land specified in the planning approval.”

1.4       Amending clause 5.16 “Cottage Industry” to read as follows:

“5.16         INDUSTRY – COTTAGE

An Industry – Cottage shall –

(a)      not occupy an area in excess of 100m2; and

(b)      not display a sign exceeding 0.2m2 in area.”

1.5       Amending Schedule 1 “Interpretations” by –

a.         Removing the definitions ‘Poultry Farm’, ‘Recreation Agriculture’, ‘Recreation Area’, and ‘Rural Enterprise’;

b.         Amending the following definitions to read:

i.          “‘Abattoir’ means premises used commercially for the slaughtering of animals for the purposes of consumption as food products;”

ii.         “‘Animal Establishment’ means premises used for the breeding, boarding, training or caring of animals for commercial purposes but does not include animal husbandry — intensive or veterinary centre;”

iii.        “‘Hotel’ means premises the subject of a hotel licence other than a small bar or tavern licence granted under the Liquor Control Act 1988 including any betting agency on the premises;”

iv.        “‘Market’ means premises used for the display and sale of goods from stalls by independent vendors;”

v.         “‘Plant Nursery’ means premises used for propagation, the growing and either retail or wholesale selling of plants, whether or not ancillary products are sold therein;”

vi.        “‘Reception Centre’ means premises used for hosted functions on formal or ceremonial occasions;”

vii.       “‘Service Station’ means premises other than premises used for a transport depot, panel beating, spray painting, major repairs or wrecking, that are used for —

(a)       the retail sale of petroleum products, motor vehicle accessories and goods of an incidental or convenience nature; or

(b)       the carrying out of greasing, tyre repairs and minor mechanical repairs to motor vehicles;”

viii.      “‘Tourist Accommodation’ means single occupancy accommodation units, which may be self-contained and may include associated central facilities for the exclusive use of guests, and includes serviced apartments;”

ix.        “‘Winery’ means premises used for the production of viticultural produce and associated sale of the produce;”

c.         Amending the following titles and definitions:

i.          Agriculture’ to read:

“‘Agriculture - Extensive’ means premises used for the raising of stock or crops but does not include agriculture — intensive or animal husbandry — intensive;”

ii.         ‘Intensive Agriculture’ to read:

“‘Agriculture – Intensive’ means premises used for trade or commercial purposes, including outbuildings and earthworks, associated with the following —

(a)       the production of grapes, vegetables, flowers, exotic or native plants, or fruit or nuts;

(b)       the establishment and operation of plant or fruit nurseries; or

(c)       the development of land for irrigated fodder production or irrigated pasture (including turf farms);”

iii.        ‘Animal Husbandry’ to read:

“‘Animal Husbandry – Intensive’ means premises used for keeping, rearing or fattening of pigs, poultry (for either egg or meat production), rabbits (for either meat or fur production) or other livestock in feedlots, sheds or rotational pens;”

iv.        ‘Chalet Development’ to read:

“‘Chalet’ means a dwelling forming part of a tourist facility that is —

(a)       a self-contained unit that includes cooking facilities, bathroom facilities and separate living and sleeping areas; and

(b)       designed to accommodate short-term guests with no guest accommodated for periods totalling more than 3 months in any 12 month period;”

v.         ‘Residential Enterprise’ to read:

“‘Home Business’ means a business, service or profession carried out in a dwelling or on land around a dwelling by an occupier of the dwelling which –

(a)       does not employ more than 2 people not members of the occupier’s household;

(b)      will not cause injury to or adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood;

(c)       does not involve the retail sale, display or hire of goods of any nature except where those goods are manufactured or produced at the residence;

(d)      in relation to vehicles and parking, does not result in traffic difficulties as a result of the inadequacy of parking or an increase in traffic volumes in the neighbourhood; and

(e)      does not involve the use of an essential service of greater capacity than normally required in the zone;”

vi.        ‘Cottage Industry’ to read:

“‘Industry – Cottage’ means premises, other than premises used for a home occupation, that are used by the occupier of the premises for the purpose of carrying out a trade or light industry producing arts and crafts goods if the carrying out of the trade or light industry —

(a)       will not cause injury to or adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood; and

(b)       if the premises is located in a residential zone — does not employ any person other than a member of the occupier’s household; and

(c)       is compatible with the principal uses to which land in the zone in which the premises is located may be put;

and may include the wholesale and appointment only sale of products produced on site.”

vii.       ‘Rural Industry’ to read:

“‘Industry – Rural’ means premises used —

(a)       to carry out an industry handling, treating, processing or packing rural products grown, reared or produced in the locality; or

(b)      for a workshop servicing plant or equipment used for rural purposes in the locality;”

viii.      ‘Place of Public Worship’ to read:

“‘Place of Worship’ means premises used for religious activities such as a chapel, church, mosque, synagogue or temple;”

ix.        ‘Roadside Stall’ to read:

“‘Rural Stall’ means a place, temporary structure or moveable structure used for the retail sale of agricultural produce produced on the property on which it is situated as an activity totally incidental to and dependent upon the principal use of the land for agricultural purposes;”

x.         ‘Forestry’ to read:

“‘Tree Farm’ means land used commercially for tree production where trees are planted in blocks of more than one hectare, including land in respect of which a carbon right is registered under the Carbon Rights Act 2003 section 5;

xi.        ‘Veterinary Hospital’ to read:

“‘Veterinary Centre’ means premises used to diagnose animal diseases or disorders, to surgically or medically treat animals, or for the prevention of animal diseases or disorders;”

d.         Inserting the following new definitions:

i.          “‘Brewery’ means premises used for the production and consumption of beer, cider or spirits but does not include any other land use defined elsewhere in this Schedule;”

ii.         “‘Exhibition Centre’ means premises used for the display, or display and sale, of materials of an artistic, cultural or historical nature including a museum;”

iii.        “‘Home Office’ means a dwelling used by an occupier of the dwelling to carry out a home occupation if the carrying out of the occupation

(a)       is solely within the dwelling; and

(b)      does not entail clients or customers travelling to and from the dwelling; and

(c)       does not involve the display of a sign on the premises; and

(d)      does not require any change to the external appearance of the dwelling;”

iv.        “‘Park Home Park’ means premises used as a park home park as defined in the Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Regulations 1997 Schedule 8;”

v.         “‘Rural Produce Sales’ means any premises used for the purpose of retail sale of products which are grown, reared or produced on site, including a cellar door operation and retail sales associated with Industry – Cottage or Industry – Rural;”

vi.        “‘Rural Pursuit’ means any premises, other than premises used for agriculture — extensive or agriculture — intensive, that are used for —

(a)       the rearing or agistment of animals; or

(b)       the keeping of bees; or

(c)       the stabling, agistment or training of horses; or

(d)       the growing of trees, plants, shrubs or flowers for replanting in domestic, commercial or industrial gardens; or

(e)       the sale of produce grown solely on the premises;”

vii.       “‘Wind Farm’ means premises used to generate electricity by wind force and any associated turbine, building or other structure but does not include anemometers or turbines used primarily to supply electricity for a domestic property or for private rural use;”

2.      Town Centre Strategies

2.1       Modifying clause 4.2.2 ‘Business zone’ Policies by –

a.      Amending Policy (c) to read as follows:

“(c)     To provide for medium to high density residential development within the Busselton City Centre and Dunsborough Town Centre.”

b.     Inserting a new clause (d) as follows, and renumber subsequent clauses accordingly:

“(d)     Within neighbourhood and local centres, to allow residential development only where it is a component of commercial development.”

2.2       Introduce a new sub-clause to clause 5.3.1 as follows:

“(i)      On land coded R-AC3, Deemed-to-comply provision 6.1.1 C1 (Building Size) of the R-Codes is varied as per the provisions of clause 5.19.”

2.3       Amend clause 5.3.2 to read as follows:

“5.3.2    Building height provisions as specified under Table 3 and Table 4, and Deemed-to-comply provision 5.1.6 C6 and 6.1.2 C2 of the R-Codes do not apply, except for on land coded R-AC3.  In all other areas, maximum building height requirements are required to comply with the provisions of clause 5.8 of the Scheme.”

2.4       Insert a new sub-clause under clause 5.8 ‘Height of Buildings’ to read as follows:

“5.8.9    For land in the Business zone where a residential density coding has been designated, the height of any building shall not exceed the height limits identified in the Residential Design Codes. Where a residential density coding has not been designated, the height of any building shall be determined in accordance with clauses 5.8.1 to 5.8.5.”

2.5       Amend clause 5.19 ‘Residential Development in the Business Zone’ to read as follows:

“5.19  DEVELOPMENT IN THE BUSINESS ZONE

Where land is zoned ‘Business’ and is designated a residential density coding of R-AC3 the maximum plot ratio shall be 1.5, except for where the following incentives for mixed use development apply:

(a)   Where residential or short-stay accommodation uses represent more than 25% of the plot ratio area of a proposed mixed use development, the maximum allowable plot ratio area may be 2.0; or

(b)   Where a development incorporates a Restaurant, Tavern or other similar use that will provide for informal social interaction the maximum allowable plot ratio area for the remainder of the development may be 2.0; and

(c)    The plot ratio incentives set out in sub-clauses (a) and (b) above may be combined, provided that the total plot ratio area does not exceed 3.0.”

2.6       Amend Schedule 2 “Additional Uses” by –

a.      Inserting an Additional Use (No. A74) provision as follows, and amend the Scheme maps accordingly:

No.

PARTICULARS OF LAND

LAND USE PERMITTED/SPECIFIED

CONDITIONS

A74

- Lots 202 (1), 201 (3), 2 (5), 3 (7), 26 (8), 4 (9), 25 (10), 5 (11), 24 (12), 21 (13), 37 (14), 4 (15), 38 (16), 3 (17), 2 (19), 15-16 (20), 3 (21), 2 (23), and 12-13 (24) Duchess Street, West Busselton;

- Lots 200 (29), 28 (37), 27 (41), 34 (43), 1-2 (45), 1 (47), 1 (55), 2 (57), 73 (59), 74 (61), 1-7 and 10-16 (63), 1-5 (69), 6 (71), and 5 (73) Gale Street, West Busselton;

- Lots 2-3 (3), 128 (4), 129 (6), 1-3 (7), 1-2 (9), 1-7 (10), 1-6 (11), 130 (14), 30 (16), 29 (18), 28 (20), 27 (22), 26 (24) and 25 (26) Kent Street, West Busselton;

- Lots 1 (34), 14 (40), 1-2 (42), 34 (44), 24 (48), 35 (52), 1-10 (54), 39 (58) and 42 (60) West Street, West Busselton,

- Lots 51 and 87 to 102 Chieftain Crescent, Lots 86 and 162 Chester Way, Lots 139 to 141 Lorna Street, Lots 1-9 (20) and 115 to 127 Geographe Bay Road, Lots 1 to 17 (3) Dunn Bay Road, Lots 1 & 2 (4), 5 (2), 17, 18, 41 to 43 Prowse Way, Lots 3 and 4 Greenacre Road and Lot 60 (191) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough

Guesthouse, Medical Centre, Office, Professional Consulting Rooms, Restaurant, Shop, Tourist Accommodation

1.    The Additional Uses specified shall be deemed to be “D” uses for the purposes of the Scheme.

2.    ‘Shop’ land uses may be permitted at ground floor level only and occupy up to 50% of total development floor space.

3.    A nil setback to the street shall be considered for active frontages.

4.    The provisions of Clause 5.23 relating to cash in lieu of car parking shall apply.

 

b.     Deleting Additional Use No. 63 relating to Lot 60 (House 191) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough, and amend the Scheme maps accordingly.

c.      Deleting Additional Use No. 73 relating to Lot 8 (House 226) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough, and amend the Scheme maps accordingly.

2.7       Amend Schedule 3 “Special provision areas” by –

a.      Modifying Special Provision 41 relating to Lots 15, 16, 24 & 38 Duchess Street, West Busselton to remove reference to “Limited Office Use” from within the “Zone” column.

b.     Deleting Special Provision 20 relating to Lot 1 (House 61) Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough, and amend the Scheme maps accordingly.

c.      Deleting Special Provision 46 relating to Lots 1-11 (House 15) Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough, and amend the Scheme maps accordingly.

d.     Deleting Special Provision 49 relating to Lot 202 (House 24) Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough, and amend the Scheme maps accordingly.

2.8       Amend the Scheme maps by –

a.      Amend the Scheme in relation to land currently zoned ‘Business’ within the Busselton City Centre to include a residential density code of R-AC3, being:

i.       Lots bound by Peel Terrace, Brown Street, West Street and Marine Terrace;

ii.      The portion of Lot 73 Peel Terrace currently zoned ‘Business’; and

iii.     Lots 74 and 75 Peel Terrace;

And subject to the following exclusions:

i.       All lots also contained within the Adelaide Street Special Character Area;

ii.      The portion of Lot 73 Peel Terrace currently reserved for ‘Community Purposes’.

b.     Amend the Scheme map in relation to land currently zoned ‘Business’ within the Dunsborough Town Centre to include a residential density code of R-AC3, being:

i.       Lots bound by Caves Road, Cape Naturaliste Road, Dunn Bay Road and Seymour Boulevard;

ii.      Lots bound by Cape Naturaliste Road, Dunn Bay Road, Naturaliste Terrace and Reserve 42673;

iii.     Lots bound by Dunn Bay Road, Naturaliste Terrace and Hannay Lane;

iv.     Lots 1-7 (233) Naturaliste Terrace, Lots 1-17 (31) Dunn Bay Road, and Lot 104 (29) Dunn Bay Road.

c.      Rezoning land currently zoned ‘Tourist’ and ‘Special Purpose’ with frontage to Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough to ‘Business’ and applying a residential density code of R-AC3.

d.     Rezoning land currently zoned ‘Industrial’ and ‘Restricted Business’ within the Dunsborough Town Centre to ‘Business’ and applying a residential density code of R-AC3, being:

i.       Lots bound by Cape Naturaliste Road, Reserve 42673, Naturaliste Terrace and Reserve 42545.

e.     Rezoning Lot 106 (House No. 16) Cyrillean Way, Dunsborough from ‘Recreation’ to ‘Business’ and applying a residential density code of R-AC3.

f.      Modifying the residential density coding to R80 over Lots 51 and 87 to 102 Chieftain Crescent, Lots 86 and 162 Chester Way, Lots 139 to 141 Lorna Street, Lots 1-9 (20) and 115 to 127 Geographe Bay Road, Lots 1-17 (3) Dunn Bay Road, Lots 1 & 2 (4), 5 (2), 17, 18, 41 to 43 Prowse Way, Lots 3 and 4 Greenacre Road and Lot 60 (191) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough.

3.       Scheme Area

3.1       Amend clause 3.1 ‘Scheme Area’ to read as follows:

“1.3    SCHEME AREA

             The Scheme applies to the Scheme area as shown on the Scheme maps, or to the Low Water Mark, if the Scheme map does not extend to or beyond the Low Water Mark.”

3.2       Amend clause 3.3 ‘Local Reserves’ to read as follows:

3.3     LOCAL RESERVES

             Local Reserves are delineated and depicted on the Scheme map according to the legend on the Scheme map, and in addition land between High Water Mark and Low Water Mark shall, unless identified otherwise in the Scheme map, be considered to be ‘Recreation Reserve’.”

3.3       Amending Schedule 1 “Interpretations” by –

a.      inserting the following new definitions:

i.       ”Low Water Mark”, in relation to tidal waters, means lowest water mark at spring tides.”

ii.      ”High Water Mark”, in relation to tidal waters, means ordinary high water mark at spring tides.”

b.     Amending the following definition to read:

’Mean High Water Mark’ means the demarcation line shown on the Scheme map as provided by Landgate on the day of 22 June 2015, that identifies the interface of the ocean and land, and shall exclude any demarcation of natural inland water systems or man-made harbours/canals.”

3.4       Amending Schedule 4, clause 5(d) of the ‘Eagle Bay Special Character Area’ to include the word “mean” in front of the words “high water mark”;

3.5       Amending the Scheme maps by –

a.      Aligning the Scheme area boundary to the Low Water Mark and including Lot 350 Queen Street, Busselton;

b.     Delineating the Mean High Water Mark as provided by Landgate on the day of 22 June 2015;

4.       Miscellaneous Scheme Text Amendments

4.1       Modifying clause 4.4.2 by –

a.      Amending clause 4.4.2(a) to read as follows:

“(a)     determine that the use is consistent with the objectives and policies of the particular zone and is therefore permitted; or”

b.     Amending clause 4.4.2(c) to read as follows:

“(c)     determine that the use is not consistent with the objectives and policies of the particular zone and is therefore not permitted.”

4.2       Modifying clause 4.5 “Exceptions to the zoning table” by –

a.      Deleting clause 4.5.3(d) and renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly.

b.     Introducing a new sub-clause to clause 4.5.4 to read as follows:

“(h)     the use of land within the Rural Residential zone, identified for rural or primary production on an approved Subdivision or Development Guide Plan for the purposes of agriculture – intensive, subject to advertising pursuant to clause 10.4 of the Scheme.”

c.      Amending clause 4.5.4(a) by removing reference to “multiple dwelling”.

4.3       Amending Table 1 “Zoning Table” in relation to the ‘Business’ zone and in relation to the use class ‘Community Centre’, replacing the symbol ‘D’ with the symbol ‘P’.

4.4       Deleting sub-clause 5.3.1(g) and renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly.

4.5       a.         Inserting a new clause 5.5.2 as follows and renumbering subsequent clauses and clause references accordingly:

“5.5.2    Notwithstanding clause 5.5.1 above, the following development is expressly prohibited:

(a)        Drive-through facilities in the Business zone, as specified by clause 5.20; and

(b)        Advertisements that advertise goods and services which are not produced, displayed or offered for sale, or which is otherwise not relevant to, the land upon which the advertisement is located, as specified by clause 5.40.

b.         Inserting a new clause 5.20 as follows and renumbering subsequent clauses and clause references accordingly:

5.20  DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES IN THE BUSINESS ZONE

Drive-through facilities shall not be approved in the Business zone.”

c.         Amending Schedule 1 “Interpretations” by inserting the following new definition:

‘Drive-through facility’ means a facility incidental to another use, such as shop or takeaway food outlet, whereby a product or service is sold or provided direct to customers or patrons driving or seated in a motor vehicle.”

4.6       Amend clause 5.8.1 to read as follows:

“5.8.1    A person must not erect any building that -

(a)    contains more than two storeys or exceeds a height of 9 metres where land is within 150 metres of the mean high water mark; or

(b)    contains more than three storeys or exceeds a height of 12 metres where land is more than 150 metres from the mean high water mark, except where otherwise provided for in the Scheme.”

4.7       Amending clause 5.18 “Permanent/Residential Occupation of Tourist Developments” to read as follows:

5.18  PERMANENT/RESIDENTIAL OCCUPATION OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENTS

5.18.1    Outside the residential zone, occupation by any person of the following use classes approved under the Scheme as short stay accommodation is limited to a maximum of 3 months in any 12 month period. This applies to the following use classes:

(a)       Guesthouse;

(b)       Chalet;

(c)       Caravan Park;

(d)       Park Home Park;

(e)       Tourist Accommodation.

5.18.2    Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.18.1 and subject to consideration of the need to make available adequate tourist accommodation the local government may grant planning approval for the permanent occupancy of up to:

(a)       100% of caravan sites within a Caravan Park or Park Home Park on land in the Residential zone; and

(b)       15% of caravan sites within a Caravan Park or Park Home Park on land in the Tourist zone.”

4.8       Deleting clause 5.29 “Fire Management in Rural Areas” and renumbering subsequent clauses and clause references accordingly.

4.9       Amending clause 5.35 “Setback Requirements in the Agriculture and Viticulture and Tourism Zones” by –

a.      Amending sub-clause 5.35.2 to read as follows:

“In the Agriculture or Viticulture and Tourism zones, a building must not be constructed within 100 metres of Bussell Highway or Caves Road, or 60 metres of Vasse Highway without planning approval, which must not be granted unless the local government is satisfied that the development is consistent with all relevant provisions of the Scheme.  Where the local government receives such application it shall forward the application to Main Roads Western Australia for comment and take such comments into consideration when determining the application.”

b.     Deleting sub-clause 5.35.3 and renumbering subsequent clauses and clause references accordingly.

4.10    Amending Schedule 1 “Interpretations” by removing the definition ’Health Care Professional’.

4.11    Amending Schedule 14 “Exempted Advertisements” by –

a.      Replacing the term “Information Sign” with “Information Panel” at (A)11.

b.     Inserting a new ‘Note’ after clause (B)1 to read as follows:

“Note:   Advertisements that advertise goods and services which are not produced, displayed or offered for sale, or which is otherwise not relevant to, the land upon which the advertisement is located, are prohibited as specified by clause 5.40.”

5.       Scheme Maps

             Amending the Scheme maps as shown on the Scheme Amendment maps and as follows:

 

Address

Details – The proposed modification

5.1

Implement Cadastre Changes to all Scheme maps

Scheme maps to be updated with the most up to date cadastre data

5.2

Lot 306 (1191) Vasse – Yallingup Siding Road, Quindalup

Rezone portion of lot from ‘no zone’ to ‘Agriculture’

5.3

Lot 307 (9122) Quindalup South Road, Quindalup

Rezone portion of lot from ‘no zone’ to ‘Agriculture’

5.4

Lot 308 (1105) Vasse – Yallingup Siding Road, Quindalup

Rezone portion of lot from ‘no zone’ to ‘Agriculture’

5.5

Lot 309 (26) Quindalup South Road, Quindalup

Rezone portion of lot from ‘no zone’ to ‘Agriculture’

5.6

Lot 310 (67) Quindalup South Road, Quindalup

Rezone portion of lot from ‘no zone’ to ‘Agriculture’

5.7

Lot 3733 Coulls Road, Yallingup Siding

Rezone from ‘no zone’ to ‘Agriculture’

5.8

Yallingup Special Character Area

Identify the Yallingup Special Character Area as shown on the Scheme Amendment map

5.9

Lot 1451 (461) Princefield Road,  Ruabon

Rezone portion of lot from ‘no zone’ to ‘Agriculture’

5.10

Lot 3124 Princefield Road, Abba River

Rezone from ‘no zone’ to ‘Agriculture’

5.11

Lot 964 Yoganup Place, Yoganup

Rezone portion from ‘Recreation’ Reserve to ‘Bushland Protection’ and ‘Agriculture’. 

5.12

Lot 583 (910) Ludlow-Highergreen Road, Abba River

Rezone portion of the lot from ‘Public Purpose’ Reserve to ‘Agriculture’

5.13

Lot 582 (459) Princefield Road, Abba River

Rezone portion of the lot from ‘Public Purpose’ Reserve to ‘Agriculture’

5.14

Lot 687 Princefield Road, Abba River

Rezone portion of the lot from ‘Public Purpose’ Reserve to ‘Agriculture’

5.15

Lot 26 Vasse Highway, Yoongarillup

Rezone portion of the lot from ‘Public Purpose – Drain’ Reserve to ‘Agriculture’

5.16

Lot 1 (71) Boundary Road and Lot 109 (8113) Bussell Highway, Metricup

Rezone portion of lots from ‘Agriculture’ to ‘Special Purpose – Caravan Park’ 

5.17

Lot 21 (3806) Caves Road, Wilyabrup

Rezone portion of lot from ‘Recreation’ Reserve to ‘Agriculture’

5.18

Lot 2680 (811) Puzey Road, Wilyabrup

Rezone from ‘Recreation’ Reserve to ‘Viticulture and Tourism’

5.19

Lot 1 (1092) Chapman Hill Road, Chapman Hill

Rezone from ‘no zone’ to ‘Agriculture’

5.20

Lot 31 (261) Jindong-Treeton Road, Kaloorup

Rezone portion of lot from ‘Recreation’ Reserve to ‘Agriculture’ and the directly adjacent road reserve from ‘Recreation’ Reserve to ‘no zone’

5.21

Portion of Lot 125 (3763) Caves Road, Wilyabrup

Rezone from ‘Recreation’ Reserve and ‘no zone’ to ‘Viticulture and Tourism’

5.22

Lot 282 (516) Lindberg Road, Kalgup

Rezone portion from ‘Recreation’ Reserve to ‘Agriculture’

5.23

Lot  3978 (980) Vasse Highway, Yoongarillup

Rezone from ‘Recreation’ Reserve to ‘Special Purpose – Telephone Exchange’

5.24

Lot 100 (3) Caladenia Close, Lot 101 (6) Eagle Crescent and Lot 102 (23) Fern Road, Eagle Bay 

Rezone portions of the lots from ‘Public Purpose’ Reserve to ‘Residential R5’

5.25

Eagle Bay Special Character Area

Identify the Eagle Bay Special Character Area as shown on the Scheme Amendment map

5.26

Lot 999 (245) Cape Naturaliste Road, Dunsborough

Rezone from ‘Special Purpose – School Site’ to ‘Special Purpose – Educational Establishment’

5.27

Lot 200 (1) Gifford Road and Lots 91 (3), 92 (3A), 93 (5A) and 94 (5) Hurford Street, Dunsborough

Rezone portions of the lots from ‘no zone’ to ‘Residential R15’, and remove the ‘Recreation’ Reserve designation and ‘Landscape Value’ Area from the Hurford Street road reserve

5.28

Old Dunsborough Special Character Area

Identify the Old Dunsborough Special Character Area as shown on the Scheme Amendment map

5.29

Dunsborough Landscape Value Area

Realign the ‘Landscape Value’ Area around the Dunsborough Residential zone, such that it is located between the ‘Agriculture’ zone and the ‘Residential’ zone, as shown on the Scheme Amendment map

5.30

Lot 600 (7) Armstrong Place, Dunsborough

Rezone from ‘Recreation’ Reserve to ‘Special Purpose – Aged Person Housing’

5.31

Lot 42 (201) Geographe Bay Road, Quindalup

Rezone from ‘Public Purpose’ Reserve to ‘Special Purpose – Youth Hostel’

5.32

Lot 2761 (29) Commonage Road, Quindalup

Rezone portion of lot from ‘Public Purpose’ Reserve to ‘Agriculture’.

5.33

Quindalup Special Character Area

Identify the Quindalup Special Character Area as shown on the Scheme Amendment map

5.34

Lots 1 (29) and 2 (2/31) Wardanup Crescent, Yallingup

Rezone portion of the lots from ‘no zone’ to ‘Residential R10’

5.35

Lot 5 (20) Elsegood Avenue and Lot 21 (9) Dawson Drive, Yallingup

Rezone from ‘Tourist’ to ‘Residential R10’, as shown on the Scheme Amendment map

5.36

Lot 15 Quindalup Siding Road, Quindalup

Rezone portion of lot from ‘Recreation’ Reserve to ‘Agriculture’

5.37

Lots 40 (1721) and 41 (1701) Wildwood Road, Yallingup

Rezone portion of the lots from ‘Public Purpose’ Reserve to ‘Viticulture and Tourism’

5.38

Lot 2000 Edith Cowan Court, Abbey and Lot 5614 Wagon Entrance, Broadwater (Reserve 48280)

Reserving from ‘Residential R5’, ‘R20’ and ‘R30’ to ‘Recreation’ Reserve

5.39

Lot 6 (2) Grace Court, West Busselton

Rezone from ‘Public Purpose’ Reserve to ‘Special Purpose - Educational Establishment’

5.40

Lot 500 Grace Court, West Busselton

Rezone from ‘Special Purpose – Various’ to ‘Special Purpose – Church Site, Educational Establishment, Child Care & Hall’

5.41

Lot 688 (1) Piano Box Boulevard and Lot 689 (34) Pickmore Circus, West Busselton

Rezone from ‘no zone’ to ‘Residential R20’

5.42

Lot 501 (190) Bussell Highway, West Busselton

Rezone portion of lot from ‘no zone’ to ‘Residential R15’

5.43

Lot 502 Bussell Highway, West Busselton (Reserve 41554)

Rezone portion of lot from ‘no zone’ to ‘Recreation’ Reserve

5.44

Lot 4691 (7) Kingfish Road, Broadwater

Rezone from ‘Recreation’ Reserve to ‘Residential R15’

5.45

Lot 200 (165) Marine Terrace, Geographe

Rezone portion of lot from ‘no zone’ to ‘Residential R15’

5.46

Lot 5016 (75) Ford Road, Geographe (Reserve 44384)

Rezone from ‘Recreation’ Reserve to ‘Residential R20’

5.47

Lot 10 (86) Causeway Road and Lot 12 (69) Molloy Street, Busselton

Rezone portions of the lots from ‘Special Purpose – Service Station’ to ‘Residential R20’

5.48

Lot 300  Leeuwin Boulevard, West Busselton

Rezone from ‘Recreation’ Reserve and ‘no zone’ to ‘Residential R20’

5.49

Lot 2000 Deacon Walk, West Busselton

Reserve lot as ‘Recreation’ Reserve from ‘Residential’ zone

5.50

Lot 197 (1) MacKillop Avenue, West Busselton (MacKillop Catholic College)

Rezone from ‘Public Purpose’ Reserve to ‘Special Purpose – Educational Establishment’

5.51

Lot 5320 (2) Kelly Drive, West Busselton (St Joseph’s Primary School)

Rezone from ‘Public Purpose’ Reserve and ‘no zone’ to ‘Special Purpose – Educational Establishment’

5.52

Lot 2002 Pinnacle Avenue, Ambergate (Reserve 50288)

Reserve portions of lot as ‘Recreation’ Reserve from ‘Rural Residential’ zone

5.53

Lot 44 Chapman Hill Road, Kalgup

Rezone from ‘Public Purpose’ Reserve to ‘Agriculture’

5.54

Lot 16 Lindberg Road, Bovell

Rezone from ‘no zone’ to ‘Agriculture’

5.55

Lot 25 (580) Vasse Highway, Yoongarillup

Rezone portion of lot from ‘Public Purpose’ Reserve to ‘Agriculture’

5.56

Lot 60 (3908) Bussell Highway, Ruabon

Rezone in part from ‘Recreation’ Reserve to ‘Agriculture’. 

5.57

Lots 127 (30), 128 (28), 129 (24), 130 (18) and 135 (31) Old Timber Court, Reinscourt

Rezoning portions of lots from ‘Conservation’ to ‘Rural Residential’

5.58

All lots within Dunsborough Lakes with the exception of Lot 9033 Commonage Road, Dunsborough

Include all areas of Dunsborough Lakes, with the exception of Lot 9033 Commonage Road, Dunsborough, within the ‘Dunsborough & Quindalup’ Precinct of DCA 1

5.59

Lot 27 (606) Rendezvous Road, Vasse (Heron Lake)

Exclude lot from DCA 1 to be included within the Vasse Development Contributions Plan.

5.60

Map Legend

Insert the following into the Map Legend in alphabetical order under ‘Special Purpose’:

“CECH  CHURCH SITE, EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT, CHILD CARE & HALL”

“EE  EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT”

“TE  TELEPHONE EXCHANGE”

“YH  YOUTH HOSTEL”

 

B.    That as the draft Amendment is in the opinion of the Council consistent with Part V of the Act and Regulations made pursuant to the Act, that upon the preparation of the necessary documentation, the draft Amendment be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as required by Part V of the Act and on receipt of a response from the EPA indicating that the draft Amendment is not subject to formal environmental assessment, be advertised for a period of 42 days, in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

 

 

 

 


Council

133

26 August 2015

11.1

Attachment a

CapeROC Summary of Recommendations

 

 

   Summary of CapeROC assessment recommendations causing change to the City of Busselton Scheme No. 21

Acronyms:                                                                                                                                                    Use class permissibilities:

AMR – Shire of Augusta Margaret River                                                                                                P – Permitted

CoB – City of Busselton                                                                                                                              D – Discretionary (subject to Planning Consent)

LPP – Local Planning Policy                                                                                                                       A – Discretionary, subject to formal advertising

MST – Model Scheme Text contained within the draft revised Regulations                                   X – Not permitted

V/T Zone – Viticulture and Tourism Zone (CoB Scheme)                                                                   

Use Class

CoB Action

Reasons

Abattoir

Revise definition of Abattoir as per MST

For consistency of definition with MST.  Abattoirs are treated as a food processing facility and so reference to non-food processing activities has been removed. These additional activities would be treated as Industry. 

Agriculture/ Agriculture – Extensive

Revise title and definition as per AMR and MST

For consistency of title and definition that is MST compliant – no policy implications.

Intensive Agriculture / Agriculture - Intensive

Revise title and definition as per MST (excluding Aquaculture) and include as a ‘P’ use in V/T zone.

For consistency of definition with MST.  Aquaculture is retained as separate use class in CoB Scheme to allow permissibility in the Industrial Zone, so is removed from this definition.

Included as a P use in CoB V/T Zone for consistency with AMR Scheme.

Ancillary Accommodation

Introduce use class and permissibilities consistent with Single House

A new use class included into LPS21 as per AMR, definition not deemed necessary as Scheme refers to R-Codes.  Permissibilities followed ‘Single House’, except for the ‘Bushland Protection’,’ Conservation’ and ‘Rural Landscape’ zones where it will be ‘D’ .

Animal Establishment

Revise definition as per MST

For consistency of definition with MST & AMR. No change to permissibilities necessary.

Animal Husbandry - Intensive

Revise title and definition as per MST and include as ‘D’ use in V/T zone.

For consistency with MST and permissibilities with AMR. ‘Poultry Farm’ use class to be removed from CoB Scheme and the revised definition of ‘Animal Husbandry – Intensive’ incorporates this use.

Brewery

Introduce as a new use class – ‘A’ use in V/T and Agriculture Zones

Introduce as a new use class. This is essentially an industrial land use, however will be introduced to allow boutique operations in rural areas. This use is not a ‘Rural Industry’ as it does not have a direct and reliant relationship with agriculture in the locality.

Liquor Licensing has evolved to become more flexible with the approach to licensing uses as per their planning approval.  It is now no longer necessary to issue an approval for a ‘Tavern’ to enable “consumption” on the premises.

CoB will introduce a new and AMR adopt a revised definition that does not rely on liquor licensing requirements, which are approved subsequent to and reliant upon planning approval.

Permissibilities across zones are consistent with ‘Tavern’ use, except in the Industry zone, where it will be ‘D’.

Chalet Development/ Chalet

Revise title (to ‘Chalet) and definition as per MST. Remove advertising requirement.

Revise title consistent with MST.

Advertising requirement to be removed from both schemes, to be a ‘D’ use in all rural zones.

Development standards in AMR scheme and CoB LPP 5B to be aligned with regards to density, etc.

Exhibition Centre

Introduce new use class

Introduce new use class with MST/ AMR consistent definition as a ‘D’ use in both zones. AMR to remove advertising requirement for consistency. Permissibilities across zones consistent with ‘Reception Centre’.

Home Business/ Residential Enterprise

Revise title and definition

Agreed that this land use is compatible with rural zones in both AMR & CoB – to be a ‘P’ use in both schemes for consistency. CoB to revise title and definition to ensure consistency with MST, except to allow limited sale of goods manufactured on the premises.  This otherwise affects businesses and consultancies that sell (retail) services.

Home Office

Introduce definition

CoB introduce definition consistent with MST as reference to Home Office is made in clause 9.2 ‘Permitted Development’.

Hotel

Revise definition

CoB to revise definition for consistency with MST.

Cottage Industry/ Industry – Cottage

Revise title & definition. Increase permissibility

Both AMR and CoB to make a ‘P’ use in rural zones and revise definition as per MST, with the exceptions that they use can utilise up to 100m2 floor area  and may include wholesale and appointment only sale of products produced on site.  This definition retains consistency with the many existing cottage industries within the CoB – jewellers, metal workers, etc – that do not fall into the ‘rural’ related uses.  

Rural Industry/ Industry - Rural

Revise title and definition.  Remove advertising requirement in V/T Zone.

CoB to revise current definition in form of MST definition. Considered necessary to retain reference to ‘products grown, reared or produced in the locality’ (as per current definition) as this provides distinction from more general industrial land uses. Remove advertising requirement for consistency with AMR Scheme.

Market

Revise definition as per MST

CoB to revise definition for consistency with MST and AMR.

Park Home Park

Introduce new use class and definition as per MST.

CoB to introduce as a new use class as per AMR Scheme but without permissibilities in rural zones. Definition consistent with MST.  Permissibilities generally followed ‘Caravan Park’.

Place of Public Worship/ Place of Worship

Revise definition and title as per MST

CoB to revise title and definition for consistency with MST and AMR. Otherwise, agreed no change as CoB contains permissibilities (as a concession for a community focussed land use that has difficulty in securing urban sites) whereas AMR considers an urban land use inappropriate in rural zones (prohibited).

Plant Nursery

Revise definition

CoB to revise definition as per AMR for consistency between the two schemes.

Poultry Farm

Remove use class

CoB to remove use class – replaced by broadened definition in ‘Animal Husbandry – Intensive’ use class (consistent with MST).

Reception Centre

Revise definition as per MST

CoB to revise definition to be consistent with MST and AMR.

Recreation Agriculture

Remove use class

CoB to remove use class in favour of new ‘Rural Pursuit’ use class.  Non-commercial aspect of this is commonly considered an ancillary use and approval not considered necessary.

Recreation Area

Remove use class

CoB to remove use class – commonly a public work and where not, is covered by development controls in place in the Scheme – use class not required.

Rural Enterprise

Remove use class

CoB to remove use class as part of revised approach to rural production and sales use classes.  Replaced generally by ‘Rural Produce Sales’.

Rural Produce Sales

Introduce new use class, adopt revised definition with AMR

CoB to introduce new use class to cover retail sales outlets open to the public, such as cellar doors (previously treated as ‘Rural Enterprise’), rural produce shops and cottage industries, carried out in association with agricultural/ rural production on site. This allows for increased permissibilities for agricultural, rural and cottage production (often as P use) unless a retail operation is proposed.  Permissibilities consistent with ‘Rural Enterprise’ (to be removed).

Rural Pursuit

Introduce new use class and definition.

CoB to introduce new use class as per MST and AMR but as a ‘P’ use. AMR to increase permissibilities from ‘D’ to ‘P’ use in rural zones consistent with CoB.  Note, this use class permits the sale of “produce” only.  Permissibilities generally follow ‘Animal Establishment’ and ‘Intensive Agriculture’.

Roadside Stall/ Rural Stall

Revise title as per AMR, revise definition along with AMR, increase permissibilities

CoB to increase permissibilities in rural zones from ‘D’ to ‘P’ use consistent with AMR scheme. CoB and AMR to adopt revised hybrid definition and AMR title for consistency between the two schemes.

Service Station

Revise definition as per MST

CoB to make minor definition changes to align with MST and AMR, otherwise agreed no change as increased permissibilities are not considered appropriate in rural areas.

Tree Farm/ Plantation/Forestry

Revise title and definition as per MST

Revisions to CoB use class for consistency with MST and AMR.

Tourist Accommodation/ Serviced Apartment

Revise definition

CoB to revise definition as per proposed Serviced Apartment use class to cover self contained tourist unit developments as part of suite of changes to tourism use classes.

Veterinary Hospital/ Veterinary Centre

Revise title and definition

CoB to rename ‘Veterinary Centre’ and include provision for overnight stay, AMR to remove ‘Veterinary Hospital’ and add overnight stay in ‘Veterinary Centre’.

Wind Farm

Introduce new use class

CoB to introduce to new class to address private proposals for wind energy generation.

Winery

Revise definition as per MST

CoB revise definition for consistency with MST.  Given the ‘sale’ component, retain permissibilities as ‘D’ in Ag and V/T zones.

 


Council

135

26 August 2015

11.1

Attachment b

Zoning table tracked changes

 

 

TABLE 1 - ZONING TABLE

Zone  /                         Use Class

Residential

Business

Restricted Business

Tourist

Industrial

Agriculture

Viticulture and Tourism

Rural Residential

Rural Landscape

Conservation

Bushland Protection

Special Purpose

Vasse Development

Deferred Vasse Development

Abattoir

X

X

X

X

A

A

X

X

X

X

X

In accordance with clause 4.6.1

In accordance Schedule 11, clause 1.7.3

In accordance with Clause  4.2.14 (b) and clause 4.6.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aged Persons Home

D

X

X

X

X

A

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agriculture Agriculture – Extensive

X

X

X

X

X

P

P

A

D

D

D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agriculture – Intensive (replaces ‘Intensive Agriculture)

X

X

X

X

X

P

D P

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amusement Parlour

X

P

D

D

D

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ancillary Accommodation

P

D

X

X

P

P

P

P

P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Animal Establishment

X

X

X

X

X

D

D

A

A

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Animal Husbandry

X

X

X

X

X

D

A D

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aquaculture

X

X

X

X

D

D

D

A

A

A

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bed and Breakfast

D

D

X

P

X

D

D

D

D

D

D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boarding House

A

A

X

P

X

X

X

X

X

X

X


 

TABLE 1 – ZONING TABLE

Zone  /                         Use Class

Residential

Business

Restricted Business

Tourist

Industrial

Agriculture

Viticulture and Tourism

Rural Residential

Rural Landscape

Conservation

Bushland Protection

Special Purpose

Vasse Development

Deferred Vasse Development

Boatel

X

D

X

D

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

In accordance with clause 4.6.1

In accordance Schedule 11, clause 1.7.3

In accordance with Clause 4.2.14 (b) and clause 4.6.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brewery

A

A

A

A

A

A

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bulk Store

X

X

D

X

P

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bus Depot

X

X

D

X

D

D

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bus Station

X

P

P

D

P

D

X

X

X

 X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Caravan Park & Camping Grounds Caravan Park

A

X

X

D

X

A

A

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chalet Development Chalet

X

X

X

D

X

A D

A D

X

A

A

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chandlery

X

D

D

D

P

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child Care Centre

A

D

D

A

X

D

A

A

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Club

X

D

D

D

X

A

A

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

TABLE 1 – ZONING TABLE

Zone  /                         Use Class

Residential

Business

Restricted Business

Tourist

Industrial

Agriculture

Viticulture and Tourism

Rural Residential

Rural Landscape

Conservation

Bushland Protection

Special Purpose

Vasse Development

Deferred Vasse Development

Community Centre

A

D P

D

D

D

D

A

A

X

X

X

In accordance with clause 4.6.1

 

In accordance Schedule 11, clause 1.7.3

 

In accordance with Clause 4.2.14 (b) and clause 4.6.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conservation Tourism

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

A

A

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Convenience Store

X

P

D

D

D

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corner Shop

A

P

P

X

D

A

A

A

X

X

X