COB-RGB

 

 

 

Late Items

 

Council  Agenda

 

 

 

9 December 2015

 

 

 

 

 

ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

 

 

 


CITY OF BUSSELTON

Late Items FOR THE Council  MEETING TO BE HELD ON 9 December 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

9....... Confirmation and Receipt of Minutes. 3

9.3          Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 27 November 2015. 3

9.4          Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting Held 3 December 2015. 3

10..... Reports of committees. 4

10.3        Airport Advisory Committee - 27/11/2015 - BUSSELTON-MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT MASTER PLAN.. 4

10.4        Airport Advisory Committee - 27/11/2015 - SKYLINE HELICOPTER OPERATIONS PROPOSAL. 34

10.5        Finance Committee - 3/12/2015 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 OCTOBER 2015. 74

10.6        Finance Committee - 3/12/2015 - OLD BUTTER FACTORY UPPER FLOOR. 92

10.7        Finance Committee - 25/12/2015 - MARINE BERTHING CHARGES AT BUSSELTON JETTY. 147

10.8        Finance Committee - 3/12/2015 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE - OCTOBER 2015. 156

15..... Chief Executive Officer's Report. 177

15.4        PROPOSED MEMORIAL BENCH TO REPLACE EXISTING SEATING AT SMITHS BEACH.. 177

 


Council                                                                                      3                                                               9 December 2015

9.               Confirmation and Receipt of Minutes

9.3             Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 27 November 2015

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)    That the minutes of a meeting of the Airport Advisory Committee held 27 November 2015 be received.

 

2)    That the Council notes the outcomes of the Airport Advisory Committee meeting held 27 November 2015 being:

 

a)    The Committee noted the Airport Update.

 

b)    The Busselton-Margaret River Airport Master Plan Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.3 of this agenda.

 

c)    The Skyline Helicopter Operations Proposal Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.4 of this agenda.

 

 

9.4             Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting Held 3 December 2015

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)    That the minutes of a meeting of the Finance Committee held 3 December 2015 be received.

 

2)    That the Council notes the outcomes of the Finance Committee meeting held 3 December 2015 being:

 

a)    The Financial Activity Statements – Period Ending 31 October 2015 Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.5 of this agenda.

 

b)    The List of Payments Made – October 2015 Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.6 of this agenda.

 

c)    The Finance Committee Information Bulletin – October 2015 was received by the Committee.

 

d)    The Old Butter Factory Upper Floor Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.7 of this agenda.

 

e)    The Marine Berthing Charges at Busselton Jetty Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.8 of this agenda.

10.             Reports of committees

10.3           Airport Advisory Committee - 27/11/2015 - BUSSELTON-MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

SUBJECT INDEX:

Busselton-Margaret River Airport

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Community Services; Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Commercial Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Placing the Terminal Today for Tomorrow's Experience - Busselton Regional Airport Master Plan

Attachment b    Busselton-Margaret River Airport Concept and Staging Plan  

 

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 27 November 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

Following the submission of a comprehensive business case to the State Government, the City of Busselton was awarded $55.9m for the redevelopment of the Busselton-Margaret River Airport. 

 

As part of the overall project, a review of the key plans and studies completed as part of the business case is currently being undertaken, including the key informant to the overall project, the Busselton Regional Airport Master Plan (2011/2031).  This report provides an overview of the review and recommends that Council endorses the Busselton – Margaret River Airport Concept and Staging Plan as a key informant to the Busselton – Margaret River Airport Master Plan (2015-2035).

 

BACKGROUND

 

The City of Busselton completed the Busselton Regional Airport Master Plan (2011-2031) in 2011, outlining future opportunities for growth and development.  Since then, the City of Busselton has undertaken considerable studies in conjunction with the South West Development Commission to prepare a State Government Business Case that detailed the completion of Stage 1 (current intrastate services), Stage 2 (future domestic services), and 2a (future short haul international services). 

 

In June 2015 the City was awarded funding of $55.9m to complete Stage 2 of the Business Case.  In addition to this, a funding application is currently pending Federal Government approval which will see the completion of Stage 2a.  Since the completion of the original Master Plan and the Business Case, progress has been made in delivering aspects of Stage 1, and new initiatives including precinct planning have occurred.  In order to deliver Stage 2, and potentially Stage 2a, the Master Plan needs to be reviewed and updated. 

 

The purpose of the revised Master Plan is to establish the framework for the future planning and development of the redeveloped Busselton - Margaret River Airport (BMRA) to ensure the region achieves its strategic objectives and capitalizes on the aeronautical and commercial opportunities provided by the airport.  The Master Plan is intended to establish the basis for more detailed studies of design, infrastructure planning, land use planning and environmental impacts required to achieve the strategic direction.

 

To inform the Master Plan a ‘Concept and Staging Plan’ has been developed outlining the infrastructure requirements of stages 2 and 2a.  Each stage comprising of a number of precincts for design purposes, and is informed through consultation with key stakeholders.  Whilst stages 2 and 2a addresses the infrastructure requirements as per the State Government funding agreement and Federal Government funding application, it also outlines other development areas that add strategic value to the general operations of the airport, however can be developed over a staged period of time.

 

This report outlines the key aspects of the BMRA Concept and Staging Plan as a key guide to the BMRA Master Plan (2015-2035) and seeks Council’s endorsement of the Plan as an informant to the Master Plan.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

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

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Busselton Regional Airport Master Plan (2011- 2031) and Busselton Regional Airport Statement of Intent outline the vision for the BRA redevelopment and are relevant to this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The State Government project funding of $55.9m has been incorporated into the City’s 2015/16 adopted budget, and will form part of future budgets.  The funding covers operational and capital costs associated with the project.  Cost estimates (+/- 30%) are being undertaken as part of the BMRA Concept and Staging Plan and overall Master Plan. It is anticipated that there will be variations between costings within the business case and the revised Master Plan due to the business case budget being based on costings prepared in 2013.  In any case the City has set obligations within the State Government funding agreement which Officers are confident will be met within budget.  

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

An operational financial model was developed as part of the State Government business case proposal which incorporated a 10-year financial plan.  The model considered revenues and costs associated with the upgraded facility, including up-front and recurrent capital and ongoing operational expenditure.  The model demonstrates that the upgraded facility will be self-sustainable, generating a modest profit into the future, to be transferred into the City’s Airport Infrastructure Renewal and Replacement Reserve at the end of each financial year.

 

The Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) is currently based on the ‘here and now’ scenario (stage 1b), and will now require updating to reflect the project, including ongoing operational and capital revenue and expenditure based on the stage 2 redevelopment.  This work has commenced and will be incorporated into the next LTFP review.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

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

 

Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Places:

 

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

 

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Whist a formal risk assessment is being developed as part of the overall development project, at a high level, and based on the Busselton Regional Airport Master Plan (2011-2031), a comprehensive risk assessment was undertaken as part of the development of the State Government business case proposal that identified and evaluated the effect of uncertainty on the project’s objectives and deliverables, including risk mitigation strategies.  The assessment considered the full project lifecycle, including pre and post project implementation mitigation strategies.  Whilst there are risks assessed as both ‘high’ and ‘medium’, it was considered by business case steering committee members that the risks are manageable and were therefore accepted as part of the business case proposal.  Below outlines the risks assessed as ‘high’;

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

Passenger demand (competition from other leisure destinations and whether direct access is required)

Ensure attractive route schedules

 

Ensure competitive ticket pricing

 

Effective airport and destination marketing and positioning including iconic Margaret River brand

Major

Possible

High

Sustainable and long term airline operating at BRA

Industry and government support is required to underwrite the route

 

Potential to regulate the route to protect the first airline entrant in commencement years

 

Seek agreement to guarantee the route during underwriting period

Major

Possible

High

Projected aeronautical revenue not realised

Letter of intent, in-principle agreement from commercial airlines to operate from the BRA

 

Effective airport and destination marketing

Major

Possible

High

 


 

CONSULTATION

 

A significant amount of consultation was undertaken as part of the development of the business case proposal, which was overseen by a State Government appointed steering committee comprising of representatives from; SWDC, Department of Transport, Department of Treasury, Tourism WA and the City of Busselton.  Following the announcement of the State Government funding, a Project Governance Committee has been established to oversee the overall deliverables of the project and associated funding.  Committee members include; SWDC, Department of Transport, Department of Treasury, Tourism WA, City of Busselton, and the Department of Regional Development as observers.

Throughout the development of the BMRA Concept and Staging Plan a number of stakeholders were consulted with including; DFES, DPaW, RFDS, McDermotts Aviation, Busselton Aero Club, Satterley Property Group, Busselton Water, Water Corporation, Western Power, Office of Environmental Protection Agency, Cristal Mining, and regular users of Airport.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

As previously reported to the Council through the Airport Advisory Committee, phase two ‘ project initiation phase’ of the development project incorporates the completion of a comprehensive review of the outcomes and recommendations of the State Government business case and related studies to determine the upgrade requirements to achieve the ultimate outcome for the project.  Whilst the business case was based on the Busselton Regional Airport Master Plan (2011-2031), it was identified during the review that limitations within the overall planning existed, in that the Master Plan only considered infrastructure requirements within a 20 year period.  Given the opportunity to revise these requirements, the City engaged an aviation specialist to prepare a revised Master Plan that takes into consideration potential infrastructure requirements over a much longer timeframe to ensure that further planning and development works ‘future proofs’ the Airport.

 

In developing the revised BMRA Concept and Staging Plan, three main constraints were identified:

 

·    The Plan catered well for Code 4C aircraft (B737, A320), however did not consider requirements of larger Code 4E (A330, B787) and 4F aircraft (A380).  Constructing the new terminal and expanding the apron parking bays to the north, abutting the lot boundary, only allows for one Code E aircraft parking on the primary bay at any one point in time, thus reducing its usability and future expansion potential;

·    The main entry point into the Airport and terminal is behind a future industrial estate.  This was seen as a major detractor to the visitor experience entering and departing the pristine Busselton-Margaret River Region;

·    The timeframe for the undergrounding of overhead powerlines is estimated to take anywhere from 12-24 months.  This would impinge on the construction of the terminal and apron parking bay to the north, potentially extending project timeframes, and subsequently project costs, significantly.

 

On the basis of these constraints a terminal planning process (Attachment A) was undertaken to inform the direction of the revised Master Plan by illustrating a choice of two main options for the terminal placement along with associated opportunities and constraints.  Two cases were used as a basis for the analysis, and in summary two main options were identified and considered, those being;

 

·    Option 1 - Construction of the terminal and apron parking bays to the north (as per Busselton Regional Airport Master Plan (2011-2031)): based on the consolidation of planning and works to date, integrating future terminal works with the existing car park and terminal.  Whilst functionally acceptable, this option does not consider future expansion opportunities and is immersed in a future industrial precinct with the presentation of back of house airport operations on arrival rather than the terminal journey experience;

·    Option 2 – Construction of the terminal and apron parking bays to the south: has less connection to existing functions however provides improved opportunities for expansion while future proofing for Code 4F aircraft into the future.  The site experience is improved through simplified wayfinding and early terminal presentation, thus minimizing visitor exposure to the adjacent future industrial park and the areas allocated to general aviation and support services.

 

On consideration of the above analysis, option 2 was deemed as the most viable, practicable and appropriate concept to pursue, and based on high level preliminary cost estimates, able to be achieved within budget.  Subsequently when weighing up the two considerations, Officers determined this option as the best to progress. 

 

On the basis of option 2 being the preferred development concept, further concept planning was undertaken to ensure all airport related activities were catered for in the revised Master Plan, with the opportunity of expansion of each function into the future if required.  Concept planning was also informed by recent consultation and planning into the General Aviation and Emergency Services’ requirements. 

 

As part of the concept plan, six key precincts (Attachment B) have been identified to guide the way finding and general functions of the developed Airport, those being;

 

·    Aeronautical business park: future commercial airside and landside development opportunities;

·    Aeronautical operations precinct: larger airside infrastructure including but not limited to runway, taxi-ways, apron parking bays, helicopter parking pads;

·    Terminal precinct: terminal entrance, terminal, works depot, Jet A1 fuel farm, parking bays, coach parking, provision for service station, hire car services, general development opportunity;

·    Aviation logistics precinct: freight development opportunity, logistic development opportunity, future air traffic control, existing terminal and existing car park;

·    Light aviation precinct: General Aviation hangars, future ARFFS, AVGAS facility;

·    Helicopter operations precinct: helicopter parking pads.

 

Further to this, it has been identified that there is an opportunity to utilize the existing terminal to service the future aviation and/or general operational requirements including, but not limited to:

 

·    Charter terminal;

·    Patient transfer station;

·    Freight logistics terminal;

·    Office space for aviation related businesses, such as AQIS, General Aviation, etc.

 

The BMRA Concept and Staging Plan (Attachment B) outlines the overall concept and precinct planning that will guide the finalization of the BMRA Master Plan (2015-2035), which will then form the basis of the overall planning and design of the BMRA, and Project Definition Plan (PDP) to be presented and considered by the State Government in early 2016.  Council’s endorsement of the Plan as a key informant to the BMRA is therefore recommended.

 

CONCLUSION

 

As part of the BMRA development project, a review of the business case endorsed by the State Government, including associated plans and reports, is required to determine the infrastructure upgrade requirements which will form the basis of a PDP to be considered by the State Government.  The PDP is the second milestone of the project and upon approval the second installment of project funding will be released, allowing detailed designs to proceed.

As the overall informant to the infrastructure upgrade requirements of the Airport into the future, a review of the Busselton Regional Airport Master Plan (2011-2031) was undertaken, resulting in a new and improved Concept and Staging Plan that meets the deliverables of the State Government funding agreement, and potential Federal Government funding requirements, whilst future proofing the airport well into the future.  After a considerable analysis of development options, future opportunities, other current Airports as case studies, and stakeholder engagement, the BMRA Concept and Staging Plan (Attachment B) has been developed as a key informant to the revised BMRA Master Plan (2015-2035) and is subsequently recommended for Council endorsement.

OPTIONS

 

Council could choose not to accept the Officer’s recommendation.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The BMRA Master Plan document will be finalized within one (1) month of Council’s endorsement of the Concept and Staging Plan.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council endorses the Busselton-Margaret River Airport Concept and Staging Plan (as attached) as an informing document to the Busselton-Margaret River Airport Master Plan (2015-2035).

 


Council

11

9 December 2015

10.3

Attachment a

Placing the Terminal Today for Tomorrow's Experience - Busselton Regional Airport Master Plan

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

19

9 December 2015

10.3

Attachment b

Busselton-Margaret River Airport Concept and Staging Plan

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      37                                                             9 December 2015

10.4           Airport Advisory Committee - 27/11/2015 - SKYLINE HELICOPTER OPERATIONS PROPOSAL

SUBJECT INDEX:

Busselton-Margaret River Airport

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Airport

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Commercial Services - Jennifer May

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Skyline Aviation Busselton Helicopter Proposal

Attachment b    Noise Data B206 B206L  

 

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 27 November 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report presents a proposal submitted to the City of Busselton to operate helicopter scenic flights from the Busselton-Margaret River Airport catering for local residents, tourists, cruise liner passengers and other tour companies.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Busselton-Margaret River  Airport (the Airport) is a public aerodrome owned and operated by the City of Busselton supporting a range of aviation operations from recreational, light and general aviation, open and closed charter services for both private individuals/companies and Fly In Fly out passengers, fixed and rotary wing emergency services, RFDS and formerly RPT services. There are a number of aviation businesses that also operate from the Airport including Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association (MRBTA), Southern Skydivers, Busselton AirServices, Tigermoth Adventure Flights, Westward Aviation and Mission Air Inc. Other than MRBTA, all businesses operate from their respective hangars and have obtained approval from the Council (C1507/190) to do so.

 

Currently, rotary wing operations out of the Airport are restricted to the SLSWA Rescue helicopter which operates between November – April conducting mainly shark patrols and the DFES firefighting helitacs which are based at the Airport between December – April each year for the firefighting season. Other helicopter operators operate from the Airport to support events such as Ironman WA and the Busselton Jetty Swim however these operations are only during the event and not on a regular basis.

 

In September 2015, City Officers were approached by Skyline Aviation Group with an initial proposal to operate helicopter scenic flights from the Airport. Officers have since consulted with Skyline Aviation and are now presenting their final proposal for consideration (Attachment A).

 

Skyline Aviation Group, based out of Newcastle (NSW) operates as one of Hunter Valley region's most experienced helicopter pilot training, charter and scenic tour company and is now expanding their operations to Western Australia. Skyline Aviation is proposing to be based at Jandakot Airport and is requesting to also operate from the Busselton-Margaret River Airport ‘to cater for the growing tourism market and for domestic helicopter charters’. As the Skyline proposal states, the Western Australian operations ‘has already built stable relationships with many other tourism operations in the Busselton and Margaret River region of Western Australia through our previous operation, Wild Blue Helicopters.’ 

 

The former operations known as Wild Blue helicopters used to operate from a Cowaramup site in the Shire of Augusta –Margaret River offering scenic flights. In late 2014 the operations were moved to Margaret River Silk Road, located in Metricup. At this time, City of Busselton Planning and Environmental Health Officers consulted with MR Silk Road and Wild Blue Helicopters as the required planning approvals for the helicopter operations from a private property had not been sought. Further consultation between the City and Wild Blue Helicopters on the requirements for gaining the planning approvals resulted in the helicopter operations being withdrawn from the region in 2014.   

 

The Skyline Aviation proposal is to operate a Bell 206 Longranger aircraft that can carry up to six passengers at any one time. The proposal is requesting approval for the following operations;

·    To operate up to 15 scenic flights per day (30 movements per day);

·    Operations for Monday – Sunday, 9am- 5pm;

·    Access to the General Aviation parking area, located in front of the Aero Club;

·    Approval to erect temporary A-frame signage during operational periods;

·    Operations to commence from 1 December 2015; and

·    Operations to be a trial period for two years (ending on 30 November 2017).

 

Skyline’s proposal provides information on the standard time for each flight, including briefings, flight time and aircraft start/shut down times, which they estimate to be at 45 minutes, implying that that only one flight can operate per hour. Their request for up to 15 flights per day either suggests that they would not complete the standard flight procedures (listed under Standard Time Frame for a Single Flight) operating more than one flight per hour or operate outside of the proposed hours (9.00am-5.00pm). This point has not been clarified with Skyline Aviation.

 

The proposal considers the City’s Noise Management Plan (NMP) and discusses the noise abatement zones and the importance of Fly Neighbourly procedures and provides example flight paths that would be used. Two of the three example flight paths avoid residential areas however one of the flight paths lies directly west of the CBD and over residential areas and would require further clarification on the frequency of use prior to approval.

 

The proposal comments on flight procedures to reduce the noise profile which includes climbing to a height of 1,000ft as soon as possible after take-off and climbing to a flying height of 1,500ft for the flight duration. Such measures will reduce the noise footprint to some extent however one of the anticipated issues is likely to be noise complaints from the community. The proposal discusses strategies such as sharing the noise over the community so that one residential area is not unduly affected, providing a noise complaint process and providing estimated noise emissions (dbs) from the proposed aircraft. The City offered assistance in performing noise monitoring of the proposed aircraft using the City’s Environmental Health department noise monitors however Skyline Aviation declined the offer and actual noise emissions from the proposed aircraft have not been verified.

 

Aircraft noise emissions detailed in the proposal suggest that the Bell 206L noise levels using the EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise) levels are as follows;

 

 

Over Flight (500ft)

Take Off

Approach

Aircraft

Level

Limit

Level

Limit

Level

Limit

Bell 206L-4

85.4

92.1

88.3

93.1

90.8

94.1

 

The sound levels above have been provided as additional information by Skyline Aviation and can be referenced from European Aviation Safety, Type Certificate Data Sheet for Noise (No. EASA.IM.R512); Page 16 of 20 (Attachment B).

 

Skyline’s proposal also suggests that ‘noise dissipates over both vertical and horizontal distances at a rate of approximately 30dB over 30m’ and hence the noise reduction can be estimated for the proposed helicopter would be ‘by more than 50 decibels when directly overhead at any point on the ground’, estimated to be at 1000ft. Using the implied assumptions from the proposal, the noise emitted by the Bell 206L at 1,000ft is estimated to be 35.4 dBA.

 

The City’s Environmental Health Department and Airport Officers can find no reference material to support the reduction in noise levels by 50dB and generally, accredited literature estimates that sound levels can decrease by 6dB per doubling of distance. Hence, if the distance is doubled from 500ft to 1000ft, the aircraft noise level would decrease by 6dB from 85.4dB to approximately 79.4dB.

 

The proposal also includes information on the pilot and ground crew capabilities, insurance coverages and information that the operations would be based from the Aero Club building for the duration of the trial period.   

          

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

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

 

The City of Busselton’s Property Local Law 2010 also applies to the Airport land / precinct and Part 3; 3.13 Activities needing a Permit states that:

 

(1) A person must not without a permit –

 

(e) carry on any trading on local government property unless the trading is conducted –

(i)            with the consent of a person who holds a permit to conduct a function, and where the trading is carried on in accordance with the permit; or

(ii)           by a person who has a licence or permit to carry on trading on local government property under any written law. 

 

As Skyline’s proposal is to base operations from the Busselton-Margaret River Airport there is a requirement for a permit to be issued in accordance with the City’s property Local Law. The Property Local Law also states in Part 9.3 Breach of a permit;

 

If a permit holder breaches a condition of the permit, or fails to comply with a direction under clause 3.16(b), the CEO or an authorised person may, give the person a notice under this Division.  

 

Officers would include in the issuance of such a permit to operate that any breaches of the Permit conditions, including conditions contained within the Fly Neighborly Agreement and receipt of a significant number of complaints about the operations could result in the cancellation of the permit.

 

Additionally, Skyline is proposing to operate from the Busselton Aero Club building. In accordance with the Clause7.1 Permitted Uses of the lease with the Busselton Aero Club Inc, the Lessee shall not carry on a business at or from the Clubroom Area without the written approval of the City of Busselton. This approval will need to be sought by the Busselton Aero Club prior to any operations commencing.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The City of Busselton’s Noise Management Plan, 2015 (NMP) and Ministerial Statement 1009 require the City to manage the operations and specifically the noise emissions associated with aircraft noise from the Busselton-Margaret River Airport. Specifically, Chapter 3; Management of Operational Activities and 3.1.3 Standard Hours of Operation define the Bell 206L aircraft as meeting the General Aviation criteria with the following conditions;

Operator/Aircraft Type

Standard Hours of Operation

Conditions

Light Aviation

Single engine aircraft under 2000kgs MTOW not exceeding 65dB(A)

UNRESTRICTED

Flight Training approval required (only available for aircraft below 1500kg MTOW and flight training conditions apply.

General Aviation

Any light aircraft that does not comply with the Light Aviation definition.

0700-1900 May-November

0600-2100 December -April

Subject to noise not exceeding 85dB(A).

 

Where an operator breaches the NMP, the City is required to report the non-compliances to the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) and at this time the non-compliance is recorded against the City, with the expectation that the City will prevent further occurrences. These regulatory controls require the City to ensure that any future operations based from the Airport can then be compliant with the terms of the NMP and Statement 1009. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

If the proposal is approved, there is no direct expenditure implications to the City as no additional facilities or upgrade to facilities are required for the Skyline operations to occur. Further, there would potentially be an increase in revenue received based on the landing fees associated with the flights of $8.50 per landing (incl GST).

 

It should also be noted that the complaints process detailed in the NMP allows for ‘noise affected’ residents to request for noise monitoring to be completed at the affected residences. The City’s Environmental Health Department can complete the noise monitoring however there are the associated costs with staff time and analysis of the noise monitoring. Should staff and associated resources not be available then the City would need to engage a third party to undertake the works which then comes at a direct cost to the City. Further, if the noise levels from an affected residence were found to exceed the acceptable levels in Chapter 6 Noise Amelioration of the NMP then noise amelioration measures could potentially apply at the City’s cost.  

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

There are no long term financial plan implications associated with this report.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Busselton Margaret River Airport is consistent with following the City of Busselton’s strategic Objectives:

 

Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Places:

 

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

 

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

The City receives noise complaints from community members relating to the helicopter operation.

The NMP has a complaints process in place describing the timeframes and mitigating processes.

Moderate

Likely

High

Noise Complaints relating to the helicopter operations adversely impact the Airport Development Project Environmental Approval Process.

A Fly Neighborly Agreement needs to be signed as part of the permit conditions including the cancellation of the permit if significant noise complaints are received by the City.

Major

Possible

High

The helicopter operations breach the requirements of the NMP and Statement 1009.

Noise monitoring to be completed and assessment of actual noise emissions from proposed aircraft.

Approval conditions will regulate the hours of operations.

Minor

Possible

Medium

The helicopter operations result in noise monitoring and noise amelioration in accordance with the NMP.

Noise monitoring to be completed and assessment of actual noise emissions from proposed aircraft.

Minor

Possible

Medium

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation with has occurred with Skyline Aviation Group on a number of occasions in determining the details of their proposal. Consultation with the City’s Environmental Health Department on the assessment and validation of the noise levels provided in the Skyline proposal has also occurred.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

In principle, Officers support the concept of increasing tourism opportunities and activities at the Airport which not only benefit the Airport from revenue raised from landing fees but also have the potential to increase tourism to the region. However, Officers have concerns with regards to the level of noise that may be generated from the helicopter operations and any potential non-compliance, general noise nuisance and community complaints that may result. The proposal and reference material provided by Skyline Aviation report that published noise emissions for the Bell206L are in the range of 85.4 -90.8 dB for differing aircraft movements (overflight at 500ft, take-off and landing). As the noise emissions are expected to decrease (with height) over residential areas it is likely that the Bell 206L will meet the noise requirements of the NMP (not exceeding 85dBA) however this has not been verified and raises concerns with Officers.   

 

The proposal requests that up to 15 flights per day be considered for approval, this could result in up to 30 movements per day which would overfly the Busselton community and if the noise emissions from the helicopter were in the range of 75-79dBs for each movement then it is extremely likely that noise complaints would be received by the City of Busselton. The responsibility of managing these noise affected residents once the operations have been approved would then lie with the City of Busselton and while the noise emissions for individual movements may fall within the NMP requirements the accumulative effect may trigger complaints and requests for noise monitoring and amelioration which would be at the City’s cost. 

 

Additionally there is also the potential for complaints and non-compliance with the NMP and Statement 1009 to have an adverse impact on the Airport Development Project Environmental approvals process that is currently underway. Such impacts could jeopardise the approvals being sought for the regulatory controls being proposed as part of the future NMP and the future operations of the redeveloped Busselton-Margaret River Airport.

 

It is acknowledged however, that tourism is a key economic driver in the South West Region and the proposed scenic flights have the potential to offer a good experience for tourists and visitors to the region. In evaluating the proposal, Officers considered the following options to formulate a recommendation to Council. It is to be noted that for the options listed below, Officers recommend that noise monitoring is completed prior to issuance of a permit to determine the actual proposed aircraft noise emissions in combination with the alternative operational conditions.

 

Option 1

That a permit for a trial operation period of six months be issued subject to the following conditions;

·    Up to five scenic flights per day

·    Scenic Flight Operations Monday –Sunday, between 10.00am – 4.00pm

·    No scenic flights allowed on Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day

·    Flight paths and utilisation of flight paths to be provided to the City of Busselton

·    Monthly reports to be provided to the City of Busselton on all scenic flights conducted including times of operation and duration of flights

·    Operations commencement date from Council approval

·    Signed Fly Neighbourly Agreement in accordance with the NMP.

 

This option takes a conservative approach to approving the helicopter operations in that the number of flights per day is kept to one per hour over a time span of six hours. The maximum number of scenic flights per week would therefore be 35 flights (70 movements). This approach allows the community to adjust to the presence of the flights without a significant impact on their amenity. The direction of approach and departure flight paths could be shared across the five flights per day ensuring that no residential area is unduly impacted. This option ensures that the amenity of the community is safeguarded however may not be considered viable by Skyline Aviation. 

 

Option 2

That a permit for a trial operation period of six months be issued subject to the following conditions;

·    Scenic Flight Operations, up to 6 scenic flights per day, Monday –Friday, 10.00am – 4.00pm

·    Scenic Flight Operations, up to  7 scenic flights per day, Saturday - Sunday, 10.00am – 5.00pm

·    No scenic flights allowed on Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day

·    Flight paths and utilisation of flight paths to be provided to the City of Busselton

·    Monthly reports to be provided to the City of Busselton on all scenic flights conducted including times of operation and duration of flights

·    Operations commencement date from Council approval

·    Signed Fly Neighbourly Agreement in accordance with the NMP.

This option allows for one scenic flight per hour during week days and allows for additional flights to be conducted on the weekend when there may be more demand. This approach still allows the community to adjust to the presence of the flights without a significant impact on their amenity however some residential areas may be subject to more flights during a single day due to the additional number of flights that can operate on weekends.

 

Option 3

That a permit for a trial operation period of six months be issued subject to the following conditions;

·    Flight Operations are approved for the months of April – November

·    Scenic Flight Operations, up to 6 scenic flights per day, Monday –Friday, 10.00am – 4.00pm

·    Scenic Flight Operations, up to  7 scenic flights per day, Saturday - Sunday, 10.00am – 5.00pm

·    No scenic flights allowed on Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day

·    Flight paths and utilisation of flight paths to be provided to the City of Busselton

·    Monthly reports to be provided to the City of Busselton on all scenic flights conducted including times of operation and duration of flights

·    Operations commencement date from Council approval

·    Signed Fly Neighbourly Agreement in accordance with the NMP.

 

This option approves the helicopter operations to operate out of the Airport however at times of the year when there is less rotary wing traffic protecting the amenity of the community. The option still allows for one scenic flight per hour during week days and allows for additional flights to be conducted on the weekend when there may be more demand. This approach facilitates the community adjusting to the presence of the flights without a significant impact on their amenity at times of the year when there is increased helicopter activity due to the emergency services helicopter operations.

 

Alternatively, the above options could also be approved for a twelve month trial period.

 

Option 4

Under the City of Busselton’s Property Local Law 2010, Skyline Aviation requires a permit to operate from the Busselton-Margaret River Airport. As such the Council may choose to reject the proposal and not issue a permit to allow the operations from the Airport.

 

If approved, the City will consider the following criteria below following the trial period and prior to a report being presented to the Council for consideration before any further operations are approved;

·    The number and nature of complaints received relating to the Helicopter operations received by the City of Busselton or any other government agency;

·    Any resulting non-compliances with the NMP and Statement 1009 from the helicopter operations;

·    Any breaches with the terms and conditions of the initial approval for the proposal.

 

In ensuring the ongoing implementation and compliance with the NMP and Statement 1009, Officers are suggesting that the City works with Skyline Aviation in determining a level of operation that provides both a tourism opportunity without adversely impacting the community and hence an alternative level of service to the Skyline proposal is offered for discussion.


 

CONCLUSION

 

The City of Busselton has received a proposal for helicopter scenic flights to operate from the Busselton-Margaret River Airport for a trial period of two years requesting approval for the following operations;

·    To operate up to 15 scenic flights per day

·    Operations for Monday – Sunday, 9am- 5pm

·    Access to the General Aviation parking area, located in front of the Aero Club

·    Approval to erect temporary A-frame signage during operational periods

·    Operations to commence from 1 December 2015

·    Operations to be a trial period for  two years (ending on 30 November 2017)

 

The proposal has the potential to offer a good tourism experience to tourists and visitors to the region including cruise ship passengers. However, the helicopter operations also have the potential to cause noise complaints and adversely impact the community. Further, there is the potential for noise complaints and non-compliances to jeopardise the future operations of the Airport by adversely influencing the environmental approval process currently underway for the Airport Development Project. Any aircraft operations that have the potential to impact the future airport operations of the redeveloped Airport need to be assessed and careful consideration given.

 

Hence, Officers believe a balanced approach should be taken and recommend that noise monitoring is performed using the proposed aircraft overflying at 500ft,  1000ft and 1,500ft to record and verify the actual noise emissions that would be generated from the scenic flight operations. Subject to the noise monitoring meeting the requirements of the NMP, approval could then be given for the commencement of operations based on the following conditions outlined in Option 1;

 

·    Up to five scenic flights per day

·    Scenic Flight Operations Monday –Sunday, between 10.00am – 4.00pm

·    No scenic flights allowed on Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day

·    Flight paths and utilisation of flight paths to be provided to the City of Busselton

·    Monthly reports to be provided to the City of Busselton on all scenic flights conducted including times of operation and duration of flights

·    Operations commencement date from Council approval

·    Trial period for six months only

·    Signed Fly Neighbourly Agreement in accordance with the NMP.

 

Additionally, a report be presented back to the Council post the trial and prior to any subsequent approvals to operate from the Airport, including the following;

·    The number and nature of complaints received relating to the Helicopter operations received by the City of Busselton or any other government agency;

·    Any resulting non-compliances from the helicopter operations with the NMP and Statement 1009

·    Any breaches with the terms and conditions of the initial approval for the proposal.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council chooses;

 

1.    Not to accept the Officer’s recommendation of;

That a permit for a trial operation period of six months be issued subject to the following conditions;

a)    Up to five scenic flights per day

b)    Scenic Flight Operations Monday –Sunday, between 10.00am – 4.00pm

c)    No scenic flights allowed on Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day

d)    Flight paths and utilisation of flight paths to be provided to the City of Busselton

e)    Monthly reports to be provided to the City of Busselton on all scenic flights conducted including times of operation and duration of flights

f)     Operations commencement date from Council approval

g)    Signed Fly Neighbourly Agreement in accordance with the NMP.

 

2.    To recommend Option 2 to the Council including;

That a permit for a trial operation period of six months be issued subject to the following conditions;

a)    Scenic Flight Operations, up to 6 scenic flights per day, Monday –Friday, 10.00am – 4.00pm

b)    Scenic Flight Operations, up to  7 scenic flights per day, Saturday - Sunday, 10.00am – 5.00pm

c)    No scenic flights allowed on Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day

d)    Flight paths and utilisation of flight paths to be provided to the City of Busselton

e)    Monthly reports to be provided to the City of Busselton on all scenic flights conducted including times of operation and duration of flights

f)     Operations commencement date from Council approval

g)    Signed Fly Neighbourly Agreement in accordance with the NMP.

 

3.    To recommend Option 3 to the Council including;

That a permit for a trial operation period of six months be issued subject to the following conditions;

a)    Flight Operations are approved for the months of April – November

b)    Scenic Flight Operations, up to 6 scenic flights per day, Monday –Friday, 10.00am – 4.00pm

c)    Scenic Flight Operations, up to  7 scenic flights per day, Saturday - Sunday, 10.00am – 5.00pm

d)    No scenic flights allowed on Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day

e)    Flight paths and utilisation of flight paths to be provided to the City of Busselton

f)     Monthly reports to be provided to the City of Busselton on all scenic flights conducted including times of operation and duration of flights

g)    Operations commencement date from Council approval

h)    Signed Fly Neighbourly Agreement in accordance with the NMP.

 

4.    To recommend Option 4;

Not approve the proposal for Skyline Aviation to operate Helicopter scenic flights from the Airport.

 

5.    To recommend an alternative option to the Council.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Skyline Aviation will be notified of Council’s consideration immediately following the resolution of Council.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council;

 

1.    Endorses the CEO to issue a permit for the commencement of helicopter flights by Skyline Aviation on the following basis;

a)         Up to five scenic flights per day

b)        Scenic Flight Operations Monday –Sunday, between 10.00am – 4.00pm

c)         No scenic flights allowed on Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day

d)        Flight paths and utilisation of flight paths to be provided to the City of Busselton

e)        Monthly reports to be provided to the City of Busselton on all scenic flights conducted including times of operation and duration of flights

f)         Operations commencement date from Council approval

g)         Signed Fly Neighbourly Agreement in accordance with the NMP.

 

2.    That the issuance of the permit is subject to noise monitoring be performed using the proposed aircraft for the Skyline Aviation scenic flight operations, overflying at 500ft,  1000ft and 1,500ft meeting the noise level requirements of the City of Busselton Noise Management Plan 2015.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

That Skyline’s proposal not be supported and that a formal expression of interest process is undertaken, outlining clear criteria and operating conditions for commercial tourism rotary wing operations at the BMRA, and that regular ongoing rotary wing operations be considered as part of the next Noise Management Plan review.

 

 


Council

47

9 December 2015

10.4

Attachment a

Skyline Aviation Busselton Helicopter Proposal

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

57

9 December 2015

10.4

Attachment b

Noise Data B206 B206L

 


 


Council

59

9 December 2015

10.4

Attachment b

Noise Data B206 B206L

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

75

9 December 2015

10.4

Attachment b

Noise Data B206 B206L

 


 


Council                                                                                      77                                                             9 December 2015

10.5           Finance Committee - 3/12/2015 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 OCTOBER 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:

Financial Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Financial Accountant - Ehab Gowegati

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Statement of Financial Activity (October)  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 3 December 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

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

 

This report has been compiled to fulfil the statutory reporting requirements of the Act and associated Regulations, whilst also providing the Council with an overview of the City’s financial performance on a year to date basis for the period ending 31 October 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 23 July 2015, the Council adopted (C1507/208) the following material variance reporting threshold for the 2015/16 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 2015/16 financial year to comprise variances equal to or greater than 10% of the year to date budget amount as detailed in the Income Statement by Nature and Type/ Statement of Financial Activity report, however variances due to timing differences and/ or seasonal adjustments are to be reported on a quarterly basis.  

 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

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

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

NA.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

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

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

CONSULTATION

 

NA.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

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

 

§   Statement of Financial Activity

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

 

§   Net Current Position

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

 

§   Capital Acquisition Report

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

o    Land and Buildings

o    Plant and Equipment

o    Furniture and Equipment

o    Infrastructure

 

§   Reserve Movements Report

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

 

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

 

COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ACTIVITY TO 31 October 2015

 

Operating Activity

 

§   Operating Revenue

 

As at 31 October 2015, there is a variance of +2% in total operating revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

+67%

+$467

Interest Earnings

+19%

+$150

Profit on Asset Disposals

+45%

+$3

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (+$467K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to:

§ Timing differences attributable to the receipt of operating contributions for the fire prevention officer by DFES  -$8k;

§ Timing differences attributable to the receipt of the emergency services levy for the operation of the bush fire brigades +$36k;

§ Budget timing difference associated with the receipt of the Busselton Jetty licence fee  +$356k (budget allocation was in November);

§ Horticultural apprentice rebate +$21k (one off unbudgeted revenue associated with funding relating to current worker traineeships);

 

Interest Earnings (+$150K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to:                                                                                       

§ Interest on Reserve Funds +$37k;

§ Interest on Restricted Funds +$108k (Relates to airport funds – not budgeted for);

 

Profit on Asset Disposals (+$3K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to:

§ Minor timing difference associated with book Profits due to disposal of assets. It should be noted that this is an accounting entry only, and has no direct impact on the Net Current Position.

 

§   Operating Expenditure

 

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

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Materials and Contracts

-33%

-$1,734

Utilities

-16%

-$121

Other Expenses

-21%

-$219

Allocations

-38%

-$287

Loss on Asset Disposals

+172%

+$34

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Materials and Contracts (-$1,734K)

·    Variances associated with material and contracts are predominately attributable to timing differences at this stage of the analysis. Materials and contract nature and type comprises of some 547 cost codes with the main areas of significant variances (over $50k) as follows;

 

Busselton Jetty maintenance expenditure -$206k. Timing variance only, corrosion protection assessment and repairs are yet to begin, handrails will be painted in the warmer months of the year and alternative LED light globes are now being tested and trialled;

Timing differences attributable to Airport Operations -$51k, which includes consultancy -$10k, airport maintenance -$14k, contractors -$15k, purchase of materials -$6k, data communications costs -$2k,  commission charges -$2k;

Information technology -$357k. Timing variance only that predominately relate to computer software licenses -$311k, GIS Costs -$31k and consultancies -$23k;

Port Geographe  Emergency funds for works in association with Department of Transport -$100k, funds are to be utilised as required;

 

Utilities (-$121k)

·    Variances associated with utilities are attributable to timing differences. The breakdown is as follows;

 

Telephones (-$10k);

Electricity (-$29k);

Water (-$82k);

 

Other Expenditure (-$219k)

·    Variances associated with other expenditure are predominately attributable to timing differences. The main areas involved are as follows;

 

Members of Council expenses -$121k (main variances are for Elected Members Election & Poll Expenses -$75k, elected members sitting fees -$20k, Trade Subscriptions -$20k and allowances -$7k);

Public Relations -$25k (main variances are for advertising Council page -$5k, catering -$6k and marketing and promotions -$5k ,staff Christmas function -$5k, community consultations and surveys -$3k), full budget allocations have not yet been required;

Office of the CEO -20k. This is attributable to timing variances for the CEO’s discretionary fund -$9k, and CapeROC regional development -$11k;

Timing differences within the rate administration business unit with regard to property valuations -$11k;

Property and Business Development -$39k (main variance is a timing difference associated with expenses for Peel Terrace building and surrounds maintenance);

 

 

Allocations (-$287k)

·    This activity incorporates numerous internal accounting allocations. Whilst the majority of individual allocations are administration based (and clear each month), the activity also includes plant and overhead related allocations. Due to the nature of these line items, the activity reflects as a net offset against operating expenditure, in recognition of those expenses that are of a capital nature (and need to be recognised accordingly). Variances, particularly early in the financial year, are not uncommon, as the activity is highly dependent upon a range of works related factors.

 

Loss on Asset Disposal (+$34k)

·    Timing difference associated with book losses due to disposal of assets. It should be noted that this is an accounting entry only, and has no direct impact on the Net Current Position.

 

Capital Activity

 

§   Capital Revenue

 

As at 31 October 2015, there is a variance of -74% in total capital revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Proceeds from Sale of Assets

-22%

-$40

Proceeds from New Loans

-100%

-$850

Transfer from Restricted Assets

-91%

-$457

Transfer from Reserves

-67%

-$$2,295

 

·    Variances associated with capital revenue are as follows;

 

Proceeds from Sales -$40k

Timing difference associated with the sale of light vehicles and minor plant that were scheduled to be disposed of, which are yet to occur;

 

Proceeds from New Loans -$850k

The adopted budget included the drawdown of a loan for the purchase of Lot 40 Vasse highway. This has been delayed pending further review of current trends with regard to borrowing rates. It is anticipated that the loan will be drawn early in the new year subsequent the RBA rate review;

 

Transfer from Restricted Assets -$457

 

The 2015/16 budget includes a transfer from restricted assets of $500k that is associated with expenditure to be incurred for the Busselton Regional Airport development. To date no transfer has been made as expenditure for the project is yet to reach $500k;

 

Transfer from Reserves -$2,295k

 

The 2015/16 budget includes a transfer from reserves of $2,295k that is associated with the building of the new Civic and Administration Centre. As this is expenditure has not been realised as at 31st October, no transfer has been made.

 

 

 

§   Capital Expenditure

 

As at 31 October 2015, there is a variance of -39% in total capital expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold: 

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Land and Buildings

-81%

-$4,825

Plant & Equipment

-32%

-$180

Furniture and Equipment

-49%

-$102

Infrastructure

-31%

-$2,298

Transfers to Restricted Assets

+74%

+$444

 

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

§   Land and Buildings

§   Plant and Equipment

§   Furniture and Equipment

§   Infrastructure

 

A summary of the remaining variance is provided as follows:

 

Transfers to Restricted Assets (+$444k)

 

The annual budget in this category is spread evenly across the financial year. The favourable year to date variance is due to the receipt of additional developer contributions in excess of budget totalling approximately $444k. The additional funds received were predominately for contributions attributable to Provence, Vasse, and Peppermint Park. These funds have been receipted into the Community and Recreation Facilities account and are subsequently transferred to the Restricted Assets account.

 

Transfers to Restricted Assets has no direct impact on the surplus/ deficit position, as associated transactions represent equity transfers to quarantine funds received in the form of, amongst others, developer contributions (via the ‘Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions’ operating revenue category) and borrowings.

 

BUDGET VARIATIONS AND OTHER ‘KNOWNS’

 

Nil.

 

CONCLUSION

 

As at 31 October 2015, the City’s financial performance is considered satisfactory, with no obvious trends evident at this time. Whilst current variances exist in some operational areas, these are primarily due to timing differences, or involve transactions that have no direct impact on the Net Current Position. Additionally, and excluding timing differences, operating expenditure is also generally in line with historical performance at this time of the financial year.

 

Whilst also acknowledging that capital expenditure in the land, buildings and infrastructure asset class’s performance is presently tracking below year to date budget estimates, this is also attributable to timing differences at this time.

 

In line with previous year’s analysis, a more accurate reflection of the City’s 2015/16 financial performance will be available at which time the December 2015 quarterly report is compiled.

OPTIONS

 

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

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

NA.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 


Council

85

9 December 2015

10.5

Attachment a

Statement of Financial Activity (October)

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

91

9 December 2015

10.5

Attachment a

Statement of Financial Activity (October)

 


Council                                                                                      95                                                             9 December 2015

10.6           Finance Committee - 3/12/2015 - OLD BUTTER FACTORY UPPER FLOOR

SUBJECT INDEX:

Old Butter Factory

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Community Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Community Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Community Services - Maxine Palmer

Facilities Coordinator - Shawn Lombard

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Building Report - Compliance and Structural Assessment of 1st Floor Structure Old Butter Factory

Attachment b    Draft Operational Practices and Procedures - Old Butter Factory  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 3 December 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

In 2012, a structural assessment report of the Old Butter Factory identified certain risks associated with the continued use of the upper floor as a museum display area with public access. The Council subsequently resolved to temporarily close the upper floor to the public, whilst alternative engineering and heritage solutions were investigated. This report details the results of this investigation and provides a solution and cost estimates for improvement works required to enable the upper floor to be re-opened to the public.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The City of Busselton is the owner of Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 328, 76 Peel Terrace, Busselton, (the Old Butter factory site). Over many years a complex of buildings have been constructed on these Lots, including the main building once used as a butter factory and other detached buildings used, amongst other things, as a boiler house and blacksmith shop. Historical records indicate that the Old Butter Factory was constructed as long ago as 1918. However, since approximately 30 years ago (and ever since) the Old Butter Factory has been used as a museum, currently under the auspices of the Busselton Historical Society (BHS).

 

In 1995 the City of Busselton entered into a 10 year lease of the Old Butter Factory with BHS and the Busselton Pottery Group, which expired in June 2010. At that stage the Busselton Pottery Group entered into another 10 year lease with the City. However, due to land title issues in relation to portions of the land, BHS’s lease was not renewed and BHS has since been occupying the Old Butter Factory and surrounds under a holding over provision, on a month-by-month basis (BHS Lease). 

 

The Old Butter Factory is a double storey building, which is used in the main as a museum operated by BHS, with a section at the western end used as premises for the Busselton Pottery Group. The total building area is 750m2, with 580m2 at the lower floor and 170m2 in the upper floor. BHS has been using the first floor as museum exhibition area and as such making it accessible to the general public. Access to the first floor is provided by two sets of stairs, both designated as fire escape exits:

 

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

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

 

BHS has indicated that the use of the first storey as a museum display area, which is open to the public, forms an integral part of their museum operations. Based on floor area, the upper floor has capacity for approximately 40 persons at any one time. The current upper floor museum display consists of a variety of household artifacts, including: kitchenware; radios; china; and clothing. BHS has also indicated that the existing ground floor area is insufficient to accommodate the upper floor museum display and, should upper floor public access not be allowed, will have to be replaced with a new building.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

In 2012 the City engaged the services of Cotan Engineers to assess the condition of the Old Butter Factory and to present the City with recommendations in relation to refurbishment work and maintenance required to achieve Building Code of Australia compliance, and to preserve the structural condition of the building frame in order to prolong its life (Building Report). The City also commissioned a Conservation Management Plan for the Old Butter Factory building and site. That was completed in April 2014.  The plan was funded by LotteryWest and developed by a heritage conservation specialist. Included in the scope of works for the plan was a specific requirement to verify the advice provided in the Cotan Building Report. The Conservation Management Plan (Section 8.5.2.1) concurred with Cotan’s conclusion that “the level of intervention required to achieve fire standards and access requirements for continued public access would have a major adverse impact on the heritage fabric of the main factory building.” Policy 5.3, Section 8.5.2.1 of the Conservation Management Plan recommends “careful design of all necessary works to ensure the minimum possible impact on the heritage values of the fabric and setting of the place,“ and Policy 5.4 suggests that “subject to further analysis of the fire safety and floor loading requirements it is suggested the first floor  could be adapted to alternative uses that do not require public access.”

 

On 10 September 2014, Officers briefed Council on the recommendations in the Building Report and the Conservation Management Plan relating to the upper floor, informing Council of the following key issues:

 

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

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

·    The cost of fire resistance improvements which would allow use of the upper level for public purposes were significant (approximately $295,000). This cost estimate did not include or provide for any heritage considerations, and also had no provision for any contingency costs that might arise when undertaking the works;

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

·    A further detailed structural assessment was required to consider using part of the upper floor for storage of museum goods that are not on public display (calculations indicated that the structures supporting the upper floor are suitable for live loads up to 200kg/m2. Such use may also require upgrades to the existing upper floor fire escapes.

 

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

 

Following further work with the BHS and the City’s Heritage Advisor, a report was represented to Council at the 10 December 2014 meeting, at which time Council resolved:

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Not allow public access to the upper floor of the Old Butter Factory after 25 December 2014;

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

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

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

5.    To engage a heritage consultant and fire engineer to review the Building Report in line with Section 8.5.2.1 of Policy 5.3 4 of the Conservation Plan and to investigate alternative solutions providing for public use of the upper floor of the Old Butter Factory and the impact of associated works on significant building fabric and to prepare a detailed report for Council consideration.

      

Subsequent to this, the City entered into a deed of amendment with the BHS to vary their existing lease restricting the use and the access rights to the upper floor until otherwise advised in writing by the City.

 

This report presents the Building Report and future recommendations developed by Cotan Engineers under specific instruction from the City Facilities Department , which was noted as a requirement in point 5 of the above resolution (attachment A).

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The Building Code of Australia (BCA) is a uniform set of technical provisions for the design and construction of buildings and other structures in Australia. The BCA is produced and maintained by the Australian Building Codes Board on behalf of the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments and as such has been given the status of building regulations by all States and Territories.  The previous Building Report found that for the public to access the upper floor of the Old Butter Factory fire resistance of all lower floor building walls, lower floor columns and upper floor external walls would be required, in accordance with the BCA to be a Type B construction. This means that loadbearing walls and columns must have a specified resistance and external walls must be non-combustible. The Old Butter Factory is not a type B construction, and work required to meet this standard would be extensive and expensive (as was outlined in the Building Report).

 

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

 

If it appears to an authorised person that, whether or not a valid certificate of approval is issued in respect of a public building, the public building is unsafe or is unsuitable for the use to which it is being put, or is about to be put, then the authorised person may do any one or more of the following:

 

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

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

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

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

i)             to close the public building;

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

 

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

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The City has an Asbestos Management Policy (010) which was developed to assist with compliance with government policy and legislative requirements in the management of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) in workplaces.  This policy applies to management of ACM in all buildings on City owned or managed land, including art and cultural buildings; which is the category applied to the Old Butter Factory.  The City is committed to ensuring that ACM in all buildings on City owned or managed land is managed and controlled to protect the health and well-being of workers (including contractors) and the community.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

In an effort to confirm the estimated cost for the recommended works noted in the Cotan Report, tenders have been invited under RFT17/15 Old Butter Factory First Floor Fire Compliance to test and determine the true budget cost.   This tender closed on 26 November 2015, and will take two to three weeks from that time to review and have ready for final award by the CEO under delegation.

 

For the sake of this report, the cost of the project has been assumed and estimated using the Cotan estimated value in the report, as well as the market tested values under the Tender to estimate the work scope cost noted in the report, as well as considering the practical aspects noted in the site visit that would have associated costs.

 

The table below collates this estimated financial information:

 

Description:

60% Building Reserve funded Value  (Ex GST):

40% Asbestos Reserve  funded Value (Ex GST):

 

$

$

Internal/External Staircase demolition and re-fabrication External Roofing remedial works

 

(As per Cotan design & Report)

147,000

No asbestos found in this portion, pure fabrication and installation cost

Asbestos:

Removal and remediation

 

 

20.000

Facilities additional costs:

– Outside display relocation

–Temporary storage

 

(As per site visit findings & report review)

 

6,000

 

4,000

Contingency

6,000

4,000

TOTAL PROJECT COST PER RESERVE account.

159,000

28,000

 

It is noted that in both the staircase work scopes, asbestos is going to be required to be disturbed and/or removed to complete these works.

 

It is also the intention of the City officers to apportion the works on a ratio of 40% asbestos and 60% general construction works to the funding sources noted below. As the tender values are not yet known, this format has been used and adopted by the City’s Facilities team in the interim to facilitate fair distribution of funds to the correct funding streams.

 

Officers are recommending work be funded from two funding sources, these being:

·    Asbestos Removal and Replacement (Cost code B1514); and

·    A further transfer from the Building Reserve (Reserve Fund 106).

 

Asbestos Removal and Replacement has a 2015/16 adopted budget of $125,000 which can cover the apportioned 40% of the associated cost ($28,000).  The Building Reserve has a 2015/16 projected balance noting all transactions to date of $1.325m, which can cover the apportioned 60% of the associated cost ($159,000).

 

The remaining Asbestos Removal and Replacement budget of $97,000 will be sufficient for all other asbestos related works noted in the City’s Asset and Facilities Department’s list of ongoing identified work scopes for this current 2015/16 financial year (note that expenditure of some of that budget on the Old Butter Factory was envisaged when the 2015/16 budget was developed.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Nil.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendations in this report support the City’s Strategic Community Objective that “Infrastructure Assets are well maintained and responsibly managed.”

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the risks in implementing the Officer Recommendation was conducted using the City’s risk management framework. The table describes identified risks, once treatments have been identified:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

Work reveals a larger amount of asbestos removal is required than planned and the total project costs exceed the budget forecast.

The remaining asbestos removal and replacement budget for 2015/16 is held in contingency until all works for the Butter Factory upper floor are complete.

Insignificant < $20,000

 

 

 

Unlikely

 

Low 2

The BHS do not adequately implement the Operating Practices and Procedures to ensure public safety in the upper floor.

Consultation is undertaken with the BHS to finalise the draft Operational Practices and Procedures.

 

The new lease for the BHS incorporates the requirement to adequately implement the agreed Operating Practices and Procedures.

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

 

Unlikely

High 14

 

CONSULTATION

 

City Officers have consulted with BHS to develop and implement an Emergency Evacuation Plan for the upper floor and have shared the draft Operating Practices and Procedures supplied with the Building Report (Attachment B). BHS have not indicated any issues with implementing those Operating Practices and Procedures.

 

Officers have also liaised with the BHS to arrange and discuss the implementation and timeframes for the works outlined in this report.  They have also provided support in an effort to minimise the impact on the BHS when undertaking the relocation of items required to be moved to accommodate the proposed works.

 

The City will continue to work with the BHS to support actions previously identified to rationalise and improve the management of their collection and the use of space within the Butter Factory building and grounds.

 

Cotan Engineers have also liaised extensively with all the relevant authorities regarding building codes and regulations in an effort to present a report with recommendations that show both transparency and due diligence to meet or achieve the best level of compliance, noting the sensitivity of this historical building.

 

Furthermore, the City has passed on all detail design information and associated correspondence for comment and final approval from the Heritage Council. This is pending a final response from the Heritage Council.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

As per the previous Council resolution (C1412/336), the Old Butter Factory building first floor has been closed to the public since 24 December 2014.

Cotan Engineers were engaged to undertake a more detailed inspection of the Old Butter Factory and to provide a report which recommended, in consultation with a fire engineer and heritage advisor, solutions to re-open the upper floor to the public. Cotan Engineers have provided the Building Report  - Compliance & Structural Assessment of 1st Floor Structure (Attachment A). This report has re-evaluated building works which can practically be achieved to, where possible, address the BCA and meet health and fire requirements to enable the 1st floor of the Old Butter Factory to be re-opened safely to the public.

 

The Cotan Report recommends the following works:

 

·    Demolition of the internal and external staircases to the upper floor and re-fabrication to meet new and improved fire and access/egress codes of compliance;

·    Implementation of new Operational Practices and Procedures which include the limitation of persons in the upper floor, emergency plans and associated training and specific display and storage requirements;

·    Some additional signage; and

·    Adherence to specified maximum load bearings in the upper floor.

 

In addition to these works, the following actions will also need to occur:

 

·    The relocation of display items in both the internal and external staircase work scope locations;

·    Minor repair works to the existing roof structure in proximity to the new external staircase;

·    The allocation of a temporary storage container to house some of the display items whilst works are being conducted;

·    Asbestos removal in the areas noted within the proposed work scope locations; and

·    Contingency considerations to allow for unidentified works that may be found within the wall spaces once uncovered.

 

It is also to be noted that the City has reviewed the existing staircase found on the exterior of the Council Chambers to be salvaged and possibly re-used at the Old Butter Factory.  That staircase has in the interim been assessed by Cotan noting this request, and has been found to not be useful in this regard for the following reasons:

·    The width of the staircase does not meet the compliance width requirement.

·    The fabric that this staircase has been manufactured from does not suit DFES requirements.

·    The tread width and amount of treads does not align to the height as found on the Old Butter Factory.

·    To use and refabricate the old staircase would be more costly, as the level and amount of changes required are too many. It would be better to start from scratch as was recommended in this review.

 

CONCLUSION

 

As the owners and custodians of the Old Butter Factory, the City of Busselton has a responsibility to ensure that the Old Butter Factory is safe for the public, as well as being fit for the purpose for which it is being used.

 

Implementation of the recommendations of the Cotan Building Report, including the Operating Practices and Procedures by the BHS (Attachment B) outlined in this report will enable the upper floor to be safely re-opened to the public.

 

Tenders have been advertised to verify the true project cost, and closed on 26 November 2015, and a tender review and award under delegation by the CEO can be concluded within two to three weeks from that date.

 

The estimated project value including contingency of $10,000 is reflected in the financial table above, and amounts to a total estimated project cost of $187,000.

 

The City’s Asbestos Removal and Replacement budget is $125,000. It is recommend that due to the extent of asbestos removal required to implement the work recommended in the Building Report, that this is an appropriate use of the this budget. An estimated $28,000 would be drawn from it to fund the associated asbestos works.

 

The balance of the required project budget, this being $159,000, will be drawn, pending Council’s approval, from the Building Reserve Fund 106, noting a financial year end balance of $1.325m.

 

Officers recommend that the Council notes the recommendations in the Cotan Building Report – Compliance & Structural Assessment of First Floor Structure as a practical and appropriate course of action and authorises the CEO to arrange for the work to be undertaken utilising the City’s Asbestos Removal and Replacement budget and the Building Reserve as the appropriate funding sources.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may also consider the following option:

 

Council may not want to undertake the work outlined in the Building Report (Attachment A) and choose to keep the upper floor closed to the public, but accessible to BHS members as a work space and store room, noting the impact this will have on the operations of the museum.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should Council resolve to endorse the Officer recommendation, BHS will be notified immediately of the Council’s decision and a meeting will be established to coordinate implementation of the decision. Works are proposed to be completed this financial year, and are noted under the tender timelines to commence early January 2016, with a completion date 12 weeks later.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1)    Notes the recommendations in the Building Report – Compliance & Structural Assessment of First Floor Structure (included as Attachment A to the agenda report) as a practical and appropriate course of action to enable the Butter Factory upper floor to be re-opened to the public.

 

2)    Acknowledges the proposed use of the Asbestos Removal and Replacement budget for the implementation of the recommended works associated with asbestos.

 

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

3)    Approves an amendment to the 2015/16 adopted budget as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

Budget Account Number

Section

Description

2015/16 adopted budget

2015/16 proposed budget

Difference

Old Butter Factory - Upgrade Works

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

522-B9551-3280-0000

Building Facilities

Contractors

$0

$159,000

$159,000

106-9103

Equity Transfer

Transfer from Building Reserve

$0

-$159,000

-$159,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

 

$0

$0

$0

 


Council

103

9 December 2015

10.6

Attachment a

Building Report - Compliance and Structural Assessment of 1st Floor Structure Old Butter Factory

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

143

9 December 2015

10.6

Attachment b

Draft Operational Practices and Procedures - Old Butter Factory

 


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      149                                                          9 December 2015

10.7           Finance Committee - 25/12/2015 - MARINE BERTHING CHARGES AT BUSSELTON JETTY

SUBJECT INDEX:

Tourism Development

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Economic and Business Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Economic and Business Development Coordinator - Jon Berry

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

 

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

 

PRÉCIS

 

To facilitate growth in marine-based tourism, the City of Busselton is constructing two new marine berthing platforms at the Busselton Jetty.  The berths (one on the east side and one on the west side) will be used by cruise ship tenders and commercial charters currently based at Port Geographe marina.  This report considers the merits and timing of imposing fees for use of the platforms.

 

BACKGROUND

 

In November 2014, Busselton welcomed its inaugural cruise ship (Diamond Princess) into Geographe Bay and during the 2014/15 financial year a total of six ships visited Busselton and disembarked passengers.  Independent research commissioned by Cruising Down Under reported passengers spent an estimated $1.8m in the Region, generating $0.5m in wages (equivalent of 10 FTEs) and $0.9m in value add.  A total of 8,773 passengers and crew disembarked the vessels with 2,530 undertaking pre booked tours of the Region.

 

The Busselton community and regional tourism industry has been able to provide an exceptional visitor experience and is firmly establishing Busselton as a growing cruise ship stop-over destination.  This is demonstrated by independent research conducted by Tourism Western Australia, which concluded that three out of five (61 per cent) transit passengers rated their overall experience at the destination as “excellent” while a further 34 per cent rated their experience as “very good.”  The remainder rated their experience as good, meaning 100 per cent of transit passengers had a positive experience in the Region. Two in five (42 per cent) said they would definitely recommend the region as a holiday destination to family and friends, while a further 54 per cent were “very likely” or “quite likely” to recommend it.

 

A summary of the visitor metrics associated with each vessel during the inaugural cruise ship season (2014/15) is provided below:

 

Date

27-Nov-14

10-Mar-15

13-Apr-15

24-Apr-15

9-May-15

28-May-15

 

Vessel

Diamond
 Princess

Diamond
Princess 

Dawn
 Princess

Pacific Jewel

Pacific Jewel

Sea Princess

 

Pax capacity

2,670

2,670

1,990

1,950

1,950

1,950

 

Crew capacity

1,100

1,100

900

621

900

900

 

Disembarked

2200

2200

1118

900

850

1505

8773

Pre booked

750

750

110

220

200

500

2530

 

The current berthing facility for tender vessels is the U-shaped swim jetty, fitted with bollards, fenders and temporary guide rails, enabling berthing and direct beach access to the foreshore.  This facility has proved successful for the cruise ship visits hosted to date, although is temporary and not ideal, particularly as it is a recreational facility used by swimmers in the summer.  Additionally, a new beach enclosure has recently been installed and will require sections to be removed to enable each cruise ship to berth.

 

In early-2015, the City was successful in its application to the Federal Government’s Tourism Demand Driver Infrastructure (TDDI) program and received funding of $600k, to be matched by a contribution by the City of $600k (a total of $1.2m).  The funding is being used to construct a new 35m berthing platform on the east side of the Busselton Jetty and a 15m platform on the west side of the Jetty, with the objective of facilitating transfer of passengers in a range of weather conditions.  Both platforms will be constructed in January 2016 and first used by tender vessels from a cruise ship on the 23 March 2016.

 

In addition to cruise ship tenders, there are a number of commercial marine operators running tours in the Geographe Bay region that will likely request use of the new platforms, given the growing popularity of the Busselton foreshore as a premier tourist experience.  Some of these vessels are based in Dunsborough (Quindalup professional fisherman’s boat ramp) and some are based out of Port Geographe.  Overall, these vessels operate for approximately eight months of the year between September and May.

 

This report considers the merits and timing of imposing fees for the use of the platforms, however excludes a discussion on jetty entrance fees for cruise ship passengers alighting from the platforms onto the Busselton Jetty (this charge is normally $3 per person).  This matter was discussed at the 5 November 2015 Finance Committee meeting where it was resolved to waive jetty entrance fees (F1511/063) subsequently supported at the 25 November Council meeting, however did not consider the berthing fees for use of ship tenders.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Jetties Act 1926

This Act provides for the construction, maintenance, and preservation of jetties and other works, and to make better provision for securing and regulating the use and management of jetties.  Pursuant to section 7 of the Jetties Act, the CEO of the Department of Transport may grant a licence for the erection or construction of a jetty or for the maintenance and use of any Jetty.

 

Busselton Jetty License (2009)

The City of Busselton (former Shire) was granted a new Jetty License in 2009, with the permitted use being for ‘Recreation, Tourism and Heritage’. Section 6.3 requires the City to establish and maintain a Jetty Maintenance Reserve and contribute to the account from income received from existing ground leases on the Busselton foreshore plus a minimum of $650k from tourism revenues associated with jetty related activities (this income is sourced from BJECA’s tourism activities).

 

 

City of Busselton Jetties Local Law 2014

The Busselton Jetty Local Law (2014) allows the City to control access to berthing at the Jetty.  Relevant clauses include:

 

·    Section 2.2 Mooring of Vessels:

(1) A person shall not moor to or berth a vessel at the jetties or moor or berth a vessel on the Land—

(a) unless the mooring or berthing of the vessel is authorised or permitted by the local  government either by way of a sign affixed by the local government to the jetties or by written consent of the local government; (b) other than in accordance with any conditions imposed by the local government under clause 3.2(1)(a).

(2)  Subclause (1) does not apply to—

(a)  a person who needs to moor to or berth a vessel at the jetties or on the Land in an emergency;

(b)  a vessel in distress such as that repairs are required and then only to effect the minimum repairs necessary to enable the vessel to be moved elsewhere;

(c)   a person who uses the jetties under and in accordance with a written agreement with the local government; and

(d)  a person who has been exempted from subclause (1) by the local government.

(3)  A person shall not—

(a)  moor a vessel to the jetties or any part of the jetties except to such moorings or mooring piles as are provided; or

(b)  permit a vessel to remain alongside the jetties unless the vessel is so moored or fastened.

 

·    Section 5.6 Fees and charges:

(1)  Fees and charges may be imposed by the local government for the purposes of this local law in accordance with the requirements of Part 6, Division 5, Subdivision 2 of the Act.

(2)  A person shall not charge admission or seek payment for entering or using the jetties without having first obtained the written consent of the local government.

(3)  A person shall not enter upon or use the jetties without first having paid—

(a) the fees and charges which may apply to such entry or use, as determined by the local government from time to time; or

(b) admission charged by a person who obtained written consent pursuant to subclause .

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Busselton Jetty 50-Year Maintenance Plan

The Busselton Jetty 50-Year Maintenance Plan identifies the maintenance, capital replacement and capital upgrade tasks required to maintain the Busselton Jetty, including the exterior and structural maintenance of the Interpretive Centre and the Underwater Observatory, for the 50-year period from 2013 to 2062. Reconstruction of the existing lower landing fishing platform (known as 2A) was originally scheduled for the year 2020 (with no access ramp) at a forecast cost of ~$500k so has effectively being bought forward by the new platform replacing existing 2A on the east side of the Jetty.  No specific provision for maintenance of the east side structure and the new west side structure are made in the plan, rather the east platform is treated as part of overall maintenance of the Jetty.

 

South West Regional Blue Print (South West Development Commission/Regional Development Australia South West): 2015

 

The South West Regional Blueprint has been prepared to guide the future development of the South West region up until year 2050. It identifies how the region can grow, create new jobs, build prosperity and lifestyle opportunities.  The document states as a specific objective to establish Busselton as a major lifestyle city based on tourism, wine and food, creative industries, events and high value professional services’. Under the central theme ‘Industry and Business Place’ the blueprint states as an action (with a 3-15 year time frame), to …“complete cruise ship facilities at Bunbury, Busselton and Augusta’

 

Draft South West Draft Planning and Infrastructure Framework (Department of Planning): 2014

 

Table 4 of the document identifies infrastructure initiatives, particularly cruise shipping infrastructure. It identifies the cruise ship sector as Australia’s fastest growing tourism sector. It states ‘With appropriate port infrastructure improvements the South West is well positioned to attract increased cruise ship visits with passenger visitation providing significant economic benefits to the region’.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Cruise ship visits currently cost the City around $1,400 per visit on average with these funds applied to the rental of plastic chairs, volunteer management/refreshments and passenger on-shore entertainment.  This estimate excludes staff time for road closures and the removal of the stinger nets around the U-Shaped Jetty if required.  This is a partnering contribution along with resources provided by the Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association (MRBTA), Chambers of Commerce and Busselton Jetty Conservation and Environment Association (BJECA) who provide staff resources and volunteer effort.  Tourism WA and the South West Development Commission also provided some additional seed funding for marquees and maps.

 

City of Busselton Engineering and Works staff estimate the maintenance and provision for replacement of the two new tender platforms to be around $24,000pa.

 

Should Council decide to incur commercial berthing fees the Department of Transport Jetty License would likely require amendment and the annual fee would increase from $30.00pa to $664pa and may impact on the grant programs relating to recreational marine facilities.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

Support to a cruise ship visitation program is identified in the City’s Long Term Financial Plan in the Economic and Business Development Activity Unit.  Asset replacement and maintenance of the two new berths are not specifically provided for in the Jetty Maintenance Reserve as maintenance costs for the existing west side platform is integrated into overall maintenance and upgrade provisions.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

Key Goal Area 3:

Robust local economy: A strong local economy that sustains and attracts existing and new business, industry and employment opportunities.

 

3.1   A strong, innovative and diversified economy that attracts people to live, work, invest and visit;

3.2   A City recognised for its high quality events and year round tourist offerings; and,

3.3   A community where local business is supported.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

REPUTATIONAL

The City’s fees and charges for the new marine berthing platforms are set too high and result in less absolute or reduced growth in cruise ship visitation to Busselton

 

Test price sensitivity with cruise ship companies when setting annual fees.

 

Conduct a comparative assessment of charges by other ports

Possible

Moderate

M13

FINANCIAL

The City’s fees and charges for the new marine berthing platforms are set too low and funds  for maintenance and provision for replacement are sourced from municipal revenue

Set fees on estimated requirement to maintain and replace berthing platforms

Possible

Moderate

M13

 

CONSULTATION

 

In preparing this report, Officers conducted desktop research, consulted with whale commercial tour vessels, a cruise ship company, Tourism Western Australia and cruise ship port authorities.  The results of the consultation are reflected in the Officer comment and recommendations. 

 

In addition, Officers have consulted with the Busselton Jetty Environment and Conservation Association Inc (BJECA), which has previously requested the ability to charge an entrance fee per passenger to the Jetty alighting or departing from the new berthing platforms.  On 25 November 2015, upon recommendation from the Finance Committee (F1511/063), Council resolved that it supported waving entrance fees for cruise ship passengers walking onto the Jetty.

 

BJECA has also communicated with Officers that it supports a berthing fee at the new platforms, to ensure there are sufficient funds in the Busselton Jetty Maintenance Reserve to support their maintenance and provision for future replacement.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The installation of the two new marine berths at the Busselton Jetty will have two regular commercial user groups, being cruise ship tenders and whale-watching/tour vessels.

 

1.            Cruise ship tenders

 

Cruise shipping in Western Australia is a growing industry and generated $275.3 million towards the State’s economy in 2014/15 (Cruise Down Under). Over 100 cruise ships visited Western Australia in 2014/15, a 48.5 per cent increase on the previous year.  Hitherto, Busselton has capitilsed well on this emerging industry and has been successful in its efforts to collaborate with the community, industry, and government to grow interest in stopping over in Geographe Bay and disembarking passengers into the Region.  The Western Australian Cruise Shipping Strategic Plan 2012-2020 produced by Tourism Western Australia aims to maximise the economic benefits of cruise shipping to the state and identifies 10 key cruise ship destinations in the Western Australia , one of which is Busselton.  Accordingly, all other factors being equal, it is likely cruise ship visits to Busselton will continue to grow into the foreseeable future.

 

There are seven cruise ship visits already scheduled for 2015/16, a further five for 2016/17 and two pre-booked for 2017/18.  Additionally, there have been enquiries from other cruise companies and their handling agents about the opportunity to bring passengers to Busselton, with companies generally planning their vessel’s schedules up to two years in advance.  Busselton has built a solid reputation to such a level the Queen Mary 2 is scheduled to visit in February 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

2015/16 cruise ship visits/bookings

 

Date

7-Nov-15

7-Jan-16

23-Mar-16

27-Mar-16

1-May-16

3-Jun-16

27-Jun-16

Vessel

Diamond Princess

Sun Princess

Sun Princess

Dawn
 Princess

Pacific Eden

Pacific Eden

Pacific Eden

Pax capacity

2,670

1,990

1,990

1,990

1,258

1,258

1,258

Crew capacity

1,100

900

900

900

602

602

602

 

2016/17 cruise ship bookings

 

Date

6-Nov-16

9-Nov-16

19-Dec-16

6-Jan-17

13-Feb-17

Vessel

Sun Princess

Emerald Princess

Sun Princess

Sun Princess

Queen
 Mary 2

Pax capacity

1,990

3,080

1,990

1,990

2,620

Crew capacity

900

1200

900

900

1,253

 

2017/18 cruise ship bookings

 

Date

7-Oct-17

18-Oct-17

Vessel

Sun Princess

Sun Princess

Pax capacity

1,990

1,990

Crew capacity

900

900

 

Cruise ship visits have a direct financial cost to the City in two areas, namely:

­  Visitor servicing:  Planning and delivery of a warm customer focused welcome to passengers aimed at promoting positive visitor experiences, resulting in word of mouth promotion and potential repeat visitation (i.e. ‘destination sampling’) along with general management of the visit.  This budget is sourced from the commercial and industrial differential rate collected for City-wide events and marketing.

­  Berthing Infrastructure:  $1.2 million has been committed to two new marine berthing platforms, which will also provide social and recreational benefits as well as economic benefits from tourism diversification.  This has been partly funded with a $600k Federal Government grant.  The City’s Engineering and Works directorate advises around $24k per annum would ideally be set aside for asset replacement and general maintenance.  These funds are to be sourced from the Busselton Jetty and Maintenance Reserve.

 

Currently, cruise ship tender vessels are required to obtain a permit from the City to use the U shaped swim jetty which is issued at no charge for the season to the shipping company concerned. This has been a deliberate strategy to provide an incentive to use Busselton as a stop-over point. Whale watching vessels are not permitted to berth at this structure and would be unable to due to insufficient water depth. 

Other cruise ship ports/anchorage points in WA are as follows:

­  Albany (port facilities)

­  Augusta (anchorage – no visits at this time)

­  Broome (port facilities)

­  Bunbury (port facilities)

­  Busselton (anchorage)

­  Esperance (anchorage / port facilities)

­  Exmouth (anchorage)

­  Fremantle (port facilities)

­  Geraldton (anchorage)

­  Port Hedland (port facilities)

 

Fees and charges vary at destinations and are generally determined by the size of the vessel and duration of visit.  In making decisions on the choice of destination to berth, shipping companies consider profit maximization (which is based to some extent on port fees and charges along with other factors such as safety and passenger experiences at the destination).

 

For example, the Diamond Princess visiting Fremantle is charged around $42,000 for a visit, plus stevedoring charges.  Desktop research by Officers indicates the following:

­  Esperance Port has a single fee of $7,000 to set up a pontoon for the ship to tender passengers

­  Bunbury Port charges between $30,000 and $60,000 depending on the vessel.  The relative cost of berthing at Bunbury against Busselton was likely a contributing factor to the decision to relocate

­  Albany Port has a minimum fee of $9,926 and additional charges dependent on size of the ship.

­  Port Hedland and Broome Ports did not respond to requests for charges but Officers have been advised they are the most expensive in the State due to geographical location and that their primary focus is commodities, not passenger cruise ships.

­  Augusta has had no cruise ship visits to date

 

The two ports most similar to Busselton are Exmouth and Geraldton.  Both of these destinations are anchorage ports under the control of the Department of Transport, which calculates its fees at $9.93 per metre of the tender vessel plus $4.84 per passenger.  As an example, the visit of the Diamond Princess in November 2014 would have cost as follows:

­  Tender boats:  11m x $9.93 per metre = ($109.23) x 6 vessels = $655

­  Passengers: – 2,200 x $4.94 = $10,868

Total = $11,523

 

However, this income does not accrue to the local government authority, rather to the Department of Transport (DoT).  In the case of Geraldton, DoT contributes to the wage of a cruise co-ordinator, a position shared with the local visitor centre and has invested in some infrastructure on the foreshore.

 

Telephone communications with a cruise ship company representative and tourism and port authorities has resulted in conflicting messages.  There are claims that cruise ship companies are charged a fee of around $2,000 per visit at anchorage ports.  Other oral communication has suggested they do not pay fees in developed countries, only undeveloped countries to support local communities.

 

Cruise ship lines have also stated they incur additional costs at anchorage ports, including providing tenders, fuel and staff to bring passengers to shore, which offsets the need to pay berthing fees.  They also take a view that there are significant economic benefits to the host community that should be taken into consideration when considering berthing fees.  Any berthing costs would need to be passed onto passengers in the fare.

 

Due to the long lead in time of cruise schedules and the cruise lines accepting passenger payments, the companies would require a lengthy notice period if any berthing fees were to be introduced and existing schedules would need to be honored with no berthing fees incurred.

 

2.            Whale-watching/tour vessels

There are a number of commercial marine operators running tours in the Geographe Bay region. Some of these are based in Dunsborough (Quindalup professional fisherman’s boat ramp) and some are based out of Port Geographe.  Whale watching is the dominant commercial vessel use for tourists in the region. The whale watching season runs from September to December.  Commercial vessels also operate eco-tours, sunset tours and fishing charters.  These other tours are operated after the main whale migration season ends from mid-December till May.

 

Overall, vessels operate within Geographe Bay for approximately nine months between September to May, then generally move to Augusta for the remaining three months of the year.  Currently, there is a fleet of six whale watching vessels which operate, four of which also operate fishing charters as an additional activity.

 

It is estimated that these operators service around 5,000 passengers per annum.  Based on an average cost per passenger of $75 then this equates to a direct spend of $375,000 per annum but the multiplier effect would increase this significantly if food and accommodations costs are taken into account.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Given the economic benefits of cruise shipping to the district and existing cruise ship scheduling being based on there being no fees, the Officer recommendation is for Council to waive berthing fees for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years.  This will allow Council to consider potential future fees and charges beyond the current booking schedule to 2017/18.

 

Officers recommend Council considers as part of the 2016/17 budget preparation (fees and charges schedule) a fee arrangement for other commercial vessels.  This approach will also provide time for operators to re-arrange departure locations in their promotional literature and for Officers to liaise with BJECA and tour operators on a management procedure for ticketing.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may wish to incur a fee and charge immediately upon the completion of the new marine berthing platforms in February 2016 or at an alternative period which differs from the Officer recommendation.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Officers will immediately advise cruise ship operators and commercial vessels of the planned intention to introduce fees in the future and work with BJECA on a management procedure for ticketing.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Considers as part of the 2016/17 budget process (fees and charges schedule), a berthing fee for commercial tour vessels at the Busselton Jetty and the potential fee to be recommended based on further consultation with the Department of Transport and whole of life asset maintenance requirements of the new structures.

 

2.    Considers as part of the future budget preparations, a berthing fee for cruise ship tender vessels from 2017/18 (excluding vessels already booked), with the amount to be determined following further consultation with the Department of Transport, benchmarking against other anchorage ports around Australia and whole of life asset maintenance requirements of the new structures.

 

3.    Liaise with the Busselton Jetty Environment and Conservation Association Inc on a draft management procedure for ticketing whale watching/tourist vessels.

 


Council                                                                                      157                                                          9 December 2015

10.8           Finance Committee - 3/12/2015 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE - OCTOBER 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:

Financial Accountant - Ehab Gowegati

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   List of Payments Made - October 2015  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 3 December 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 October 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, 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 payment of voucher numbers M112140 – M112266, EF042773 – EF043223, T007167 – T007171, and DD002578 – DD002604; together totaling  $7,142,308.64.

 


Council

161

9 December 2015

10.8

Attachment a

List of Payments Made - October 2015

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

  


Council                                                                                      179                                                          9 December 2015

15.             Chief Executive Officer's Report

15.4           PROPOSED MEMORIAL BENCH TO REPLACE EXISTING SEATING AT SMITHS BEACH

SUBJECT INDEX:

Memorials

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Governance Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Governance Support

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Governance Services - Lynley Rich

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Proposed Options for Memorial Bench Seat at Smiths Beach

Attachment b    Proposed Location for Memorial Bench Seat at Smiths Beach  

  

PRÉCIS

 

The City has received a request from the family of a man who drowned at Smiths Beach in February, 2015 to approve the installation of a memorial bench seat to be funded and maintained by the family.  The City has received preliminary artistic drawings (attachment A) of two options for the proposed memorial bench seat, and given that both proposals are sympathetic to the natural surroundings and the chosen design will replace an existing bench seat provided by the City, the proposal is recommended for approval.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The City has historically dealt with proposals for memorial pieces on their merits on a case by case basis.  While a Council policy to guide the approvals process for such proposals has previously been considered, it was decided that a policy may encourage the proliferation of proposals for memorials, which was not considered desirable, particularly in prime coastal locations.

 

Glen Turner drowned at Smiths Beach in February 2015.  While the memorial that his family wishes to install is proposed to be placed in a prime coastal location, it is considered to be sympathetic to the natural surroundings and in keeping with the expectations of the type of infrastructure to be provided at that location.  Additionally, while essentially a piece of art, it will also be useable as a bench seat, replacing existing seating provided by the City.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Not applicable.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

While there are not any plans and policies directly applicable to this application, it is noted that there is a Council policy relating to memorial plaques on the Busselton Jetty.  In accordance with those policy provisions, it is noted that the responsibility for the ongoing maintenance of the memorial will be with the family.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Both the construction and ongoing maintenance of the proposed memorial bench will be funded by the Turner family and therefore there will not be any financial implications for the City, other than a small allocation of physical resources to oversee the removal of the existing seat and installation of the new seat.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Not applicable.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

Infrastructure assets are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations.  Maintenance will be undertaken by the family and therefore will not become a responsibility of the City.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

Reputational – concerns if memorial needs to be removed in the future

Approval conditional upon applicant being informed of this potential

Minor

Possible

Medium

Reputational – concerns relating to inconsistency if future similar applications are not approved

Clear message that proposals are considered on their merits on a case by case basis

Minor

Possible

Medium

 

CONSULTATION

 

The proposal has been submitted by the Turner family.  No other consultation has been undertaken.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Glen Turner’s family has proposed the installation of a handcrafted memorial bench seat in the shape of a surfboard to replace an existing bench seat at Smiths Beach, which is provided by the City of Busselton.  The location of the bench seat is depicted in the photographs provided as attachment B.  The family has a strong connection to Smiths Beach, always one of Glen Turner’s favourite surfing spots in the South West, and wishes to place the memorial at the location at which he last surfed.

 

The application submitted advises that the memorial bench is proposed to replace an existing bench seat located on the lower viewing platform at Smiths Beach. This platform is located between the wooden walkway leading from the main car park and the top of the staircase which leads down to the beach itself. The proposed bench seat would be in the shape of a surfboard, with no sharp or pointed edges, made of solid wood, designed and constructed to withstand the harsh coastal environment, and the horizontal, surfboard-part of the bench seat would be fixed to legs.

 

The bench seat would be at standard height, approximate length and width would be 2500-3500mm x 400-500mm and it would be securely fastened to the existing platform to prevent theft. A metal (marine grade stainless steel) memorial plaque is also proposed to be fixed to the decking, placed just to the right of the bench seat (when looking at the seat), facing away from it towards the entrance of the platform so that it is viewable when walking into the platform area from the walkway. It is proposed that the plaque would be of approximately A4 size, in landscape orientation, and placed on a wooden backing (secured to the decking) at a 30 degree angle.

 

Officers consider the proposed designs to both be sympathetic to the natural surroundings and in keeping with the expectations of the type of infrastructure to be provided at the Smiths Beach location.  Additionally, while essentially a piece of art, the chosen design will also be useable as a bench seat, replacing existing seating provided by the City.  The proposal is therefore recommended for approval.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is recommended that both the ‘Last Wave’ and ‘Malibu’ designs for a memorial bench in honour of Glen Turner are approved.  Only one will be installed, with the final design proposed to be subject to a decision by the family.

 

OPTIONS

 

The family has presented two options and is seeking approval for both to enable them to make a final decision on the design on the basis of costs and preference.  The Council may determine that it prefers one design and only approve that one, or the application could be declined.  If the application is approved, the Council may also consider it necessary to require changes to the size or location of the associated proposed plaque.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The Council’s decision will be communicated to the Turner family as soon as practicable to enable them to commission the piece and have it installed in time for the first anniversary of Glen Turner’s death.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Approves the installation of a memorial bench seat in the design of the ‘Last Wave’ or ‘Malibu’ and associated plaque on the lower viewing platform at Smiths Beach, subject to the costs of commissioning, installation and ongoing maintenance of the bench seat and plaque being the responsibility of the Turner family.

 

2.    Advises the Turner family that if the bench seat and plaque are not appropriately maintained they may be removed at the absolute discretion of the City of Busselton.

 

3.    Advises the Turner family that in the event that the infrastructure to which the memorial is fixed requires replacement, removal or significant remodeling, the memorial bench seat and plaque may be removed at the absolute discretion of the City of Busselton.

 


Council

181

9 December 2015

15.4

Attachment a

Proposed Options for Memorial Bench Seat at Smiths Beach

 


Council

183

9 December 2015

15.4

Attachment b

Proposed Location for Memorial Bench Seat at Smiths Beach