COB-RGB

 

 

 

 

 

Council  Agenda

 

 

 

10 August 2016

 

 

 

 

 

ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

 

 

 


CITY OF BUSSELTON

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA – 10 August 2016

 

 

 

TO:                  THE MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

 

 

NOTICE is given that a meeting of the Council will be held in the Meeting Room One, Community Resource Centre, 21 Cammilleri Street, Busselton on Wednesday, 10 August 2016, commencing at 5.30pm.

 

Your attendance is respectfully requested.

 

 

 

Mike Archer

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

29 July 2016


CITY OF BUSSELTON

Agenda FOR THE Council  MEETING TO BE HELD ON 10 August 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors. 6

2....... Attendance. 6

3....... Prayer. 6

4....... Public Question Time. 6

5....... Announcements Without Discussion.. 6

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

7....... Petitions and Presentations. 6

8....... Disclosure Of Interests. 6

9....... Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes. 6

Previous Council Meetings. 6

9.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 27 July 2016. 6

9.2          Minutes of the Special Council Meeting held 21 July 2016. 6

Committee Meetings. 7

9.3          Minutes of the Policy & Legislation Committee Meeting held 21 July 2016. 7

9.4          Minutes of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee Meeting held 26 July 2016. 7

9.5          Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 27 July 2016. 7

10..... Reports of Committee. 8

10.1        Policy and Legislation Committee - 21/07/2016 - BUSSELTON & DUNSBOROUGH CENTRES FACADE REFURBISHMENT SUBSIDY PROGRAMME APPLICATION: DEPEL PTY LTD, IVAN NASH & BARRY WALSH.. 8

10.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 21/07/2016 - REVIEW OF FEES, ALLOWANCES AND EXPENSES FOR ELECTED MEMBERS POLICY. 34

10.3        Airport Advisory Committee - 27/07/2016 - BUSSELTON-MARGARET RIVER REGIONAL AIRPORT CONCEPT PLAN - STAGE 2AEO.. 48

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

11.1        PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 'DUNSBOROUGH LAKES ESTATE DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN (2015)' 54

11.2        AMENDMENT 23 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME 21 - INTRODUCING A 'RESIDENTIAL' ZONING OVER UNZONED PORTIONS OF PT LOT 9507 LAYMAN ROAD, GEOGRAPHE  - CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION.. 70

11.3        APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR USE NOT LISTED (AGRICULTURE AND MACHINERY SALES AND REPAIRS) AT LOT 1 (4850) BUSSELL HIGHWAY, REINSCOURT. 79

11.4        APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSENT FOR SMALL PRIVATE HOSPITAL AT 48 ROY ROAD, METRICUP. 98

11.5        PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BUSHFIRE NOTICE COMPLIANCE DATES. 143

11.6        DA15/0340 - USE NOT LISTED (OFFENSIVE OR HAZARDOUS INDUSTRY - CRUSHING AND RECYCLING OF BUILDING MATERIAL). 146

12..... Engineering and Works Services Report. 257

12.1        AWARD OF TENDER RFT07/16 - PEST & WEED CONTROL SERVICES. 257

12.2        PETITION RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR FOOTPATH ON AMBERLEY LOOP, DUNSBOROUGH.. 262

13..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 292

13.1        2016/17 COMMUNITY BID ROUND ONE ALLOCATIONS. 292

14..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 301

14.1        PROPOSAL TO VEST INCREASED AREA OF LAND TO THE ACTON PARK & DISTRICT COMMUNITY HALL INC. 301

14.2        SURF LIFE SAVING WA PROPOSED LEASE OF STORAGE SHED RESERVE 37300. 306

15..... Chief Executive Officer's Report. 311

15.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 311

16..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 324

17..... Confidential Reports. 324

17.1        Airport Advisory Committee - 27/07/2016 - BUSSELTON-MARGARET RIVER REGIONAL AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE GROUP

17.2        BUSSELTON FORESHORE REDEVELOPMENT: PROPOSED FAMILY RESTAURANT/MICROBREWERY/FUNCTION CENTRE (PORTION OF RESERVE 38558)

17.3        DETERIORATION OF A HERITAGE PLACE (PHOEBE ABBEY'S HOUSE) - CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS

18..... Questions from Members. 324

19..... Public Question Time. 324

20..... Next Meeting Date. 324

21..... Closure. 324

 


Council                                                                                      5                                                                    10 August 2016

 

1.               Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors

2.               Attendance 

Apologies

Approved Leave of Absence

 

Nil

3.               Prayer

The Parayer will be delivered by Luke Fulton of Dunsborough Community Church.

4.               Public Question Time

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice 

Public Question Time

5.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member 

Announcements by other Members at the invitation of the Presiding Member

6.               Application for Leave of Absence

7.               Petitions and Presentations 

8.               Disclosure Of Interests

9.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes 

Previous Council Meetings

9.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 27 July 2016

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Council  Meeting held 27 July 2016 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

9.2             Minutes of the Special Council Meeting held 21 July 2016

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Special  Council  Meeting held 21 July 2016 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 


 

Committee Meetings

9.3             Minutes of the Policy & Legislation Committee Meeting held 21 July 2016

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)    That the minutes of the Policy & Legislation Committee Meeting held 21 July 2016 be received.

 

2)    That the Council notes the outcomes from the Policy & Legislation Committee Meeting held 21 July 2016 being:

 

a)    The Busselton & Dunsborough Centres Facade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme Application: Depel Pty Ltd, Ivan Nash & Barry Walsh item is presented for Council consideration at item 10.1 of this agenda.

 

b)    The Review of Fees, Allowances and Expenses for Elected Members Policy item is presented for Council consideration at item 10.2 of this agenda.

 

c)    The general discussion item on Planning Delegations is noted

 

9.4             Minutes of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee Meeting held 26 July 2016

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)    That the minutes of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee Meeting held 26 July 2016 be received.

 

2)    That the Council notes the outcomes from the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee Meeting held 26 July 2016 being:

 

a)    The Meelup Regional Park Specific Event Conditions item is noted.

 

9.5             Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 27 July 2016

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)    That the minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 27 July 2016 be received.

 

2)    That the Council notes the outcomes from the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 27 July 2016 being:

 

a)    The Busselton-Margaret River Regional Airport Concept Plan - Stage 2AEO item is presented for council consideration at item 10.3 of this agenda.

 

b)    The Busselton-Margaret River Regional Airport Consultative Group item is presented for council consideration at item 17.1 of this agenda.

 

 


Council                                                                                      11                                                                 10 August 2016

10.             Reports of Committee

10.1           Policy and Legislation Committee - 21/07/2016 - BUSSELTON & DUNSBOROUGH CENTRES FACADE REFURBISHMENT SUBSIDY PROGRAMME APPLICATION: DEPEL PTY LTD, IVAN NASH & BARRY WALSH

SUBJECT INDEX:

City Centre Facade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Services and Policy

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Statutory Planning

REPORTING OFFICER:

Planning Officer - Stephanie Izzard

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Location Plans

Attachment b    Depel Pty Ltd Proposal

Attachment c    Ivan Nash Proposal

Attachment d   Al Forno/Barry Walsh Proposal

Attachment e    Busselton and Dunsborough Centres Facade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 21 July 2016, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is asked to consider three applications received for the Busselton and Dunsborough Centres Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme in accordance with the programme guidelines adopted.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Council resolved on 13 March 2013 to trial a programme for the 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial years by allocating $20,000 in the 2013/14 financial year and $50,000 in the 2014/15 financial year towards a façade refurbishment subsidy programme. On 29 January 2014 Council adopted the Busselton City Centre Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme and on 10 December 2014 resolved to add a portion of the Dunsborough Town Centre to the ‘eligible area.’ The amended programme, now called the Busselton and Dunsborough Centres Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme, is provided at Attachment E.  

 

The City undertook a round of invitation for expressions of interest for the 2016/2017 round of funding, which closed on 9 July 2016. Three applications were received which are the subject of this report, one in the Dunsborough Town Centre and two in the Busselton City Centre. Location Plans of the applications received is provided at Attachment A

 

The applications received are as follows:

 

1.            Depel Pty Ltd - Lots 1, 2 and 3 (245) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough

 

The application proposes to upgrade the shop front windows of Lots 1, 2 and 3 (245) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough. The façade extends across three stores currently used for retail purposes. The application is to replace the narrow paneled windows of all three shops with single pane windows. Attachment B shows a picture of the existing façade and proposed new windows applied for as part of the subsidy application. This application was previously not supported by the Council as part of the second funding round in early 2015. The applicant is requesting that the Council reconsider the same proposal as part of this year’s funding round.

 

2.            Ivan Nash - Lots 1 – 4 (20 -26) Queen Street, Busselton

 

This application is for an awning addition which will extend along the frontages of Lots 1 – 4 (20 -26) Queen Street, Busselton. The front facade of the building is setback 2.4m from the front property boundary. Currently, there is an existing awning which extends from the front of the building to the front property boundary. The proposed awning will replace this structure and will extend an additional 2.6m beyond the front property boundary over the footpath in front of the property. The development has been designed to allow for the future expansion of the building to bring it in line with the front property boundary. This expansion will form part of future works on the site and does not form part of this proposal. Attachment C shows a picture of the existing façade and proposed new awning applied for as part of the subsidy application

 

3.            Al Forno/Barry Walsh - Lot 131 (49) Queen Street, Busselton

 

This application proposes to replace the existing fixed windows of Lot 131 (49) Queen Street, Busselton with bi-fold doors, fixed panels as well as replace the existing door. Attachment D shows a picture of the existing façade and proposed new bi-fold doors and fixed panels applied for as part of the subsidy application. The modifications to the tenancy are to accommodate a new café which is to be a subsidiary of Al Forno on Bussell Highway. It is proposed that this site will operate in addition to the existing premise. The modifications to the front façade will allow for the portion of the tenancy along the front boundary to open on to a possible future alfresco dining area. The City is currently working with the operator of the business to discuss option regarding alfresco dining at the premise.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

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

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

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

 

The programme specifies an ‘eligible area’ and ‘eligible’ works which will be considered for subsidy funding.

 

In determining applications for inclusion within the Programme the following criteria are to be taken into consideration:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

A budget of $50,000 for the subsidy programme is provided for in the draft City budget for the 2016/2017 financial year.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendations of this report reflect Community Objective 2.2 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 – ‘A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework, and no risks identified where the residual risk, once controls are considered, is medium or greater.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Expressions of interest were sought from 9 May 2016 to 9 July 2016. Three applications were received.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The applications are to be assessed against the Busselton and Dunsborough Centres Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme. All applications are within the eligible areas of the programme which the City has identified as a priority for upgrades. The programme identifies works which will be considered as eligible for funding and excludes works such as general maintenance, which should be occurring regularly without the programme as ‘ineligible’ for subsidy funding.

 

The following provides an assessment of the works and consistency with the programme guidelines.

 

1.            Depel Pty Ltd - Lots 1, 2 and 3 (245) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough

 

The applicant has applied for a subsidy contribution for the works summarised below:

 

Works Proposed

Quotation (ex GST)

Eligible or Ineligible works

Amount

(ex GST)

1.    Replace shop front windows, doors and glazing to all three shops

$13,828.55

Eligible – The modification or creation of windows to provide interaction with the streetscape is considered eligible works.

$13,828.55

Total Expenditure (ex GST)

$13,828.55

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

$4,141.30

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

 

·    Comply with the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and will bring the site into compliance with the disable access requirements of the Building Code of Australia;

·    The works proposed as part of the façade upgrade will visually improve the façade and view of the building from the streetscape; will promote interaction with the streetscape by improving the visibility into the shop fronts and create a shop front which is functional.

 

It is noted that the application was previously not supported by the Council on the basis that the works were not consistent with the objectives and assessment criteria of the Busselton and Dunsborough Centres Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme. However, it is considered that the proposed façade works are functional, will ensure compliance with disabled access for older buildings and are consistent with the façade subsidy programme guidelines and assessment criteria.

 

 It is recommended that subsidy funding of up to $4,141.30 be provided.

 

2.            Ivan Nash - Lots 1 – 4 (20 -26) Queen Street, Busselton

 

The applicant has applied for a subsidy contribution for the works summarised below:

 

Works Proposed

Quotation (ex GST)

Eligible or Ineligible works

Amount

(ex GST)

Install awning

$10,000

Eligible – The installation of an awning is considered eligible works.

$40,000.00

Total Expenditure (ex GST)

$40,000.00

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

$17,500.00

 

A development application for the proposal has been approved by the City under Delegated Authority. It was considered that the proposal met the applicable requirements of the City of Busselton Local Planning Policy 4C – Busselton Town Centre Urban Design Centre Provision in that it provides a pedestrian shelter for the full width of the lot frontage. Despite being consistent with the relevant planning requirements, it is considered that the design of the development will not adequately contribute to the streetscape or provide enough visual interest to be funded by this programme.

It is recommended that the subsidy funding of up to $17,500.00 not be provided.

 

3.            Al Forno/Barry Walsh - Lot 131 (49) Queen Street, Busselton

 

The applicant has applied for a subsidy contribution for the works summarised below:

 

Works Proposed

Quotation (ex GST)

Eligible or Ineligible works

Amount

(ex GST)

Materials and construction of bi-fold doors, fixed panels as well as replace the existing door

$15,856.00

Eligible – Materials and construction of bi-fold doors, fixed panels as well as replace the existing door

$15,856.00

Installation of shop front

$1,560.00

Eligible – Installation of shop front

$1,560.00

Total Expenditure (ex GST)

$17,416.00

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

$6,208.00

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

 

·    Comply with the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21;

·    The works proposed as part of the façade upgrade will visually improve the façade and view of the building from the streetscape; will promote interaction with the streetscape.

It is recommended that subsidy funding of up to $6,208.00 be provided.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is considered by Officers that proposals 1 and 3 comply with the Busselton and Dunsborough Centres Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme and it is recommended that the subsidy funding of $4,141.30 and $6,208.00, respectively, be supported. It is considered by Officers that proposal 2 does not comply with the Busselton and Dunsborough Centres Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme and it is recommended that the funding to the amount of $17,500.00 not be provided.

 

OPTIONS

 

Should the Council consider that proposal 1 and/or 3 is not consistent with the programme guidelines objectives and assessment criteria, it may resolve to:

 

1.    Recommend not to provide subsidy funding for the works.

 

Should the Council consider that proposal 2 is consistent with the programme guidelines objectives and assessment criteria, it may resolve to:

 

2.    Recommend to provide subsidy funding for the works.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The officer recommendation if supported will require the applicant to enter into a legal agreement with the City to complete the works and arrange for the subsidy funding to be paid prior to the end of the 2016/17 financial year.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council resolve:

 

1.         That the application to upgrade the façade of Lots 1, 2 and 3 (245) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough is consistent with the objectives and assessment criteria of the Busselton and Dunsborough Centres Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme and to contribute $4,141.30 towards the works.

 

2.         That the application for an awning addition at Lots 1 – 4 (20 – 26) Queen Street, Busselton is not consistent with the objectives and assessment criteria of the Busselton and Dunsborough Centres Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme and is therefore not supported.

 

3.         That the application to upgrade the façade of Lot 131 (49) Queen Street, Busselton, is consistent with the objectives and assessment criteria of the Busselton and Dunsborough Centres Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme and to contribute $6,208.00 towards the works.

 

4.         To enter into a legal agreement with the owners of the property in the successful application in Resolution 1 and 3 to provide for the payment of funds once the works are completed to the City’s satisfaction and final costs substantiated. The legal agreement shall include the requirements for appropriate recognition of the City’s contribution to the City’s satisfaction.

 

Note:                 The Committee was of the opinion that proposal 1 for Lots 1, 2 and 3 (245) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough was not consistent with programme and would therefore not be supported.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council resolve:

 

1.         That the application to upgrade the façade of Lots 1, 2 and 3 (245) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough is not consistent with the objectives and assessment criteria of the Busselton and Dunsborough Centres Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme and therefore is not supported.

 

2.         That the application for an awning addition at Lots 1 – 4 (20 – 26) Queen Street, Busselton is not consistent with the objectives and assessment criteria of the Busselton and Dunsborough Centres Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme and is therefore not supported.

 

3.         That the application to upgrade the façade of Lot 131 (49) Queen Street, Busselton, is consistent with the objectives and assessment criteria of the Busselton and Dunsborough Centres Façade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme and to contribute $6,208.00 towards the works.

 

4.         To enter into a legal agreement with the owners of the property in the successful application in Resolution 3 to provide for the payment of funds once the works are completed to the City’s satisfaction and final costs substantiated. The legal agreement shall include the requirements for appropriate recognition of the City’s contribution to the City’s satisfaction.

 


Council

13

10 August 2016

10.1

Attachment a

Location Plans

 


 


Council

17

10 August 2016

10.1

Attachment b

Depel Pty Ltd Proposal

 


 


 


 


Council

19

10 August 2016

10.1

Attachment c

Ivan Nash Proposal

 


 



 


Council

23

10 August 2016

10.1

Attachment d

Al Forno/Barry Walsh Proposal

 



 


Council

31

10 August 2016

10.1

Attachment e

Busselton and Dunsborough Centres Facade Refurbishment Subsidy Programme

 


 


 


 


 


 



Council                                                                                      39                                                                 10 August 2016

10.2           Policy and Legislation Committee - 21/07/2016 - REVIEW OF FEES, ALLOWANCES AND EXPENSES FOR ELECTED MEMBERS POLICY

SUBJECT INDEX:

Councillors

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Governance Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Council and Councillor Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Governance Services - Lynley Rich

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Existing Fees, Allowances and Expenses Policy  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 21 July 2016, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The City of Busselton was recently increased to a Band 1 local government by the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal (SAT), requiring the updating of the policy in relation to fees, allowances and expenses.  All Councillors are entitled to a fee for attending Council and Committee meetings and a range of other reimbursements, while the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are also eligible for an allowance for the performance of those duties. 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The policy was last reviewed in 2014 as no adjustments were made by the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal in 2015.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Division 8 of Part 5 of the Local Government Act 1995 establishes the entitlement of elected members to receive allowances and to be reimbursed for costs incurred in the performance of their duties.  The actual allowances, or range of allowances, is established by the SAT in Local Government Elected Council Members Determinations.

 

In accordance with the Act, any decision to pay elected members an annual allowance instead of a fee per meeting and any decision to pay an allowance to a Deputy Mayor, requires an absolute majority.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The information relating to the banding and the amounts of the allowances has been removed from the policy and it is proposed that this will be included in a schedule after the adoption of the City’s annual budget.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The draft budget was developed with the capacity to increase allowances into the Band 1 range. 

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

The Long-term Financial Plan provides for the payments to which elected members are entitled.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Strategic Community Plan includes the community objective of having an effectively managed organisation that achieves positive outcomes for the community.  One of the key ways for this to occur is to provide financial recognition of the extensive responsibilities performed by elected members.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Not required for this policy review.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The actual levels of fees and allowances within the relevant band are established through the annual budget development process.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The City of Busselton was recently increased to Band 1 by the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal.  Meeting fees made available to elected members need to be set within the Band established by the tribunal.  Other allowances are also provided for in order to enable elected members to perform their role effectively.  These are all described in the policy.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The policy is presented for updating, noting that the Absolute Majority is required in order to pay an annual allowance and to establish the percentage of the Mayor’s allowance to which the Deputy Mayor will be entitled.

 

OPTIONS

 

Other changes to the policy can be considered, however, the budget has been developed in accordance with the allowances described, such as clothing and travel reimbursement.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The Band 1 determination requires fees to be available within that band from 1 July, 2016.  As elected members are paid in arrears, payments will be adjusted accordingly from that time.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council adopts the updated Fees, Allowances and Expenses policy:

 

001

Fees, Allowances and Expenses for Elected Members

V8 Draft

 

 


 

1.            PURPOSE

 

In accordance with Division 8 of Part 5 of the Local Government Act 1995 elected members are entitled to receive a fee for meeting attendance, be reimbursed for expenses and/or be paid an allowance for certain types of expenses.  Certain payments are an automatic entitlement in accordance with the Act, while others require specific local government approval.  The Fees, Allowances and Expenses for Elected Members policy provides the approval framework under which all fees, allowances and reimbursements to elected members will be made.

 

2.            SCOPE

 

"Elected member" - Any person who holds the office of Councillor on the Council of the City of Busselton, including the Mayor and Deputy Mayor;

 

Schedule” – Information describing the current Local Government Band Allocation and fees and allowances established within that Band in accordance with any Local Government Elected Council Members Determination under the Salaries and Allowances Act 1975.

 

The Fees, Allowances and Expenses for Elected Members policy is to apply to the purchase of all local government-owned equipment for the specific and individual use of an elected member, the reimbursement of any expenses incurred by an elected member in the performance of their functions and duties, and fees and allowances provided to all elected members.

 

This policy provides the approval framework to enable the provision of equipment and certain payments to be made to elected members to enable them to carry out their role as an elected member effectively.  All matters approved in this policy are in accordance with the relevant legislation and determinations, being the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government Elected Council Members Determinations in accordance with the Salaries and Allowances Act 1975.

 

3.            POLICY CONTENT

 

3.1           Elected members

 

3.1.1       Provision of equipment

 

Without limiting the application of any other clause in this policy, the local government will provide to elected members of the City of Busselton access to resources to enable them to carry out their duties efficiently and effectively.  In accordance with Section 3.1 of the Local Government Act 1995, in order to provide for the good government of persons in the District, any newly elected member will have the opportunity to be furnished with the following equipment:

·    A standard-issue mobile telephone;

·    A standard City-owned laptop computer or tablet that will be upgraded from time to time, inclusive of standard equipment associated with the day-to-day use of the laptop computer or tablet.

 

The laptop computer or tablet provided remains at all times the property of the City of Busselton. Any mobile telephone purchased in accordance with this policy can be retained by the elected member at the completion of their term of office if they serve a minimum of 12 months as an elected member.

 


 

3.1.2       Meeting attendance fees

 

An elected member is entitled to receive an annual fee for attending Council and Committee meetings in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995.  This payment is in lieu of any entitlement established for a fee per meeting under that Act.

 

The annual fee will be established during the annual budget process within  the Band established in the relevant Local Government Elected Council Members Determination . 

The annual meeting attendance fee is full and final satisfaction of an elected member's meeting entitlements and no other claims can be made for attendance at meetings, with the exception that an elected member's expenses incurred for travelling to and from the meeting can be reimbursed in accordance with clause 3.1.5 of this policy or childcare expenses incurred can be reimbursed in accordance with clause 3.1.4 of this policy. 

 

Meeting attendance fees will be paid monthly or quarterly in arrears.  The fee will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for any elected member who commences or ceases office during the month or quarter.  Upon commencement of office, elected members, for the purposes of budget development, will be requested to indicate whether it is their intention to claim meeting attendance fees and their preferred payment method.  Nothing in the relevant legislation or this policy prevents an elected member from changing their intention at any time.

 

3.1.3       Information and Communications Technology allowance

 

In accordance with the relevant Local Government Elected Council Members Determination, all elected members are eligible to claim an annual information and communications technology allowance the amount of which will be included in the Schedule.  This allowance is to cover an elected member's costs in relation to the following equipment and services:

·    Telephone rental charges;

·    Any other expenses that relate to information and communications technology, for example telephone call charges and internet service provider fees, and that are a kind of expense prescribed by regulation 32(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

 

The information and communications technology allowance will be paid monthly or quarterly in arrears.  The allowance will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for any elected member who commences or ceases office during the month or quarter.  Upon commencement of office, elected members, for the purposes of budget development, will be requested to indicate whether it is their intention to claim the information and communications technology allowance and their preferred payment method.  Nothing in the relevant legislation or this policy prevents an elected member from changing their intention at any time.

 

3.1.4       Reimbursement of childcare expenses

 

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 an elected member who incurs childcare expenses due to their attendance at a Council meeting or a meeting of a formally constituted Council Committee of which they are a member is entitled to be reimbursed.  The extent to which the childcare expenses incurred will be reimbursed will be in accordance with the relevant Local Government Elected Council Members Determination.  For the purposes of this section, the number of hours claimed shall be limited to the actual length of the meeting, with a nominal time allowance for partaking in refreshments and travel to and from the place of care.

 

3.1.5      Reimbursement of travel expenses

 

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 an elected member who incurs expenses to travel to a Council meeting or a meeting of a formally constituted Council Committee of which they are a member is entitled to be reimbursed.  Elected members can also be reimbursed for other types of travel in accordance with Regulation 32 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.  The extent to which travel expenses can be reimbursed is in accordance with the Public Service Award 1992.  The following list represents the meetings and events at which the attendance of an elected member is required for which the elected member will be able to claim reimbursement in accordance with the Public Service Award 1992 for incurring travel expenses.

·    Council meetings - ordinary and special;

·    Committee meetings of a formally constituted Council committee of which they are a member or a deputy member acting in the capacity of a member;

·    Electors' meetings - annual general and special;

·     Civic receptions hosted by the City of Busselton;

·    Visits by Ministers of the Crown;

·    Inspection tours of matters arising before the Council;

·    Any City-convened meeting requiring elected member attendance, including briefing sessions, workshops and other forums;

·    Elected member training courses;

·    Officially convened meetings with ratepayers;

·    Attendance at community functions with a formal invitation as an elected member;

·    Seminars and conferences attended in the capacity of an elected member;

·    Meetings of community groups or other external organisations of which the elected member has been appointed the Council's representative by Council resolution (except where the other body pays the elected member for meeting attendance and/or travel eg ministerial appointment to State Advisory Boards).

 

The reimbursement will be made available to the elected member on the receipt of a certified claim form and in accordance with the rates set out in the Public Service Award 1992.  Nothing in this section prevents an elected member from utilising a City-owned motor vehicle for the types of travel approved under this section and this is encouraged where practical for the elected member's purposes.  Subject to the approval of the Chief Executive Officer, the elected member is entitled to use the City-owned motor vehicle for travel for personal reasons during the time when the vehicle is being used for City purposes, provided such use does not go beyond use of a minor incidental nature.  Where a City vehicle is utilised, the travel reimbursement or travel allowance cannot be claimed.

 

3.1.6       Reimbursement of expenses while away from home on sanctioned activities

 

Expenses incurred for conferences, training, seminars and similar occasions requiring an elected member to stay overnight away from their place of residence will be reimbursed to the elected member or paid directly by the City in accordance with the following guidelines.

 

Air travel and accommodation will be arranged and paid for by the City in consultation with the elected member and the key considerations will be cost effectiveness and for accommodation also proximity to the location at which the conference, training, seminar or similar occasion is being held.

 

While staying in the accommodation provided by the City for the purpose of enabling attendance at the approved conference, training or seminar, the expenses to be met by the City will be:

 

Expenses and Restrictions

Elected Member

Spouse

Laundry > 2 nights

Y

Y

Taxi fares or other public transport - only where these directly relate to the activity and no other transport is provided

Y

Y

Daily sustenance per day allowance in accordance with the Public Service Award 1992 (1)

Y

N

Specific conference related dinners/meals

Y

Y

(1) Limited authority exists (refer to Mayor for prior approval) to purchase alcohol for networking purposes in a similar manner to the way the Council offers community members an invitation to share a drink after a Council meeting.

 

3.1.7       Reimbursement of other expenses

 

3.1.7.1    Reimbursement of hospitality expenses

 

Elected members may seek reimbursement of the reasonable costs of beverages or snack items provided during any meeting or networking opportunity that relates to City activities, subject to the provision of receipts to the CEO.

 

3.1.7.2   Corporate attire reimbursement

 

Each elected member is eligible to claim up to $1,000 reimbursement for the purchase of corporate attire, which may include a brief case or travel case.  Payment will be made on the production of receipts for clothing, shoes or a case, but will be limited to $500 for the period November to April and a further $500 for the period May to October. 

 

3.2          Mayor

 

3.2.1       Mayoral allowance

 

In addition to their entitlements as an elected member under Section 3.1 of this policy, the Mayor is eligible for a Mayoral allowance in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995.  In accordance with the relevant Local Government Elected Council Members Determination the Mayor of the City of Busselton shall be paid an allowance within the Band established, payable monthly or quarterly in arrears. 

 

The allowance will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for any Mayor who commences or ceases office during the month or quarter.  Upon commencement of office, the Mayor, for the purposes of budget development, will be requested to indicate whether it is their intention to claim a Mayoral allowance and their preferred payment method.  Nothing in the relevant legislation or this policy prevents the Mayor from changing their intention at any time.

 

3.2.2       Provision of a City-owned vehicle

 

The Mayor shall be provided with a City-owned motor vehicle for use in his or her official capacity.  The Mayor is entitled to use the City-owned motor vehicle for travel for personal reasons during the time when the vehicle is being used for City purposes, provided such use does not go beyond use of a minor incidental nature.  Nothing in this section prevents the vehicle from being utilised in accordance with City fleet guidelines by other elected members or officers with the agreement of the Mayor.

 

3.3          Deputy Mayor

 

3.3.1       Deputy Mayor's allowance

 

In addition to their entitlements as an elected member under Section 3.1 of this policy, the Deputy Mayor may be paid a Deputy Mayor's allowance in accordance the Local Government Act 1995.  In accordance with the relevant Local Government Elected Council Members Determinationthe Deputy Mayor can be paid up to 25% of the Mayoral allowance.  The Deputy Mayor of the City of Busselton shall be paid the maximum percentage of the Mayoral allowance of 25%, payable monthly or quarterly in arrears. 

The allowance will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for any Deputy Mayor who commences or ceases office during the month or quarter.  Upon commencement of office, the Deputy Mayor, for the purposes of budget development, will be requested to indicate whether it is their intention to claim a Deputy Mayor's allowance and their preferred payment schedule.  Nothing in the relevant legislation or this policy prevents the Deputy Mayor from changing their intention at any time.

 

4.            APPLICATION OF THE POLICY

 

Any request for reimbursement in accordance with the relevant clauses of this policy must be accompanied by an original supplier receipt. 

 

Policy Background

 

Policy Reference No. - 001

Owner Unit – Governance

Originator – Manager, Governance Services

Policy approved by – Council

Date Approved –  For consideration

Review Frequency – As required following determinations

Related Documents –

Local Government Act 1995

Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996

Local Government Elected Council Members Determinations

Background/History - Initiated June 2008 to replace former policies:

                054/1 - Councillors' Travelling Expenses;

                055/1 - Attendance at Conferences, Training and Seminars;

                193 - Communications Allowances - Councillors;

212/1 - Vehicle for Use by Shire President and Councillors;

226 - Laptop Computers - Councillors and Officers;

227 - Printer Consumables.

 

History

 

Council Resolution

Date

Information

 

 

Adjustments to schedulise fees and allowances determined in accordance with any Local Government Elected Council Members Determination Version 8

C1411/292

12 November, 2014

Adjustments to recognise increases made in determinations of the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal via the Local Government Elected Council Members Determination No. 1 of 2014 

Version 7

C1307/182

10 July, 2013

Adjustments to recognise the determinations made by the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal via the Local Government Elected Council Members Determination No. 1 of 2013 

Version 6

C1206/168

27 June, 2012

Increase to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor’s allowances to maximums available under the Act; change of terminology to City / Mayor / Deputy Mayor; and removal of outdated reimbursement proposals for mobiles and internet connections

Version 5

C1111/362

23 November, 2011

Ability provided for Councillors to be remunerated monthly

Version 4

C1007/238

14 July, 2010

Clarification regarding use of the vehicle assigned to the Shire President

Version 3

C1005/157

12 May, 2010

Increase to the allowance payable to the Shire President (and therefore Deputy) to be effective from 1 July, 2010

Version 2

C0808/267

27 August, 2008

New policy to replace former policies 054/1; 055/1; 193; 212/1; 226 and 227

Version 1

 

 

 


Council

45

10 August 2016

10.2

Attachment a

Existing Fees, Allowances and Expenses Policy

 

 

001

Fees, Allowances and Expenses for Elected Members

V8 Draft7 Current 

 

 

1.            PURPOSE

 

In accordance with Division 8 of Part 5 of the Local Government Act 1995 elected members are entitled to receive a fee for meeting attendance, be reimbursed for expenses and/or be paid an allowance for certain types of expenses.  Certain payments are an automatic entitlement in accordance with the Act, while others require specific local government approval.  The Fees, Allowances and Expenses for Elected Members policy provides the approval framework under which all fees, allowances and reimbursements to elected members will be made.

 

2.            SCOPE

 

"Elected member" - Any person who holds the office of Councillor on the Council of the City of Busselton, including the Mayor and Deputy Mayor;

 

Schedule” – Information describing the current Local Government Band Allocation and fees and allowances established within that Band in accordance with any Local Government Elected Council Members Determination under the Salaries and Allowances Act 1975..

 

The Fees, Allowances and Expenses for Elected Members policy is to apply to the purchase of all local government-owned equipment for the specific and individual use of an elected member, the reimbursement of any expenses incurred by an elected member in the performance of their functions and duties, and fees and allowances provided to all elected members.

 

This policy provides the approval framework to enable the provision of equipment and certain payments to be made to elected members to enable them to carry out their role as an elected member effectively.  All matters approved in this policy are in accordance with the relevant legislation and determinations, being the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government Elected Council Members Determinations of June 2014 in accordance with the Salaries and Allowances Act 1975.

 

3.            POLICY CONTENT

 

3.1           Elected members

 

3.1.1       Provision of equipment

 

Without limiting the application of any other clause in this policy, the local government will provide to elected members of the City of Busselton access to resources to enable them to carry out their duties efficiently and effectively.  In accordance with Section 3.1 of the Local Government Act 1995, in order to provide for the good government of persons in the District, any newly elected member will have the opportunity to be furnished with the following equipment:

·    A standard-issue mobile telephone;

A standard-issue facsimile machine;

·    A standard City-owned laptop computer or tablet that will be upgraded from time to time, inclusive of standard equipment associated with the day-to-day use of the laptop computer or tablet.

 

The laptop computer or tablet provided remains at all times the property of the City of Busselton. Any mobile telephone or facsimile machine purchased in accordance with this policy can be retained by the elected member at the completion of their term of office if they serve a minimum of 12 months as an elected member.

 


3.1.2       Meeting attendance fees

 

An elected member is entitled to receive an annual fee for attending Council and Committee meetings in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995.  This payment is in lieu of any entitlement established for a fee per meeting under that Act.

 

The annual fee is $22,660 per elected member, with the exception of the Mayor, will be established during the annual budget process within in accordance with an elected member of a Band 2 local government’s maximum entitlement as the Band established in the relevant Local Government Elected Council Members Determination of June 2014For the purposes of this section, the Mayor will be entitled to receive an annual fee of $30,385 in accordance with a Mayor of a Band 2 local government’s maximum entitlement as established in the Local Government Elected Council Members Determination of June 2014.

 

The annual meeting attendance fee is full and final satisfaction of an elected member's meeting entitlements and no other claims can be made for attendance at meetings, with the exception that an elected member's expenses incurred for travelling to and from the meeting can be reimbursed in accordance with clause 3.1.5 of this policy or childcare expenses incurred can be reimbursed in accordance with clause 3.1.4 of this policy. 

 

Meeting attendance fees will be paid monthly or quarterly in arrears.  The fee will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for any elected member who commences or ceases office during the month or quarter.  Upon commencement of office, elected members, for the purposes of budget development, will be requested to indicate whether it is their intention to claim meeting attendance fees and their preferred payment schedulemethod.  Nothing in the relevant legislation or this policy prevents an elected member from changing their intention at any time.

 

3.1.3       Information and Communications Technology allowance

 

In accordance with the relevant Local Government Elected Council Members Determination of June 2014, all elected members are eligible to claim an annual information and communications technology allowance the amount of which will be included in the Schedule of $3,500.  This allowance is to cover an elected member's costs in relation to the following equipment and services:

·    Telephone rRental charges for one telephone and one facsimile;

·    Any other expenses that relate to information and communications technology, for example telephone call charges and internet service provider fees, and that are a kind of expense prescribed by regulation 32(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

 

The  information and communications technology allowance will be paid monthly or quarterly in arrears.  The allowance will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for any elected member who commences or ceases office during the month or quarter.  Upon commencement of office, elected members, for the purposes of budget development, will be requested to indicate whether it is their intention to claim the information and communications technology allowance and their preferred payment schedulemethod.  Nothing in the relevant legislation or this policy prevents an elected member from changing their intention at any time.

 

3.1.4       Reimbursement of childcare expenses

 

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 an elected member who incurs childcare expenses due to their attendance at a Council meeting or a meeting of a formally constituted Council Committee of which they are a member is entitled to be reimbursed.  The extent to which the childcare expenses incurred will be reimbursed will be, in accordance with the relevant Local Government Elected Council Members Determination. of June 2014, is the actual cost per hour or $25 per hour, whichever is the lesser amount.  For the purposes of this section, the number of hours claimed shall be limited to the actual length of the meeting, with a nominal time allowance for partaking in refreshments and travel to and from the place of care.

 

3.1.5      Reimbursement of travel expenses

 

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 an elected member who incurs expenses to travel to a Council meeting or a meeting of a formally constituted Council Committee of which they are a member is entitled to be reimbursed.  Elected members can also be reimbursed for other types of travel in accordance with Regulation 32 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.  The extent to which travel expenses can be reimbursed is in accordance with the Public Service Award 1992.  The following list represents the meetings and events at which the attendance of an elected member is required for which the elected member will be able to claim reimbursement in accordance with the Public Service Award 1992 for incurring travel expenses.

·    Council meetings - ordinary and special;

·    Committee meetings of a formally constituted Council committee of which they are a member or a deputy member acting in the capacity of a member;

·    Electors' meetings - annual general and special;

·     Civic receptions hosted by the City of Busselton;

·    Visits by Ministers of the Crown;

·    Inspection tours of matters arising before the Council;

·    Any City-convened meeting requiring elected member attendance, including briefing sessions, workshops and other forums;

·    Elected member training courses;

·    Officially convened meetings with ratepayers;

·    Attendance at community functions with a formal invitation as an elected member;

·    Seminars and conferences attended in the capacity of an elected member;

·    Meetings of community groups or other external organisations of which the elected member has been appointed the Council's representative by Council resolution (except where the other body pays the elected member for meeting attendance and/or travel eg ministerial appointment to State Advisory Boards).

 

The reimbursement will be made available to the elected member on the receipt of a certified claim form and in accordance with the rates set out in the Public Service Award 1992.  Nothing in this section prevents an elected member from utilising a City-owned motor vehicle for the types of travel approved under this section and this is encouraged where practical for the elected member's purposes.  Subject to the approval of the Chief Executive Officer, the elected member is entitled to use the City-owned motor vehicle for travel for personal reasons during the time when the vehicle is being used for City purposes, provided such use does not go beyond use of a minor incidental nature.  Where a City vehicle is utilised, the travel reimbursement or travel allowance cannot be claimed.

 

3.1.6       Reimbursement of expenses while away from home on sanctioned activities

 

Expenses incurred for conferences, training, seminars and similar occasions requiring an elected member to stay overnight away from their place of residence will be reimbursed to the elected member or paid directly by the City in accordance with the following guidelines.

 

Air travel and accommodation will be arranged and paid for by the City in consultation with the elected member and the key considerations will be cost effectiveness and for accommodation also proximity to the location at which the conference, training, seminar or similar occasion is being held.

 

While staying in the accommodation provided by the City for the purpose of enabling attendance at the approved conference, training or seminar, the expenses to be met by the City will be:

 

Expenses and Restrictions

Elected Member

Spouse

Laundry > 2 nights

Y

Y

Taxi fares or other public transport - only where these directly relate to the activity and no other transport is provided

Y

Y

Daily sustenance per day allowance in accordance with the Public Service Award 1992 (1)

Y

N

Specific conference related dinners/meals

Y

Y

(1) Limited authority exists (refer to Mayor for prior approval) to purchase alcohol for networking purposes in a similar manner to the way the Council offers community members an invitation to share a drink after a Council meeting.

 

3.1.7       Reimbursement of other expenses

 

3.1.7.1    Reimbursement of hospitality expenses

 

Elected members may seek reimbursement of the reasonable costs of beverages or snack items provided during any meeting or networking opportunity that relates to City activities, subject to the provision of receipts to the CEO.

 

3.1.7.2   Corporate attire reimbursement

 

Each elected member is eligible to claim up to $1,000 reimbursement for the purchase of corporate attire, which may include a brief case or travel case.  Payment will be made on the production of receipts for clothing, shoes or a case, but will be limited to $500 for the period November to April and a further $500 for the period May to October. 

 

3.2          Mayor

 

3.2.1       Mayoral allowance

 

In addition to their entitlements as an elected member under Section 3.1 of this policy, the Mayor is eligible for a Mayoral allowance in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995.  In accordance with the relevant Local Government Elected Council Members Determination of June 2014 the maximum entitlement for a Mayoral allowance for the Mayor of a Band 2 local government is $61,800.  Tthe Mayor of the City of Busselton shall be paid the maximum paid an allowance within the Band established, payable monthly or quarterly in arrears. 

 

The allowance will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for any Mayor who commences or ceases office during the month or quarter.  Upon commencement of office, the Mayor, for the purposes of budget development, will be requested to indicate whether it is their intention to claim a Mayoral allowance and their preferred payment schedulemethod.  Nothing in the relevant legislation or this policy prevents the Mayor from changing their intention at any time.

 

3.2.2       Provision of a City-owned vehicle

 

The Mayor shall be provided with a City-owned motor vehicle for use in his or her official capacity.  The Mayor is entitled to use the City-owned motor vehicle for travel for personal reasons during the time when the vehicle is being used for City purposes, provided such use does not go beyond use of a minor incidental nature.  Nothing in this section prevents the vehicle from being utilised in accordance with City fleet guidelines by other elected members or officers with the agreement of the Mayor.

 

3.3          Deputy Mayor

 

3.3.1       Deputy Mayor's allowance

 

In addition to their entitlements as an elected member under Section 3.1 of this policy, the Deputy Mayor may be paid a Deputy Mayor's allowance in accordance the Local Government Act 1995.  In accordance with the relevant Local Government Elected Council Members Determination of June 2014 the Deputy Mayor can be paid up to 25% of the Mayoral allowance.  The Deputy Mayor of the City of Busselton shall be paid the maximum percentage of the Mayoral allowance of 25%, payable monthly or quarterly in arrears. 

 

The allowance will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for any Deputy Mayor who commences or ceases office during the month or quarter.  Upon commencement of office, the Deputy Mayor, for the purposes of budget development, will be requested to indicate whether it is their intention to claim a Deputy Mayor's allowance and their preferred payment schedule.  Nothing in the relevant legislation or this policy prevents the Deputy Mayor from changing their intention at any time.

 

4.            APPLICATION OF THE POLICY

 

Any request for reimbursement in accordance with the relevant clauses of this policy must be accompanied by an original supplier receipt. 

 

Policy Background

 

Policy Reference No. - 001

Owner Unit – Governance

Originator – Manager, Governance Services

Policy approved by – Council

Date Approved –  For consideration

Review Frequency – As required following determinations

Related Documents –

Local Government Act 1995

Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996

Local Government Elected Council Members Determinations No. 1 of 2013

Local Government Elected Council Members Determination of June 2014

Background/History - Initiated June 2008 to replace former policies:

                054/1 - Councillors' Travelling Expenses;

                055/1 - Attendance at Conferences, Training and Seminars;

                193 - Communications Allowances - Councillors;

212/1 - Vehicle for Use by Shire President and Councillors;

226 - Laptop Computers - Councillors and Officers;

227 - Printer Consumables.

 

History

 

Council Resolution

Date

Information

 

 

Adjustments to schedulise fees and allowances determined in accordance with any Local Government Elected Council Members Determination Version 8

C1411/292

12 November, 2014

Adjustments to recognise increases made in determinations of the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal via the Local Government Elected Council Members Determination No. 1 of 2014 

Version 7

C1307/182

10 July, 2013

Adjustments to recognise the determinations made by the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal via the Local Government Elected Council Members Determination No. 1 of 2013 

Version 6

C1206/168

27 June, 2012

Increase to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor’s allowances to maximums available under the Act; change of terminology to City / Mayor / Deputy Mayor; and removal of outdated reimbursement proposals for mobiles and internet connections

Version 5

C1111/362

23 November, 2011

Ability provided for Councillors to be remunerated monthly

Version 4

C1007/238

14 July, 2010

Clarification regarding use of the vehicle assigned to the Shire President

Version 3

C1005/157

12 May, 2010

Increase to the allowance payable to the Shire President (and therefore Deputy) to be effective from 1 July, 2010

Version 2

C0808/267

27 August, 2008

New policy to replace former policies 054/1; 055/1; 193; 212/1; 226 and 227

Version 1

 


Council                                                                                      49                                                                 10 August 2016

10.3           Airport Advisory Committee - 27/07/2016 - BUSSELTON-MARGARET RIVER REGIONAL AIRPORT CONCEPT PLAN - STAGE 2AEO

SUBJECT INDEX:

Busselton-Margaret River Airport

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Community and 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   Stage 2AEO Concept Plan

Attachment b    Revised Stage 2AEO Concept Plan  

 

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 27 July 2016, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

On 9 December 2015 Council endorsed (C1512/366) the Busselton-Margaret River Regional Airport (BMRRA) Concept and Staging Plan as an informing document to the BMRRA Airport Master Plan (2016-2036).  This led to the finalization and subsequent endorsement (C1604/075) of the Master Plan as a guide for future planning.  Since this time, significant progress has been made on the BMRRA Development Project, including the further refinement of concept and staging plans.  This report summarises the main changes to the concept and staging plan.

 

BACKGROUND

 

In 2011 the City of Busselton completed the Busselton Regional Airport Master Plan (2011-2031) outlining future opportunities for growth and development.  Since then, the City of Busselton has progressed a considerable number of studies in conjunction with the South West Development Commission (SWDC) resulting in the submission of a State Government Business Case to redevelop the Busselton Regional Airport (BRA).  The Business Case considered three development options; stage 1 (current intrastate services), stage 2 (future domestic services), and stage 2a (future short haul international services). 

 

In June 2015 the City was awarded funding of $55.95m to complete stage 2.  Following this, the City undertook a review of the BRA Master Plan (2011-2031) which included the development of a ‘Concept and Staging Plan’ that was endorsed by Council (C1512/366) as a key informant to the revised Master Plan.  This further led to the completion of the BMRRA Master Plan (2016-2036) and subsequent Council endorsement (C1604/075) of the Plan as a guide for future planning.

 

In parallel to the Master Plan review, in March 2016 a funding application was submitted to the Commonwealth Government’s National Stronger Regions Fund to progress the project to international status, with a focus on international freight and tourism.  In June 2016 the Federal Government announced funding of $9.78m towards the project should the Liberal National Party be reelected to Government.  Subject to the securing of funding, the following development stages will be achieved:

 


 

Stage 2 – (State Government funded)

The completion of the BMRA Development Project (stage 2) will provide for new alternate direct transport access into and out of the South West Region.  This will be achieved by the BMRRA being upgraded to service, at a minimum, A320/B737 Code 4C narrow body aircraft using instrument non-precision approaches, to enable domestic Regular Public Transport (RPT) and charter services to east coast destinations, as well as other aviation activities.

 

Stage 2AEO – (subject to Federal Government funding) (see attachment A)

Following the completion of stage 2, and during the 20 year planning horizon, various aviation-related enterprise opportunities are expected to arise. These opportunities will rely on infrastructure available within the scope and according to the design aircraft of the other stages.

 

Stage 2A – (subject to Federal Government funding)

Stage 2A will provide access for narrow body code 4C aircraft to international destinations such as Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Denpasar, and longer range domestic destinations such as Brisbane.

 

Due to issues associated with the realignment/undergrounding of overhead powerlines, a review of stage 2AEO has been required.  This report outlines the changes of the revised stage 2AEO concept plan as an informant to the BMRRA Master Plan (2016-2036), for Council’s noting.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The BMRRA 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 BMRRA Master Plan (2016- 2036) and BRA Statement of Intent outline the vision for the BRA redevelopment and are relevant to this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

State Government funding of $55.95m to deliver stage 2 has been incorporated into the City’s 2016/17 adopted budget, and will form part of future budgets.  The funding covers operational and capital costs associated with the project.  The Federal Government’s contribution of $9.78m is not included in the 2016/17 adopted budget as the funding is yet to be secured.  Upon execution of the funding agreement, a report will be presented to the Finance Committee to enable a budget amendment reflecting this.

 

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 1), and will require updating to reflect the project, including ongoing operational and capital revenue and expenditure based on the extent of the development (ie, stage 2, 2AEO, 2A).  This work has commenced and will be incorporated into the next LTFP review.  Further feasibility studies, forecasts and modeling will also be undertaken in due course on the opportunities associated with the potential development of landside aviation related industries on land surplus to the needs of the airport operations.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The BMRRA 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

 

A comprehensive risk assessment has been developed as part of the BMRRA Project Definition Plan.  The revised stage 2AEO concept plan was undertaken to mitigate the risks associated with the costs and timeframe associated with the undergrounding and/or realignment of the overhead powerlines.  As such, no risks are considered ‘medium’ or ‘high’ with the Officer recommendation.

 

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 State Government funding, a Project Governance Committee was 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 BMRRA Concept and Staging Plan and Master Plan review (2016) 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.

 

As part of the stage 2AEO concept plan review, consultation has been undertaken with Western Power representatives and master planner Aviation Projects.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

In April 2016 the City advertised Expressions of Interest (EoI) for the design and construction of airside infrastructure.  Through this process 10 contractors pre-qualified to tender for the work package.  Following the Project Governance Committee’s endorsement of the BMRRA Project Definition Plan (PDP), in July 2016 the City issued the Request for Tender (RFT).  Due to the uncertainty of additional funding to enable the commissioning of future stages (2AEO and 2A), Officers prepared the tender specification on the basis that the additional stages could be awarded should the existing budget, or future funding opportunities allow the infrastructure to be developed.

 

A component of the overall Development Project is the undergrounding and realignment of the existing overhead powerlines to enable the City to capitalise on airside infrastructure development opportunities, more specifically the General Aviation Precinct as part of stage 2AEO (see attachment A for existing stage 2AEO concept plan).  As part of the development of the Business Case, consultation was undertaken with Western Power to determine the undergrounding requirements and associated costings.  More recent consultation with Western Power regarding the scope of the work has determined that the proposed options are both cost and time prohibitive to the Development Project.  As such, the stage 2AEO concept plan needs to be revised to consider options for the lines to remain in situ, enabling stage 2AEO to be commissioned as part of the current tender should the existing budget, or Federal Government funding allow the infrastructure to be developed.

 

Aviation Projects was subsequently engaged to revise the stage 2AEO concept plan (see attachment B), which was issued as an addendum to the airside infrastructure tender.  The revised plan has been developed so that the existing powerlines do not impinge on the development of the General Aviation Precinct, however enables the City to continue to explore options to underground and/or realign the lines.  The revised plan also incorporates additional land to the north-west of the airport lot, reflecting the land acquisition strategy as outlined in the PDP.  In addition to this, the revised concept plan incorporates additional General Aviation capacity, and requirements of General Aviation users as identified through the master planning process.

 

As there are no fundamental changes to the revised concept plan this report is provided for Council’s information, to note the revised concept plan as an informing document to the BMRRA Master Plan (2016-2036). 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Due to the budget and time constraints of the undergrounding and/or realigning of the overhead powerlines on the BMRRA Development Project, Officers commissioned Aviation Projects to review the stage 2AEO concept plan to enable the stage to be developed without the existing powerlines adversely impacting on the project.  As a change to the BMRRA concept and staging plan, Council is requested to note the revised plan as an informing document to the BMRRA Master Plan (2016-2036).

 

OPTIONS

 

Council could choose not to accept the Officer’s recommendation, however should the revised stage 2AEO concept plan not be supported as an informing guide to the Master Plan, considerable constraints will be placed on the BMRRA Development Project, causing significant adverse impacts to the project budget and delivery timeframe.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Officers will continue to progress the BMRRA Development Project based on the revised stage 2AEO concept plan following the resolution of Council.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council notes the revised Busselton-Margaret River Airport Stage 2AEO Concept Plan (as outlined in attachment B) as an informing document to the Busselton-Margaret River Airport Master Plan (2016-2036).

 


Council

51

10 August 2016

10.3

Attachment a

Stage 2AEO Concept Plan

 

 

 



Council

53

10 August 2016

10.3

Attachment b

Revised Stage 2AEO Concept Plan

 

 


Council                                                                                      59                                                                 10 August 2016

11.             Planning and Development Services Report

11.1           PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 'DUNSBOROUGH LAKES ESTATE DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN (2015)'

SUBJECT INDEX:

Local Planning Policy (Developer Contributions)

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Strategic Planning and Development - Matthew Riordan

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Amended Dunsborough Lakes Estate Developer Contribution Plan Area

Attachment b    Amended Dunsborough Lakes Estate Developer Contribution Plan (Draft Text) 10 August 2016  

  

PRÉCIS

 

The Dunsborough Lakes Estate Developer Contributions Plan (‘the DCP’) was formally adopted by the City on 11 February 2015. The DCP relates to Lot 9033 Commonage Road, which is in the ownership of land developer Urban Quarter (formerly Wallis Property).

 

The DCP allocates all future monetary developer contributions towards ‘local’ community infrastructure; namely, the construction of a ‘shared use’ sporting oval, car parking and associated facilities on land to be ceded to the City by Urban Quarter beforehand (together with the adjoining Dunsborough Lakes Primary School site).

 

It is proposed to now amend the DCP to incorporate four residual parcels of residential land in the Dunsborough Lakes Estate development area. These four parcels are the sole remaining appropriate areas of residential land within the District that are not currently subject to developer contributions responsibilities and requirements under either a ‘precinct plan’ (e.g. Developer Contribution Area 1 (‘DCA1’) Dunsborough and Quindalup) or a ‘development-specific plan’ (e.g. developer contribution plans applying to urban growth areas such as Vasse, Port Geographe, Yalyalup etc.). Their continued exclusion from a formally endorsed developer contribution plan area is not consistent with the remainder of the City and represents an ongoing situation that is both anachronistic and anomalous. 

 

In an attempt to remedy this, the four residual parcels were initially proposed to be included in DCA1 (Dunsborough and Quindalup) through the Omnibus Amendment 1 process. During public advertising of draft Omnibus Amendment 1, however, an objection to this proposal was submitted by Urban Quarter on the basis that such an approach would unreasonably impose additional monetary developer contributions beyond those requirements previously negotiated and agreed between Urban Quarter and the City in the formulation of the DCP.        

 

The proposed inclusion of the subject four parcels of land in DCA1 was recommended to be withdrawn from the Omnibus Amendment 1 process and proposed instead to be incorporated into the existing DCP through an appropriate amendment to that plan.  

 

The amended DCP will serve to rationalise the Dunsborough Lakes Estate development area and bring it into alignment and conformity with the remainder of the City in terms of developer contribution requirements and responsibilities for all relevant developable residential land.

 

The amended DCP area will be expanded to include the additional four parcels of land, although the total monetary contribution required to be paid by Urban Quarter under that amended DCP (estimated at $1.275 million) will remain unchanged.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The DCP currently applies to Lot 9033 Commonage Road, Dunsborough.

 

The purpose of the DCP for Lot 9003 is to allocate development contributions (beyond those standard provisions established through WAPC policy on the subdivision of land) for the development of nearby (ultimately) district-level open space and associated community facilities and infrastructure neighbouring the site of the future Dunsborough Lakes Primary School. 

 

The DCP currently allocates all future monetary developer contributions towards ‘local’ community infrastructure; namely, the construction of a ‘shared use’ sporting oval, car parking and associated facilities on land to be ceded to the City by Urban Quarter beforehand (together with the adjoining Dunsborough Lakes Primary School site). This is not recommended to change in the amended DCP.

 

Lot 9033 has an area of 32.9 hectares and a likely potential residential lot yield following staged subdivision of around 255 allotments. The developer contributions in the DCP have been assessed at a cash equivalent of $5,000 per lot. This assessment will be adjusted in accordance with the Local Government Cost Index for W.A. (‘LGCI’) commencing 1 January 2015. On that basis it is estimated that there will be a total monetary developer contribution to be paid by Urban Quarter, under the requirements of the DCP, of approximately $1.275 million.

 

In draft Omnibus Amendment 1 the City had proposed including four residual parcels of land at Dunsborough Lakes into the ‘Dunsborough and Quindalup’ (including Eagle Bay and Yallingup) precinct of ‘Developer Contribution Area 1’ (DCA 1). This proposal sought to rationalise developer contribution arrangements for these parcels, which are the only remaining residential development areas in the District not currently included in a developer contributions scheme.

 

The four residual parcels of land have previously been in different ownerships and had development intentions that have altered over time. Their location is shown numbered 1-4 at Attachment A (Amended DCP Area), together with that of Lot 9033 (numbered 5).

 

Three of the four residual parcels have previously been approved for subdivision, with newly created lots having been released and developed as may be seen at Attachment A. These three parcels would not be liable for the payment of what would be, in effect, ‘retrospective’ developer contributions as such contributions must be formally allocated and discharged prior to the release of titles (and therefore the requirements would need to be in place prior to subdivision approvals being in place).

 

The fourth land parcel (number 4 at Attachment A, being Pt Lot 9054) is wholly owned by Urban Quarter and has yet to be approved for subdivision. This means that Pt Lot 9054 would normally be subject to a requirement for payment of developer contributions, but only provided it was formally included in an endorsed Developer Contributions Plan before any new lots were created through such an approval.

 

The inclusion of the four residual parcels of land into DCA 1, as was originally proposed in draft Omnibus Amendment 1, would therefore, in effect, have necessitated the allocated payment of developer contributions for Pt Lot 9054 (parcel number 4) only. This would have equated to a circa $3,049 contribution for each new lot created through approved subdivision of that particular parcel; that being the sum (subject to variations in the LGCI) presently allocated under the endorsed DCA1 precinct contributions plan.

 

During the public advertising of draft Omnibus Amendment 1, Urban Quarter lodged a formal submission objecting to the inclusion of the residual four parcels of land into DCA 1; in particular to Pt Lot 9054 (parcel number 4), which would be the only area likely to be liable for payment of future developer contributions. 

 

In order to discuss the context and rationales behind the position expressed in the Urban Quarter submission, the City coordinated a meeting between senior executive officers (including the CEO) and representatives of the developer on 7 April 2016.

 

As a result of this meeting, the stated position and understanding of Urban Quarter on the matter of the DCP and all remaining developer contribution obligations in the Dunsborough Lakes Estate was acknowledged, and accepted by City officers as being reasonable. It was therefore agreed between the parties that it would be recommended to the Council that:

 

i)             the proposed inclusion of the four residual parcels of land at the Dunsborough Lakes Estate into DCA1 should not, after all, be implemented and that the proposal be withdrawn from the draft Omnibus Amendment 1 as part of the final determination of the Council;

 

 and

 

ii)            a separate review and amendment of the DCP be undertaken by the City to formally incorporate the subject four residual parcels of land, but with no change to the total overall monetary contribution sought or required (estimated to be $1.275 million).

 

The recommendation to withdraw the proposal from draft Omnibus Amendment 1 and to instead incorporate the four residual parcels of land into the Dunsborough Lakes Estate DCP through advertised amendment of that Plan was endorsed by the Council in its formal resolution of 11 May 2016. The reasons for deleting the proposal were duly recorded in the ‘Schedule of Modifications’ accompanying the resolution of Council in respect to draft Omnibus Amendment 1 and forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission together with that documentation on 24 June 2016, requesting Ministerial approval.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key elements of the statutory environment with respect to the DCP are set out in the relevant objectives, policies and provisions of the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the Dunsborough Lakes Development Guide Plan (Structure Plan). Each is discussed below under appropriate sub-headings.

 

Local Planning Scheme 21

 

The City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (LPS21) describes the relevant statutory considerations for the preparation of the DCP. The zoning of the land subject to the DCP (Lot 9033) is ‘Special Purpose’ (Dunsborough Lakes Development Area) as, too, are the subject four residual parcels of land concerned. All areas are identified as being in ‘Special Provision Area 42’ under LPS21.

 

Provision 16 of Special Provision Area 42 stipulates that –

 

“Prior to the subdivision or development of the land, the proponent is to prepare a developer contributions and staging plan to the satisfaction of the City for the area south of Dunsborough Lakes Drive and east of the school site to ensure the proponent’s appropriate and timely contribution toward service infrastructure, distributor roads and community facilities (including examining the need for change-rooms and other infrastructure in association with the district open space area) on a progressive and staged basis. With respect to the remainder of the estate, the plan shall only address contributions required as a result of tourist development proposals and any net increase in development potential beyond that depicted on the endorsed DGP, as at 14 July 2010. An appeal right will exist in relation to the determination of the plan pursuant to clause 11.10 of the Scheme.”

 

This stipulation has been incorporated into the Dunsborough Lakes Development Guide Plan (Structure Plan) as ‘Condition 22’ (please refer below).

 

The DCP itself may be reviewed and amended, if and as required, in accordance with clause 7.7 of LPS21. This amendment process will necessarily require public advertising, consideration of any formal submissions received, and final approval by the Council.

 

In accordance with clause 7.7.11 of LPS21, it will not be necessary or applicable to seek final endorsement of the amended DCP from the WAPC.

 

Dunsborough Lakes Development Guide Plan (Structure Plan)

 

The endorsed Development Guide Plan for Dunsborough Lakes (now required to be considered and referred to as a ‘Structure Plan’ in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015) identifies Lot 9033 for residential, public open space and primary school purposes.

 

Condition 22 of the endorsed Structure Plan as at 14 July 2010 (and subsequent iterations), which contains the same wording as Provision 16 of Special Provision Area 42 described above, required the preparation of the DCP prior to the subdivision and development of Lot 9033.

 

In order to consolidate and validate the requirements and responsibilities of the proposed amended DCP, once finally adopted by the Council, it will also be necessary to take the following affiliated actions:

 

1.    amend LPS21 to remove obsolete references made within Special Provisions Area 42 (e.g. Provision 16); and 

2.    modify the current iteration of the endorsed Dunsborough Lakes ‘Structure Plan’ to remove what will become redundant Condition 22.

 

The City intends to amend the Scheme in relation to this (and various other matters) through the process and preparation of mooted Omnibus Amendment 2, which is currently in the early stages of formulation.

 

The necessary modification of the Dunsborough Lakes ‘Structure Plan’ (to remove Condition 22) will be prepared and submitted for separate approval (along with payment of standard scheduled fees) by Urban Quarter.       

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The key policy consideration in relation to the DCP is the WAPC State Planning Policy 3.6: Development Contribution Policy for Infrastructure (SPP3.6).

 

SPP3.6 sets out the principles and considerations that apply to developer contributions for providing infrastructure in new and redeveloping urban areas; as well as the form, content and procedure for preparing a DCP (or an amendment thereto).

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The planning framework requires land developers to contribute towards community infrastructure, but does not require them to make financial contributions towards community assets beyond those initial monetary requirements as the City remains responsible for the management and maintenance of infrastructure items thereafter.

 

In accordance with agreement reached by senior executive officers of the City and Urban Quarter representatives at a meeting on 7 April 2016, and subject to the endorsement of the Council, the inclusion of the four subject parcels of ‘residual land’ at the Dunsborough Lakes Estate into an amended DCP area will not facilitate or require any additional monetary developer contributions to be paid to the City. Monetary contributions assessed at $5,000 per lot in the current DCP shall continue to be payable, in the amended DCP, only in relation to the subdivision and release for title of new lots created on Lot 9033, estimated to total $1.275 million.  

 

For reasons already explained in respect to the submission on draft Omnibus Amendment 1 lodged by landowner/developer Urban Quarter, and subsequent agreement reached at a meeting with Urban Quarter representatives and senior executive officers from the City, it is recommended to the Council that no additional monetary contribution shall not be sought or required under the amended DCP.        

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

The DCP will assist with the funding of new recreational infrastructure required for the growing Dunsborough community.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Officer Recommendation is consistent with community objective 2.1 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013, which is – “A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections.”

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Officers have undertaken an assessment of the potential implications of carrying out the Officer Recommendations using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment identified ‘downside’ risks only, rather than upside risks as well. The medium risks associated with DCPs concern shortfalls in funds or the disposal of land prior to subdivision or development. The draft DCP amendment has is designed to mitigate those risks to an appropriate level.

 

Implementing the Officer Recommendation will involve advising the relevant landowner(s) concerned of the Council resolution and advertising the draft amendment to the DCP for public consultation. There are no significant risks identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Clause 7.7.4 of LPS21 requires a draft DCP to be advertised for a minimum period of 28 days. The amended DCP has been drafted in liaison and agreement with the relevant landowner/developer concerned (Urban Quarter) to ensure that the principles and objectives of the amended DCP are clearly understood and supported.

 


 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

A copy of the proposed amendment to the DCP (including ‘track changes’) is provided for the consideration of the Council at Attachment B.

 

It is noted that, unlike Developer Contribution Plans elsewhere in the City (where portions of allocated payments are channelled to different and various district-level community facilities, or to identified facilities elsewhere in the balance of a particular developer contributions area or precinct), the DCP for Lot 9033 allocates ALL contributions towards ‘local’ community infrastructure; namely the construction of a ‘shared use’ sporting oval, car parking and associated facilities on land to be ceded, together with the adjoining Dunsborough Primary School site, by the subject landowner/developer. This monetary allocation (and application) remaining unchanged in the amended DCP will continue to provide Urban Quarter with a ‘direct return’ on investments made through its contributions requirements.  

 

The predominant purpose of the amended DCP is to rationalise and incorporate the only developable/developed residential land in the District remaining outside a formal Developer Contributions Plan area (these being the identified four residual parcels within the Dunsborough Lakes Estate shown at Attachment A) within a formal developer contributions plan area.

 

Agreement reached at executive officer level with representatives of Urban Quarter, at a meeting convened on 7 April 2016, allowed that no variation to the total monetary contributions allocated to be paid under the current DCP (estimated at approximately $1.275 million) would be sought or required in the amended DCP. In other words, all monetary developer contributions allocated in the Dunsborough Lakes Estate development area will effectively continue to be met under the requirements of the amended DCP as they apply to the release of new lots created by the subdivision of Lot 9033 ONLY.

 

It should be noted, however, that any payment and discharge of monetary obligations under the amended DCP would necessarily only apply for the 10-year ‘period of operation’ of that DCP; although it is anticipated that this operational period will expire before that time anyway, with the likely staged completion of subdivision and/or development of Lot 9033.

 

It should be further noted that the position of the current Council in approving the amended DCP as recommended would not necessarily bind or preclude future elected Councils and/or City officers from reviewing and revising those developer contribution allocations applying to the Dunsborough Lakes Estate development area under that DCP, and even potentially recommending or adopting alternative informed positions. In a similar vein, of course, WAPC SPP 3.6 ‘Development Contributions for Infrastructure’ also requires endorsed Developer Contribution Plans to be reviewed on a regular basis. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Officers recommend that the proposed amendment to the Dunsborough Lakes Estate DCP provided at Attachment B be adopted by the Council for advertising purposes, pursuant to clause 7.7.4 of the LPS21. Subject to consideration and assessment of any formal submissions received during that consultation period, the draft amendment to the DCP shall be reported back to the Council with a recommendation for final approval.  

 

OPTIONS

 

Should the Council not wish to support the Officer Recommendation, it could consider the following alternative options:

 

Option 1:             Resolve not to adopt the proposed amendment to the DCP for advertising, identifying the reasons                 for that determination and any subsequent actions required; 

Option 2:             Resolve to adopt the proposed amendment to the DCP for advertising, subject to certain prior modification(s) to be identified.

 

An assessment of these Options did not reveal any substantive issues or reasonable grounds that would support either.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve providing advice of the Council resolution to the subject landowner(s) and coordinating the advertising of the proposed amendment to the DCP for a minimum period of 28 days. This will occur within one month of the resolution made by the Council.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council, pursuant to Clause 7.7 of Local Planning Scheme No 21, adopts the draft amendment to the Dunsborough Lakes Estate Developer Contributions Plan (dated 10 August 2016 and provided at Attachment B) for public advertising for a period of 28 days.

 


Council

61

10 August 2016

11.1

Attachment a

Amended Dunsborough Lakes Estate Developer Contribution Plan Area

 


Council

61

10 August 2016

11.1

Attachment b

Amended Dunsborough Lakes Estate Developer Contribution Plan (Draft Text) 10 August 2016

 

 

 

 

City of Busselton Intranet logo

 

 

 

 

 

Local Planning Scheme No. 21

 

Dunsborough Lakes Estate

Developer Contributions Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Developer Contributions Plan outlines the developer’s responsibilities for contributing towards district level active open space and associated facilities on Lot 9033 Commonage Road, Dunsborough Lakes.

 

Adopted by the Council pursuant to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21.

 

 

 

________________

Mike S.L. Archer                             

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

Date: 10 August 2016


 

CITY OF BUSSELTON

 

DUNSBOROUGH LAKES ESTATE

DevelopER Contributions Plan (DCP)

 

10 AUGUST 2016

 

 

 

1.            Introduction

 

1.1          This Developer Contributions Plan (DCP) applies to Lot 9033 Commonage Road, Dunsborough Lakes and an additional four parcels of land identified at Figure 1. It deals with cost contributions towards the provision of district level active open space and associated facilities and infrastructure. The area to which this plan applies is shown on Figure 1, although monetary contributions allocated under this Plan shall only apply to current Lot 9033. The DCP area is the subject of  the Development Guide Plan for Dunsborough Lakes Estate (Structure Plan). The current endorsed version of this plan is included as Figure 2.

 

1.2          The DCP has been prepared to comply with the requirements of the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (the Scheme).   

 

The WAPC will be requested to impose a condition requiring the  implementation of the responsibilities and requirements of the DCP on subdivision approvals which relate to the land comprising Lot 9033 within the DCP area identified in Figure 1.

 

1.3          The land the subject of this DCP comprises a number of land ownerships currently zoned Special Purpose (Dunsborough Lakes Development Area) and identified on the Dunsborough Lakes Development Guide Plan (Structure Plan) for residential and related development. The total land area is  70.3 hectares.

 

1.4          Developer contributions will take the form of cash contributions required on a per lot basis at subdivision clearance stage for current Lot 9033 only. The developer contributions will only apply to lots created for the purposes of residential development. Lots created for the purposes of non-residential development such as parks and reserves will not attract a cost contribution requirement pursuant to this DCP. Single lots created with the potential for further residential subdivision by green title, survey strata or built strata title subdivision will only make one single lot contribution at the time of the initial single lot subdivision or at Development Application stage, whichever occurs first. Subsequent creation of residential lots by green title, survey strata or strata title subdivision will attract a cost contribution for each additional lot pursuant to this DCP. The estimated dwelling yield in the DCP area that remains to be subdivided, being Lot 9033 and Pt Lot 9054 to the west of Lot 9033, is approximately 420 dwellings.

 

1.5          The DCP relates to the delivery of district level active open space and associated facilities and infrastructure adjacent to the primary school site. It does not include items of infrastructure that are usually provided by developers as they proceed with subdivision and development, such as local roads, utility services and primary school sites. The definitions used in this DCP are explained in Schedule 1- Interpretation.

 

1.6          The DCP applies to those parcels of land identified at Figure 1, although monetary developer contributions will only be required to be paid in direct relation to the subdivision and development of Lot 9033, which will be estimated to yield 255 lots. The Dunsborough Lakes Development Guide Plan (Structure Plan) designates a significant portion of the DCP area of Lot 9033 for recreational open space/playing fields to be utilised on a ‘shared’ basis with the adjacent future primary school. Until relatively recently there has been no statutory mechanism to enable the City to require developer contributions towards the provision of recreational facilities within Dunsborough Lakes Estate and, as such, the City has not collected contributions for  district level active open space at Dunsborough Lakes to date. Therefore it is seen as important and logical that all monetary developer contributions generated by the future subdivision and development of Lot 9033 be put towards the delivery of the active open space and  associated facilities proposed to adjoin the future Dunsborough Lakes Primary School on land to be ceded to the City in the DCP area.

 

2.            Purpose of the DCP

 

2.1          The purpose of the DCP is to apply development contributions beyond the standard         provisions required by WAPC policy on the subdivision of land for the development of district level open space and associated facilities and infrastructure and ensure that cost          contributions are reasonably required as a result of the subdivision and development of                Lot 9033  in the developer contributions area.

2.2          The developer will be responsible for the contributions in accordance with the DCP, together with other statutory and policy requirements, and agreements, as is relevant to the particular portion or stage of development of Lot 9033.

 

3.            Period of the Plan

 

3.1          The period for the operation  of the DCP is 10 years, or until completion of the subdivision and development of Lot 9033 if sooner. After 10 years the DCP, if still operational, will be reviewed. In the meantime, the DCP  may also be reviewed when appropriate between the City and the developer, having regard to the rate of development and the requirements of WAPC State Planning Policy 3.6.

 

4.            Basis of the plan

 

4.1          The DCP has been prepared having regard to WAPC State Planning Policy 3.6: Development Contributions for Infrastructure (2009).

4.2          The lot contribution applicable under this DCP will assist in the delivery and development of district level active open space and associated facilities and infrastructure.

 

5.            Principles

 

5.1          Development contributions are applied in accordance with the following principles set out in State Planning Policy 3.6: Development Contributions for Infrastructure:

§  need and nexus;

§  transparency;

§  equity;

§  certainty;

§  efficiency;

§  consistency;

§  right of consultation and review;

§  accountable.

 

5.2          The key principle is that the ‘beneficiary pays’ commensurate with the need generated by the subdivision of the land for community facilities.

 

6.            Developer Contributions – Infrastructure Items

 

6.1          The infrastructure items to be provided include: the ceding of land for public purposes (primary school site) and district open space; and the development of district level active open space, including playing fields, change rooms and related infrastructure such as parking, drainage, landscapingand lighting as determined by the City of Busselton. The infrastructure items subject to this DCP may be amended by the Council from time to time based on future identified requirements.

 

6.2          The land required to accommodate the district open space is to be ceded free of cost to the City of Busselton as a reserve for recreation at the first stage of subdivision of Lot 9033 (if practicable), or at a subsequent stage of subdivision of Lot 9033,  agreed  between the City of Busselton and the developer. The Dunsborough Lakes primary school site is to be ceded, free of cost, to the Department of Education as a reserve for public purposes as part of the first stage of subdivision within Lot 9033. The final boundary between the primary school lot and the district open space lot will be subject to negotiation.

 

6.3          The calculation of the contribution payable under this DCP will go towards the delivery of district level active open space and associated facilities and infrastructure adjacent to the Dunsborough Lakes Primary School. The contribution is assessed at a cash equivalent of $5,000 per lot and apply only to Lot 9033. This contribution amount will be adjusted in accordance with movements in the Local Government Cost Index for WA (ABS) commencing 1 January 2015.

 

6.4          Contributions towards road, footpath and cycle network upgrades (pursuant to Local Planning Policy 6E – Road, Footpath and Cycle Network Upgrade Contributions Provisions) and community facilities (pursuant to Local Planning Policy 6D – Community Facilities Contributions Provisions) will not be imposed by the City of Busselton.

 

7.            Cost apportionment

 

7.1          The cost is apportioned to the developer and is based on the estimated dwelling yield of the development of Lot 9033 only within the DCP area

 

7.2          The value of the land, for the purposes of land acquisition and distribution of costs, is not applicable to this DCP.

 

8.            Liability for Cost Contributions

 

8.1          Cost contribution requirements shall be satisfied by the payment of a contribution in accordance with the requirements of this plan.

 

8.2          Requirements for and payment of development contributions will be imposed by the WAPC as a condition of subdivision or by the City of Busselton as a condition of development. The liability of the developer to satisfy their cost contribution arises prior to whichever of the following two things occurs first with respect to any particular parcel of land within the DCP area:

(i)            the City endorsing a deposited plan for clearance of the relevant conditions          prior to the WAPC endorsing its approval on the deposited plan relating to the         subdivision of the developers land; or

                (ii)           the City approving the development of land, other than for the purposes of          subdivision works.

 

8.3          There is no liability to pay a cost contribution for the development of the first single house or outbuildings associated with that first single house on an existing lot where the cost contribution for that lot has been paid on the subdivision of the land which created that lot.

 

8.4          In the case of grouped or multiple dwelling developments, cost contributions will be calculated at the rate of 100% contribution for each dwelling less a one lot credit for the creation of the parent lot if a contribution was paid with respect to the creation of the parent lot and paid at Development Approval stage.

 

8.5          For aged or dependent person dwellings the cost contribution will be 50% of the normal contribution.

 

9.            Pre-Funded Cost Contributions

 

9.1          A Deed of Agreement facilitating the single, pre-funded payment of the estimated total monetary developer contribution required under this DCP for the subdivision and development of Lot 9033 may be prepared and executed between the City of Busselton and the land developer of Lot 9033.    

 

10.          Administration of Funds

 

10.1        The City will establish and maintain an account in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 for the purposes of funding the district level active open space and associated facilities and infrastructure in accordance with the DCP, into which cost contributions will be credited and from which all payments for the cost of infrastructure and administrative costs within the area will be paid. The purpose of the account is to ensure that the expenditure of funds from the development contributions is limited to the purposes set out in the DCP. Interest earned on cost contributions will be credited to the account.

 

10.2        The City will, on request, provide a statement of income and expenditure pursuant to the DCP to those relevant parties having  made contributions pursuant to the DCP.

 

11.          Reimbursement of cash contributions for works undertaken and crediting of in-kind contributions

 

11.1        If the developer of Lot 9033 undertakes works relating to the provision of infrastructure items specified in the DCP and:

 

                (i)            the City has approved the design of the infrastructure as specified in the DCP;

                (ii)           a contract has been awarded for the construction of the infrastructure; and

                (iii)          an invoice for the works constructed under that contract has been certified by    the Superintendent for the works;

 

the City will reimburse that developer for each and every claim made during or up to the completion of the works, from contributions received towards that infrastructure item to an amount equivalent to the proportional amount that will be received from all developers relating to specific works that are being undertaken by that developer.

 

11.2        Where the infrastructure is situated on land owned by that developer that is not                transferred to the City at that time, a licence agreement between the developer and the              City will be required to allow for the use of the facilities pending the transfer of the land               to the City.

 

11.3        Where subsequent contributions are made towards the infrastructure item, the City will                transfer those funds to the developer that undertook work within 3 months of the         receipt of such funds. The amount of reimbursement is to be the amount contributed,               plus any cost indexation prior to the contribution having been made and interest earned            on the contribution once it was made. If a developer undertakes works to provide any of            the infrastructure items or costs of the works exceeds the total value of contributions      within the DCP area, the City is not required to reimburse the developer for any of the              excess.

 

11.4        Where a developer has provided any infrastructure item ahead of the City having              received all contributions relating to that infrastructure item, then subsequent           contributions from the owners of the land that provided the infrastructure will be            discounted by an amount proportional to the value of the infrastructure, minus the         value of any contributions already received and which relate to that infrastructure.

 

12.          Shortfall or excess

 

12.1        If there is a shortfall in the total of cost contributions when all contributions have been made or accounted for, the City of Busselton may make good the shortfall or may negotiate with the developer to fund the shortfall. 

 

12.2        If there is an excess in funds available to the development contribution area when all cost contributions have been made or accounted for and all listed infrastructure has been developed and land transferred, the City is to refund the excess funds to the contributing owners for that development contribution area in a manner proportional to the contribution from that owner. To the extent, if any, that it is not reasonably practicable to identify owners and/or their entitled amount of refund, any excess in funds shall be applied to the provision of additional facilities or improvements in the DCP area.

 

12.3        In the event clearances have been issued for the subdivision of lots on Lot 9003 in the DCP area, before the DCP is endorsed by the City, any shortfall in the value of contributions that would have been attached to that clearance had the DCP been endorsed by the City is to be paid to the City no later than 6 months from the date of endorsement of the DCP or otherwise as by agreement with the City. 

 

13.          Disposal of land prior to subdivision or development

 

13.1        If a developer disposes of land within Lot 9033 prior to subdivision or development, the subsequent landowner will be liable for any outstanding development contributions for that land and is to be made aware of  responsibilities pursuant to the DCP by the vendor.

 

13.2        If a developer disposes of land such that the whole of the undeveloped portion of Lot 9033 is no longer in a single ownership, it is the responsibility of the parties to negotiate appropriate arrangements to ensure delivery of contributions in accordance with the DCP.

 


 

14.          Development of infrastructure

 

14.1        The timing of the provision of infrastructure is to be determined by the City, in accordance with its broader responsibilities to meet the infrastructure and community facilities provisions for the City as outlined in the Scheme and this DCP and any relevant local planning policy.

 

15.          Arbitration

 

15.1        Any dispute between a developer and the City of Busselton in connection with the cost contribution required to be made by the developer in relation to Lot 9033 is to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Act 1985.

 

Schedule 1          Interpretations

 

‘Administrative Costs’ means such costs as are reasonably incurred for the preparation and implementation of the development contribution and staging plan.

 

‘Cost Contribution’ means the contribution to the cost of items as identified in the Developer Contributions Plans.

 

‘Developer’ means a developer of land proposed for development for residential and related purposes in the developer contribution area of Lot 9033.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      73                                                                 10 August 2016

11.2           AMENDMENT 23 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME 21 - INTRODUCING A 'RESIDENTIAL' ZONING OVER UNZONED PORTIONS OF PT LOT 9507 LAYMAN ROAD, GEOGRAPHE  - CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION

SUBJECT INDEX:

Local Planning Scheme

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Strategic Planner - Nick Edwards

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Location Plan

Attachment b    Endorsed Port Geographe Development Plan

Attachment c    Proposed Scheme Amendment Map

Attachment d   Proposed Plan of Subdivision Layout  

  

PRÉCIS

 

Council is requested to consider initiating an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No.21 (LPS21) by introducing a ‘Residential’ zoning over part of the unzoned portions of Pt Lot 9507 Layman Road, Geographe, adjusting the boundaries of the currently applicable residential density codes (‘R20’ and ‘R30’) and modifying the boundaries of two ‘Recreation Reserves’ to reflect a recent subdivision application over the land.

 

The proposal is considered to be a straightforward rationalisation of existing zoning, constituting a ‘Standard’ amendment. It will allow the landowner to consider improved alternative design options for the next stage of subdivision and development in the ‘Port Geographe Development Area’.

 

The amendment will not ‘lock in’ an alternative road layout or subdivision design, but will simply enable both the City and the Department of Planning the flexibility to consider a range of options for the next stage of development of the Port Geographe Estate. 

 

City officers recommend that the amendment is adopted by Council for public consultation purposes, which will include local advertising and referral to relevant state government agencies.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Located in the south-western part of the Port Geographe Development Area, Lot 9507 Layman Road contains the undeveloped balance of the Port Geographe Estate. This proposal applies to approximately 5 hectares of land (Pt Lot 9507) at the western area of the estate, near the intersection of Layman Road with Navigation Way (refer to Attachment A). Land to the east and south contains the Vasse Estuary, public reserves and agricultural land with high landscape quality.

 

The majority of the land the subject of this proposal is identified within “No Zone” under the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (LPS21), whilst a small sliver of affected land abutting Navigation Way is currently zoned “Residential” with a residential density coding of “R20”.

Lot 9507 is included within the ‘Port Geographe Development Area’, a Special Control Area within which subdivision and development of the land has been guided and coordinated by the endorsed Port Geographe Development Plan (PGDP) (see Attachment B).

Part 6.9 of LPS21 identifies a number of development requirements specific to this area. Lot 9507 is also identified in Schedule 15 of LPS21 as being within Development Contribution Area No. 1, requiring the payment of a per lot/dwelling contribution towards the provision of community infrastructure. It should also be noted, though, that separate developer contributions arrangements apply to this land, by virtue of the Port Geographe Development Deed.

This amendment proposal does not involve substantive modifications to any of the above, simply removal of the unzoned (and redundant) road network, so as to provide the new landowner/developer with the flexibility to propose an updated structure plan and subdivision layout that better reflects the requirements of the current market and addresses land use efficiency requirements of the State Government.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No.21 (LPS21)

 

LPS21 identifies Lot 9507 as being within the Port Geographe Development Area. The future subdivision and development of this land is primarily coordinated by three key plans, the PGDP, the Port Geographe Landscape Master Plan and the Port Geographe Village Centre Precinct Plan. LPS21 coordinates the implementation of these plans which have previously been approved by the City and endorsed by the WAPC.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Relevant to this proposal are the

·    City of Busselton DRAFT Local Planning Strategy (2013)

·    Port Geographe Development Plan (2005)

 

City of Busselton DRAFT Local Planning Strategy (2013)

 

The City of Busselton’s Draft Local Planning Strategy (LPS) was adopted by Council on 25 September 2013 and advertised between 16 March and 13 May 2016. The LPS, once finally adopted, will set out the long term planning direction for the City of Busselton and provide the strategic rationale for decision making relating to planning and development. This strategy will supersede the Busselton Urban Growth Strategy (1999).

 

The LPS will guide and inform the future growth of Port Geographe Estate and recognises it as an existing urban development area that will be progressively developed, providing a mix of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities to be principally guided by a modified PGDP (Structure Plan).

 

Port Geographe Development Plan (2005)

 

The PGDP (to be referred to as a ‘structure plan’ in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015) identifies the subject land as suitable ‘Residential Development’ land to be developed at an ‘R20’ density, with a strip of ‘R30’ land adjacent to a future recreation reserve to the east. It is envisaged a comprehensive review of the existing structure plan will be undertaken by the landowner/developer for the consideration of the City and the WAPC, in due course, by way of a separate planning and approval process. The current amendment proposal is not affected. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are considered to be no financial implications arising from this proposal.

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Nil

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Officer Recommendation is consistent with community objective 2.2 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013, which is – “a City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections”.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of the Officer Recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment identified ‘downside’ risks only. The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve amending the existing maps which forms part of the LPS21. No significant risks have been identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Considerable discussion has occurred between the landowner, the Department of Planning (DOP) and City officers regarding the management and ongoing development of the Port Geographe Estate precinct.

 

City officers consider the proposal to be a ‘Standard’ amendment. There  is no requirement under the Planning and Development Act 2005 to advertise a proposed scheme amendment prior to it being initiated by the Council. Accordingly, no advertising has occurred to date.

 

If the Council resolves to initiate Amendment 23, the amendment documentation will be formally prepared and provided for referral to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) ahead of public consultation for 42 days, in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Public consultation will include local advertising, letters to adjoining landowners and referral to relevant state government agencies.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The landowner has indicated that the PGDP (Structure Plan) will be reviewed and modified in relation to the undeveloped balance of Lot 9507 Layman Road, but this will form a separate planning proposal.

 

Rezoning of the land in the manner proposed (see Proposed Scheme Amendment Map at Attachment C) is expected to facilitate subdivision and development of up to 70 low-medium density residential allotments, plus two slightly modified “Recreation” reserves, accessed via an interconnected modified grid road network, generally consistent with the intentions of the current PGDP (structure plan). 

 

Application of the “R20” density coding over the majority of the affected land is consistent with the approved coding of surrounding land, whilst a slight extension of the “R30” coding southward is appropriate on the basis that it picks up the balance of the high amenity land located directly opposite the adjoining Recreation reserve.

 

The final form of subdivision will be determined by the outcome of a concurrent subdivision application over this portion of Lot 9507 (see Proposed Plan of Subdivision at Attachment D), with the proposed Scheme amendment  on Pt Lot 9507 necessary to afford the City an appropriate level of development control over the future residential development of those allotments.

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed amendment seeks to rezone a relatively small (5 hectare) area of Lot 9507, to create a more flexible zoning arrangement that will allow both the City and the WAPC to consider immediate improvements to the layout and land use efficiency of the most immediately developable portion of Port Geographe Estate. 

 

The proposal will also complement, and not propose any significant departures from, the established planning framework. It concerns land that has previously been demonstrated as being suitable for residential development, as appropriately tested through earlier planning initiatives. 

 

Furthermore the proposed amendment will not necessitate the need for any additional technical studies beyond those that would typically be required as conditions of subdivision approval.

 

OPTIONS

 

Should the Council not support the Officer Recommendation the Council could instead resolve –

 

1.            To decline the request to initiate the proposed amendment (and provide a reason for such a decision). It should be noted that under the relevant legislation there is no right of appeal against a Council decision not to initiate an amendment.

 

2.            To seek further information before making a decision.

 

3.            To initiate the proposed amendment subject to further identified modification(s) as required.

 

There are no substantive issues or reasonable grounds that would support any of these options.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The implementation of the Officer Recommendation would involve provision of advice of the Council resolution to the landowner and referral of the correctly formatted amendment documentation to the Environmental Protection Authority, which will occur within one month of the resolution.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.      In pursuance of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2005, initiates proposed Amendment 23 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21, to:

 

a.          Introduce a “Residential” zoning over the unzoned portions of subject Pt Lot 9507 Layman Road;

 

b.          Apply either R20 or R30 residential density coding to the land referred to in point a. (above);

 

c.          Apply existing ‘R30’ residential density coding to land directly west of the ‘Recreation’ reserve portion of Pt Lot 9507;

 

d.          Adjust the boundary of the proposed ‘Recreation’ reserve portion of Pt Lot 9507 to coincide with the land use boundaries proposed in the subdivision application for the subject land; and

e.          Reclassify a smaller part of Pt Lot 9507 adjacent to Navigation Way from “Residential” to a local “Recreation” reserve.

 

2.      Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that the proposed Amendment is considered to be a ‘Standard’ amendment under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015;

 

3.      Upon preparation of the necessary documentation, refers the proposed Amendment to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as required by the Planning and Development Act 2005. On receipt of a response from the EPA indicating that the draft Amendment is not subject to formal environmental assessment, the proposed Amendment will be advertised for a period of 42 days and referred to relevant state government agencies for comment. In the event that the EPA determines that the proposed Amendment is to be subject to formal environmental assessment, this assessment is to be prepared by the proponent prior to consultation.

 


Council

75

10 August 2016

11.2

Attachment a

Location Plan

 


Council

75

10 August 2016

11.2

Attachment b

Endorsed Port Geographe Development Plan

 


Council

77

10 August 2016

11.2

Attachment c

Proposed Scheme Amendment Map

 


Council

77

10 August 2016

11.2

Attachment d

Proposed Plan of Subdivision Layout

 


Council                                                                                      85                                                                 10 August 2016

11.3           APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR USE NOT LISTED (AGRICULTURE AND MACHINERY SALES AND REPAIRS) AT LOT 1 (4850) BUSSELL HIGHWAY, REINSCOURT

SUBJECT INDEX:

Development/Planning Applications

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Services and Policy

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Development Services and Policy

REPORTING OFFICER:

Planning Officer - Stephanie Izzard

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Location Plan

Attachment b    Development Plans

Attachment c    Summary of Submissions  

  

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is asked to consider a development (planning) application seeking approval for a Use Not Listed (Agriculture and Machinery Sales and Repairs) at Lot 1 (4850) Bussell Highway, Reinscourt. A location plan and development plans are provided at Attachments A & B respectively. 

 

The proposal has been placed before the Council due to the prominence of the site along Bussell Highway and the proximity to the main entry road into the Busselton City Centre. 

 

It is considered that, on balance, this development is consistent with the relevant planning framework and is recommended for approval.

 

BACKGROUND

 

An application for development approval has been received for a Use Not Listed (Agriculture and Machinery Sales and Repairs) at Lot 1 (4850) Bussell Highway, Reinscourt (“the site”). Effectively, the proposal involves the relocation of the ‘Greenline’ farm machinery business, currently located in Karridale, into site/premises currently occupied by the ‘Foris’ nursery.

 

The site is located 500 metres to the east of the round-a-bout at the intersection of Bussell Highway and Causeway Road, which provides the main vehicle entry into the Busselton City Centre. The site is located on the northern side of Bussell Highway and is bound by two lots, one to the west, and one to both the north and east, both of which are ‘Reserve for Recreation’ in the Scheme, although privately owned. The proposed development will replace the landscape supplier currently operating from the site.

 

The site is zoned “Agriculture” under the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No.21 (the Scheme) and is subject to the Vasse Estuary Structure Plan. The Structure Plan includes the properties on the northern side of Bussell Highway from Ford Road to Osprey Drive and lists residential, recreation agriculture and limited grazing as land uses which are preferred within the bounds of the structure plan. The site is within a Landscape Value Area under the Scheme.

 

The application proposes a 200m2 workshop to be located to the rear of the existing shop and office on the property. The proposed workshop will have a wall height of 5m and a ridge height of 5.852m. The applicant also proposes a trade display area to be setback 9.5m from the front property (Bussell Highway) boundary and one freestanding signs 4.2m in height.

 


 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key statutory environment is set out in the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (the Scheme), as modified by the Deemed Provisions set out in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2015. The proposed development does not fall under any use listed in the Scheme. The proposed development is therefore a ‘use not listed’ and may be approved at the discretion of the City, usually following a consultation process as outlined in clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions.

 

Agriculture Zone

 

The site is zoned ‘Agriculture’ under the Scheme. The objectives of this zone relevant to this application are as follows:

 

(d)       To enable the development of land for other purposes where it can be demonstrated by the applicant that suitable land or buildings for the proposed purposes are not available elsewhere and that such purposes will not detrimentally affect the amenity of any existing or proposed nearby development.

 

(h)       To discourage ribbon development along Caves Road and other tourist roads and maintain the rural and natural ambience of transport corridors generally.

 

The policies of the ‘Agriculture’ zone relevant to this application are:

 

(f)        To implement and adhere to the adopted recommendations and outcomes of the Local Rural Planning Strategy adopted by the local government and endorsed by the Commission.

 

Landscape Value Area

 

The site is within a Landscape Value Area under the Scheme. The provisions of this special control area relevant to this application are as follows:

 

6.4.1 The local government shall not grant planning approval for the clearing or development of any land identified within a Landscape Value area on the Scheme map, unless it has considered ‐

 

(a) whether the development will be compatible with the maintenance and enhancement, as far as is practicable, of the existing rural and scenic character of the locality;

 

6.4.2 The local government shall not grant planning approval for the carrying out of development on land within the Landscape Value area or on land on or near any ridgelines where, in the opinion of the local government, that development is likely to substantially detract from the visual amenity of the area, having regard to, among other things, the cumulative visual effect of the development related to other development that may be anticipated in the locality and in the area generally.

 

Use not listed

 

The applicant has applied for the proposal as a “Rural Enterprise.” Currently, under the Scheme “Rural Enterprise” is defined as “the use of rural land and buildings for business activities, the operations of which are related to or are dependent on rural and agricultural activity in the locality in which they are situated.” This definition is relatively ambiguous in relation to what agricultural activities would reasonably fall within this land use. As part of the Omnibus Amendment to the Scheme, which was endorsed by the Council at its meeting 11 May 2016 and is considered a “seriously entertained planning document,” “Rural Enterprise” is proposed to be removed as a land use and replaced with “Rural Produce Sales”. “Rural Produce Sales” is defined as “any premises used for the purpose of retail sale of products which are grown, reared or produced on site, including a cellar door operation and retail sales associated with Industry – Cottage or Industry – Rural.” It is considered that the proposed development would not fall within either the existing “Rural Enterprise” or proposed “Rural Produce Sales” land uses or any other land-use defined in the Scheme, and therefore the development has been assessed as a ‘Use Not Listed’. Clause 4.4.2 of the Scheme allows the City to consider a development application for a land use not listed under the zoning table. In this instance it was considered that the use may be consistent with the objectives and policies of the zone and therefore advertising was undertaken in accordance with clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions. Clause 44.2 reads as follows -

 

4.4.2. If a person proposes to carry out on land any use that is not specifically mentioned in the Zoning Table and cannot reasonably be determined as falling within the type, class or genus of activity of any other use category the local government may ‐

 

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

(b) determine that the use may be consistent with the objectives and policies of the particular zone and thereafter follow the advertising procedures of clause 10.4 in considering an application for planning approval; or

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

 

Note that clause 10.4 of the City’s scheme is now superseded by the equivalent and very similar clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions.

 

Matters to be considered

 

Clause 67 the Deemed Provisions outlines the key matters to be considered by local government when considering a development application. Those matters which are considered to be particularly relevant to this application are as follows:

 

(a)       the aims and provisions of this Scheme and any other local planning scheme operating within the Scheme area;

 

(b)       the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed local planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised under the Planning and

 Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving;

 

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

 

(n)       the amenity of the locality including the following —

(i) environmental impacts of the development;

(ii) the character of the locality;

(iii) social impacts of the development;

 

(y)       any submissions received on the application;

 

(za)     the comments or submissions received from any authority consulted under clause 66;

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The key policy implications for consideration are set out in the following policy documents:

·    Land Use Planning in Rural Areas Statement of Planning Policy (SPP 2.5);

·    Local Rural Planning Strategy (LRPS);

·    Local Commercial Planning Strategy (LCPS);

·    Local Planning Policy 3 Special Character Areas and Visual Management Policy (LPP3)

3F Reflective Building Materials

·    Local Planning Policy 8 General Development and Process Standards Policy (LPP8)

8A Car Parking Provisions

 

SPP 2.5 primarily addresses the operation of the planning framework rather than individual land use matters. The overarching policy requirements that it lists include:

a) land use change from rural to all other uses is to be planned and provided for in a planning strategy or scheme; and

 

The LRPS addresses other matters such as the economic and social well-being of the region. Under the LRPS the site is located with the Rural Wetlands precinct. Within the Rural Wetland precinct the precinct objectives applicable to this area include:

 

·    To preserve the landscape qualities of the area and to enhance the rural and natural landscape values.

 

In relation to the Busselton City Centre the LCPS discourages ribbon development and further commercial development along major roads, including Bussell Highway.

 

Under LPP3 - 3F Reflective Building Materials, as the development is within a Landscape Value Area under the Scheme, reflective building materials, including Zincaulme and building materials with a light reflectance exceeding 50% are only permitted at the discretion of the City where the use of these materials will not detract from the visual amenity or rural/scenic character of the area and will not be visually prominent from travel route corridors.

 

As the proposed development is considered to be a “Use not listed” under the Scheme, the Council is required to determine an appropriate car parking standard. It is noted that under LPP 8 - 8A Car Parking Provisions “Trade Display” requires “1 space per 50m2 of display area or at the City’s discretion” and “Industry” requires “1 space for 50m2 of net lettable area.”

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

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

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendation in this report reflects Community Objective 5.2 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 – ‘A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connection.’

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the Officer Recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment identifies ‘downside’ risks only, rather than ‘upside’ risks as well. Risks are only identified in Council reports where the residual risk, once controls are identified, is ‘medium’ or greater. No such risks have been identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

This proposal was referred to adjoining landowners for a period of 21 days ending on 8 June 2016. A notice was also placed on the City’s website and in the local paper on 25 May 2016. The City received 7 submissions from members of the community in support of the proposal (Attachment C refers). In addition, a submission was also received from Main Roads which raised the following concerns;

·    Development will increase traffic demands and increase the potential for vehicle conflicts which will detract from the safety and function of the highway.

·    Approval will create an undesirable precedent for further development along this section of Bussell Highway.

·    Concerns regarding vehicles making u-turns at existing intersections which will create major safety concerns.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The City has assessed the application having regard to the objectives and policies of the Agriculture zone, and Matters to be considered, in particular consideration of proper and orderly planning, as required by the Scheme.

 

While the objectives of the Agriculture zone is to discourage ribbon development along tourist roads and maintain the rural and natural ambience of transport corridors generally, it considered that as this application proposes to replace an existing business operating from the site that it does not increase the commercialisation along Bussell Highway and therefore is in keeping with objectives of the Agriculture zone and the intention of the LCPS. Any future proposal which would increase commercial operations on the site, including an expansion of the current proposal, would likely not be supported. The applicant has advised that the area to the rear of the proposed workshop is only to be used to provide access into the workshop and that there will be no expansion of business activities into this area. To ensure that the proposal does not expand to occupy a greater portion of the site than what is currently proposed a condition of approval is recommend for a site plan demarcating the area to be utilised for the business. This is to be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of operation and will prevent future expansion of the business which could result in impacts upon the amenity of the area and may result in additional traffic to the site.

 

The development will replace the existing landscape supplier which is operating from the site. This business would be considered a “Plant Nursery” under the Scheme which is a discretionary (“D”) land use within the “Agriculture” zone and therefore this land use can be approved within this zone however requires the local government to exercise its discretion by granting planning approval. It is considered that the operation of this business from the site will result in minimal changes to the locality when compared to the existing operations from the site. The proposal is considered to be in keeping with the rural character of the area and this type of business would reasonably be expected to be operating within the locality.

 

Generally the City has applied a 60 metre landscape buffer to development along the southern side of Bussell Highway, including Georgiana Molloy Anglican School. The intent of this landscaping buffer is to maintain the visual amenity and reduce clutter along this portion of Bussell Highway, which is a key transport corridor through the region. The front property boundary of the site is setback an additional 20 metres when compared to some of the other properties along Bussell Highway. This results in the trade display area being setback approximately 36 metres from Bussell Highway. It is considered that the additional front setback will provide opportunity for additional vegetation to assist in screening the development from Bussell Highway and therefore reduce the visual impact of the development. Landscaping of the site, as well as landscaping within the verge, is proposed to be required as a condition of the planning approval. It is noted that currently the business operating from the site has advertisements within the road reserve. These will be required to be removed as per a condition of approval and therefore further reducing the visual impact of the development.

 

The proposal will result in minimal changes to traffic when compared to the existing operations on the site. Due to the nature of the product which is sold it is considered that the frequency of customers coming to the premise would decrease from the plant nursery. To consolidate access to the site the existing gravel crossover, which is rarely utilised, is to be removed and the verge reinstated.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the applicable requirements and therefore is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. It should be noted, though, that if the proposal involved an additional business on the site, rather than the replacement of an existing business, or if it involved a business that would be a more, rather than less, intensive generator of traffic, or was not of a character consistent with a rural area, then it could not be supported by officers, as it would be contrary to clear objectives set out in the planning framework that are not supportive of the further commercialization or intrusive development of any kind, along the regional road network, especially those aspects of the network that form an important part of the ‘entry experience’ into the District and the principal settlements.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could:

 

1. Approve the application subject to different conditions.

 

2. Refuse the proposal, setting out reasons for doing so.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The proponent will be advised of the Council decision within two weeks of the Council meeting.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council resolve:

 

1.         That application DA16/0295 submitted for development at Lot 1 (4850) Bussell Highway Reinscourt is considered by the Council to be consistent with the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives and policies of the zone within which it is located.

 

2.         That Development Approval is issued for the proposal referred to in 1. above subject to the

following conditions:

 

General Conditions:

 

1.         The development hereby approved shall be substantially commenced within two years of the date of this decision notice.

 

2.         The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the signed and stamped, Approved Development Plan(s) (enclosed), including any notes placed thereon in red by the City.

 

Prior to Commencement of Any Works Conditions:

 

3.         The development hereby approved, or any works required to implement the development, shall not commence until the following plans or details have been submitted to the City and have been approved in writing:

3.1      A Drainage Management Plan setting out details of stormwater and surface water drainage works. The Plan shall ensure the following is achieved:

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

b.  Sealed parking and loading areas treated using bio‐infiltration systems incorporated into landscaped areas, prior to release to below ground storage systems, in accordance with the City’s Engineering Technical Specifications; and

c.   Separate bunded stormwater and/or process water systems with additional treatment (e.g. oil separators) for any areas used for fuel or chemical storage or vehicle wash down.

3.2      A Landscape Plan, which shall include the following:

(a)    The verge between the Main Trade Display and the front property boundary;

(b)    The area between the front property boundary and the Main Trade Display;

(c)    The area along the western boundary from the front property boundary to the proposed workshop;

(d)    Rehabilitation of the area to the rear of the property not included within the area delineated for the indicated development hereby approved as per condition 3.6 below;

3.3      Details for the consolidation of the vehicle entry/exit to the site into one crossover;

3.4      All structures within the road reserve are to be removed;

3.5      Details of type and colour of all external materials to be used;

3.6      A site plan delineating the area of the site to be utilised for the development hereby approved;

3.7      Details of the finished treatment of all hard surfaced areas to be used for the construction of the parking and manoeuvring areas as shown on the Approved  Development Plans.

 

Prior to Occupation/Use of the Development Conditions:

 

4.         The development hereby approved shall not be occupied, or used, until all plans, details or works required by Condition 3 have been implemented; and, the following conditions have been complied with;

4.1      Vehicle crossover upgraded in accordance with the detail approved by the City and any redundant vehicle crossover to be removed and the verge reinstated with grass or landscaping to the specifications of the City.

4.2      Landscaping and reticulation shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan and shall thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the City.  Unless otherwise first agreed in writing, any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from first planting, are removed, die or, as assessed by the City as being seriously damaged, shall be replaced within the next available planting season with others of the same species, size and number as originally approved.

4.3      A minimum number of 19 car parking bays shall be provided on site.  The parking area(s), driveway(s) and point(s) of ingress and egress [including crossover(s)] shall be designed, constructed, sealed, drained and marked.

 

On-going Conditions:

 

5.         The works undertaken to satisfy Conditions 3 and 4 shall be subsequently maintained for the life of the development.

 


Council

87

10 August 2016

11.3

Attachment a

Location Plan

 


Council

95

10 August 2016

11.3

Attachment c

Summary of Submissions

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


Council                                                                                      107                                                               10 August 2016

11.4           APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSENT FOR SMALL PRIVATE HOSPITAL AT 48 ROY ROAD, METRICUP

SUBJECT INDEX:

Planning/Development Applications

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Services and Policy

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Development Services and Policy

REPORTING OFFICER:

Planning Officer - Justin Biggar

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Site Aerial

Attachment b    Site Photos

Attachment c    Development Plans

Attachment d   Table of Submissions

Attachment e    Petition

Attachment f    Applicant Response to Submissions  

  

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is asked to consider a planning application seeking approval for a Private Hospital on Lot 10 (48) Roy Road, Metricup (“the site”).

 

The proposal has come before Council due to the community interest generated by the proposal and the nature of the issues raised.

 

As an ‘A’ land use under the zoning table, the application was advertised for public comment.

 

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the relevant planning framework and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The City received an application (DA16/0412) for a Private Hospital at Lot 10 Roy Road, Metricup.  The applicant intends that the business would trade under the name ‘Margaret River Private.’

 

Margaret River Private is intended to operate as a private healthcare clinic offering rehabilitation services for those experiencing alcohol or other drug dependencies.  The maximum number of patients proposed is as follows –

 

·    30 resident patients (participating in 90 day program and to be accommodated in chalets)

·    8 inpatients (participating in 7 day program and to be accommodated in main building)

·    5 day patients

 

The site is located on the corner of Roy Road and Bussell Highway.  It is zoned ‘Agriculture’ and has a total size of 41.2 Ha. The site currently accommodates ‘Birdhaven Retreat’ tourist development which was approved across two separate development applications.

 

The development of ten chalets and a manager’s residence (DA12/0073) was approved by the City 11 July 2012.  A subsequent application for a reception centre and guesthouse was approved 5 April 2013 (DA13/0429).

 

Currently there are six buildings on the site; the main residence, 4 chalets and a manager’s residence.  A site plan and photos have been provided at Attachment A and B respectively.

Four further buildings are proposed as part of the current development application, including a reception building, one additional chalet, outbuilding and utility building.  Development plans have been provided at Attachment C.  

 

The front portion of the site is approximately 30ha of pasture utilized by the current owner for an annual hay crop with the rear portion comprised of approximately 10ha of remnant vegetation.

 

The proposal intends to retain the current balance of the land, with the front pasture to accommodate a small range of animals (seven head of Angus cattle, three horses and 12 Dormer sheep) provided for therapeutic value.  The rear portion will remain as remnant vegetation.    

 

As a discretionary ‘A’ use under the Scheme, the application was advertised for public comment as per Clause 64, with the period for comment ending 13 July 2016.  36 submissions were received, with 34 opposing the proposed development.  Refer to Attachment D for the Table of Submissions.

 

Further, a petition with 43 signatures was received, opposing the development (Attachment E).

 

The applicant was provided opportunity to respond to the points of objections raised in the submissions (Attachment F).

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key statutory environment is set out in the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (the Scheme), as modified by the Deemed Provisions set out in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2015. The Scheme classifies ‘Hospital’ as development requiring planning consent as an ‘A’ use within the Agricultural zone. 

 

The ‘A’ permissibility means that the proposed land use can be approved at the reasonable discretion of the City, following a compulsory consultation process as outlined in Clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions.

 

The objectives of the Agriculture zone as relevant to this application are as follows:

 

(a)  To conserve the productive potential of rural land.

(b)  To enable the development of land for other purposes where it can be demonstrated by the applicant that suitable land or buildings for the proposed purposes are not available elsewhere and that such purposes will not detrimentally affect the amenity of any existing or proposed nearby development.

 

Policies of the ‘Agriculture’ zone relevant to this application are:

 

(a)  To permit land included within the zone and shown by close investigation in consultation with the Department of Agriculture and Food not to be prime agricultural land to be utilised for other purposes not incompatible with adjacent uses.

(b)  To implement and adhere to the adopted recommendations and outcomes of the Local Rural Planning Strategy adopted by the local government and endorsed by the Commission.

 

Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions specifies matters to be considered by the Council in determining applications for planning consent.  Those matters most relevant to this application are as follows:

 

(a)  The aims and provisions of the Scheme and any other relevant local planning scheme operating within the Scheme Area.

(b)  the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed local planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving

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

(d)  the amenity of the locality including the following —

(i)            environmental impacts of the development;

(ii)           the character of the locality;

(iii)          social impacts of the development;

(e)  The amount of traffic likely to be generated by the proposal, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probable effect on traffic flow and safety

(f)   Any relevant submissions received on the application

 

These matters are discussed further in the Officer Comment section of the report.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The assessment of the proposed hospital is guided by a number of policies which relate to the zoning and proposed use of the land.  The key policy implications are outlined below.

 

City of Busselton Local Rural Planning Strategy

The site is located within Precinct 1 – Primary Rural.  The strategy outlines a number of objectives for the precinct, the most relevant being:

·    To retain majority of area, especially low lying areas, for dairy/grazing.

·    To retain primary agricultural land use, patterns of rural use and to avoid the intrusion of rural residential and non-agricultural uses.

 

The Strategy also identifies desirable/undesirable land uses within the precinct.

 

Desirable:

·    Grazing and dairying

·    New dairy uses and significant dairy upgrades

·    Primary rural dwelling

·    Cottage industries

·    Rural bed and breakfasts

 

Conditional:

·    Second rural dwelling on lots greater than 30ha

·    Intensive horticulture / viticulture

·    Basic raw material and mineral sand mining

·    Rural enterprises

·    Rural industry

·    Agro-forestry

 


 

Undesirable:

·    Rural residential and rural small-holding uses other than in existing zoned areas pursuant to the Scheme

·    Tourist development except for guest-house / rural lodge and bed & breakfast on land unsuitable for agriculture

·    All other urban, tourist, rural holiday resort, chalet development or industrial uses.

 

It is not clear that the proposal fits into any of the categories of land uses as per the Local Rural Planning Strategy, meaning that the Strategy does not provide any direct guidance.

 

Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Planning Policy

The western boundary of the site is considered to be a ‘Travel Route Corridor’ under the LNRSPP, as it is located along Bussell Highway.  The ‘Travel Route Corridor’ is defined as follows:

 

Key areas which allow people opportunities to access and experience adjoining areas and consist of a 600 metre wide corridor (300m on either side) along the Primary Transport Network. These corridors may or may not include areas where rural or natural significance have been identified.

 

Further, Policy Statement 3.3 reads that “Development will have due regard for the landscape integrity and value of Ridge backdrops when viewed from the coastline, bays or Travel Route Corridors.”

 

The closest part of the development to Bussell Highway, being the chalets, is located approximately 420 metres from the road verge.

 

Local Planning Policy 2 – Traffic and Transport Policy

The Traffic and Transport Policy outlines the requirements for assessing the traffic impacts of any development or subdivision proposal to ensure the provision of adequate road infrastructure.

 

The applicant has submitted a detailed breakdown of the traffic expected to be generated by the proposal.

 

Local Planning Policy 8A – Car parking Provisions

Planning Policy 8 establishes the parking criteria for any proposed development and is intended to provide a practical guide to aid in the preparation of drawings to be submitted in support of an application.

 

The requirements for a hospital as per the policy are 1 space per 2 beds. The figures used in the policy are minimum requirements.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no financial implications to the City arising from the staff recommendation in this report.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendation of this report reflects Community Objectives 2.2 and 3.1 of the Strategic Community Plan 2013, which are:

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

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

3.3        A community where local business is supported.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the Officer Recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment identifies ‘downside’ risks only, rather than ‘upside’ risks as well. Risks are only identified where the individual risk, once controls are identified, is medium or greater.  No such risks have been identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The proposal was referred to landowners within one kilometre of the site and advertised in the local newspaper and on the City of Busselton public website.

 

36 submissions were received on the proposal, 34 broadly opposing and two broadly supporting.  The majority of submissions received came from landowners within the immediate area of the proposal, including local business operators.

 

A petition organized by nearby landowners was also received during the comment period, with 43 signatures. This report seeks to address the petition as per the requirements of the Standing Orders Local Law. A copy of the petition is included as Attachment F.

 

The main concerns raised in the written submissions were as follows:

1.    The threat to safety and security of nearby landowners

2.    The negative impact of the proposal on the viability of nearby tourism businesses

3.    Location too isolated from supporting infrastructure, i.e. – police and medical services

 

Refer to Attachment D for the Schedule of Submissions, and Attachment F for the applicant’s response to the issues raised in the submissions.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The key statutory planning consideration is whether the proposal, as a discretionary ‘A’ land use, is compatible with the Agriculture zone and the requirements of Clause 67.

 

Suitability of the Agriculture Zone

In considering the suitability of the proposal in the Agriculture zone, it is necessary to refer to the objectives and policies of the zone as outlined in the Statutory Environment section of this report.

 

In regards to the concern that the proposed development will result in the loss of arable land it is instructive to refer to the previous approval granted by Council, 11 July 2012, for a chalet development.

 

As detailed previously in the report, chalet development is considered an undesirable land use in accordance with the Local Rural Planning Strategy. 

 

A component of the rationale for the approval, as contained in the officer report to Council, was the unsuitability of the land for agricultural purposes.  An agronomist report prepared in support of the chalet application concluded that the land was not economically viable for agricultural pursuits alone, due to poor maintenance by prior owners. 

 

The report also concluded that the portion of cleared land on the property was unsuitable for any agricultural pursuit other than grazing. The Local Rural Planning Strategy requires a minimum of 40 hectares for general agricultural purposes. The cleared portion of land on the site with grazing potential is not more than 30 hectares.

 

Matters to Be Considered:

The matters to be considered relevant to this proposal were outlined previously in this report.

 

(a)  The aims and provisions of the Scheme and any other relevant local planning scheme operating within the Scheme Area.

(b)  the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed local planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving

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

(d)  the amenity of the locality including the following —

(iv)         environmental impacts of the development;

(v)          the character of the locality;

(vi)         social impacts of the development;

(e)  The amount of traffic likely to be generated by the proposal, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probable effect on traffic flow and safety

(f)   Any relevant submissions received on the application

 

With no impact on the availability of arable land, the proposal has been demonstrated to be suitable in the Agriculture zone.

 

The bulk, scale and appearance of the proposal are considered in character with existing tourism development, with all buildings setback a suitable distance from both Bussell Highway and adjacent properties.

 

The applicant has demonstrated in their supporting statement and response to public submissions that adequate measures are in place to address any perceived social issues created by a rehabilitation centre. 

 

As a private health centre the proposal will be required to comply with Department of Health licensing requirements, including adequate staffing levels and the provision of the necessary facilities and training to deal with medical emergencies.  All clients are screened prior to admittance to ensure they are drug and alcohol free with regular drug testing undertaken during their stay.  Any clients unwilling to address drug seeking behavior are removed from the program. 

 

As a low scale land use generating no greater traffic intensity than surrounding land uses, the proposal is considered to be compatible with the setting and the capacity of the road system.  This is discussed in greater detail below in reference to policy requirements.

 

Requirements of Policy:

Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Planning Policy

The buildings associated with the development are located a suitable distance from Bussell Highway (>400m) such that they are not considered to have an impact on the visual amenity of the Travel Route Corridor.

 

The buildings with nearest proximity to Bussell Highway are the four chalets approved as part of DA12/0073. The new buildings to be constructed as part of the development are located further within the site, at a greater distance from Bussell Highway.

 

Concerns were raised during the submission stage about the suitability of a 1.8m electric fence along the site’s boundary with Bussell Highway, both as a visual amenity issue and an indication of the danger posed by the clients of the hospital.

 

In discussions with the applicant it was clarified that the provided site plan was incorrect and the electric fence referred to is located at the rear of the property along the boundary with Lot 1 Roy Road.  This electric fence has been installed by Yelverton Brook Eco-Retreat to keep foxes and feral cats out of their property.

 

The applicant has no intention of installing an electric fence along the boundary of the property but will utilize the existing 1.2m boundary fence and repair where necessary.

 

Planning Policy 2 – Traffic and Transport Policy:

The applicant has provided a breakdown of the traffic expected to be generated by the proposal.

 

Including staff and clients, the proposal is expected to generate 21 trips per day, (a trip including both arrival and departure).

 

The majority of daily trips are generated by staff members with hospital clients arriving on either a weekly or monthly basis, with these times staggered.

 

There are not seen to be any concerns with the suitability of the existing road network to accommodate the proposed use.

 

An upgrading of the internal driveways to ensure suitability for intended use will be undertaken.

 

Local Planning Policy 8A – Car parking Provisions:

The parking requirement for a hospital contained in the policy is 1 bay per 2 beds.  The proposal will provide 40 beds, comprised of 30 day patients, 8 inpatients and 2 day surgery patients, generating a requirement for 20 car parking spaces.   

 

All parking will be accommodated on site as per the provided plans with the following numbers indicated:

·    14 parking bays near Reception centre

·    2 disabled bays

·    4 parking staff bays by Service yard

·    2 double wide parking bays in the shed area

·    1 short term ambulance/delivery bay

·    1 Margaret River private bus parking bay

·    15 chalet parking bays

 

39 car parking bays in total have been provided on site.  Gravel overflow parking is also provided at the front of the main building.  As clients will not have access to private vehicles for duration of stay, with many arriving by a Margaret River Private provided bus, the provided parking is considered adequate for the intended use.

 


 

Further Considerations:

 

Environmental Impact:

The rear of the property contains a large portion of remnant vegetation.  The applicant does not intend to remove any vegetation beyond the requirement to establish the necessary APZ as required in a Bushfire Prone Area and recommended by the provided BAL assessment.

Development will utilize existing buildings with new development to be located in cleared areas of the site.

 

Concerns of Residents:

During the consultation period, undertaken in accordance with Clause 64 of the Scheme, a number of submissions were received objecting to the proposal.  There were four common arguments identified in the submissions received, these being:

1      The threat to safety and security of nearby landowners

2      The negative impact of the proposal on the viability of nearby tourism businesses

3      Location too isolated from supporting infrastructure, ie – police and medical services

 

It is considered that there is little to no threat to the safety of surrounding residents and possibly less than may be posed by any other form of conceivable development.  Adequate measures will be implemented in accordance with the licensing requirements of the Department of Health with all clients to be drug and alcohol free and referred to the centre by a doctor.  No clients will be admitted via court order referral.  CCTV equipment will be installed to monitor the movements of all clients while on site.

 

An important component of the rehabilitation model is the necessity of discretion.  As such, the location of the hospital is not advertised with minimal signage indicating its nature.  The purpose and nature of the facility would not be known to visiting tourists.

 

As discussed above, Department of Health licensing requirements necessitate the ability and facilities to manage any medical emergencies.  An Accident and Emergency Agreement with the nearest emergency hospital (Busselton Hospital) will also be required as part of the licensing.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed land use is considered to be consistent with the applicable requirements, including the Policy and Objectives of the “Agriculture” zone prescribed under the Scheme.

 

It is recommended that the application be approved with conditions.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could:

 

1.    Approve the application subject to different conditions.

 

2.    Refuse the proposal, setting out reasons for doing so.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The proponent and those who made submissions will be advised of the Council decision within two weeks of the Council making a determination.

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council resolve:

 

1)    That application DA16/0412 submitted for a Private Hospital at Lot 10 Roy Road, Metricup is considered by Council to be consistent with the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the orderly and proper planning of that locality

 

2)    That Development Approval is issued for the proposal referred to in 1. above subject to the following conditions:

 

General Conditions:

 

1)     The development hereby approved shall be substantially commenced within two years of the date of this decision notice.

 

2)     The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the signed and stamped, Approved Development Plan(s) (enclosed), including any notes placed thereon in red by the City, and except as may be modified by the following conditions.

 

Prior to Commencement of Any Works Conditions:

 

3)     The development hereby approved, or any works required to implement the development, shall not commence until the following plans or details have been submitted to the City and have been approved in writing:

 

3.1    Details of the means and method of providing a potable water supply.

 

3.2    Details of sewage / or on-site effluent, stormwater and surface water drainage works.  Stormwater is to be retained for use and/or infiltration within the lot at a rate of 1m³ per 40m² of impervious area

 

3.3    Details of the proposed bin storage areas including, but not limited to, the design and the materials to be used in their construction.

 

3.4    Details of type and colour of all external materials to be used (including for any water tanks or outbuildings). 

 

3.5    Details including drainage, sealing, signage and marking for all hard surfaced areas to be used for the construction of the parking and manoeuvering areas as shown on the Approved Development plans.

 

3.6    Satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City to provide public art works.  This entails compliance with the Percent for Art provisions of the City’s Development Contribution policy via appropriate works up to a minimum value of 1% of the Estimated Cost of Development (“ECD”).  Where the value of on-site works is less than 1% of the ECD, a payment sufficient to bring the total contribution to 1% of the ECD is required. (Advice Note 5)

 

3.7    A Landscape Plan (Advice Note 5) that will provide for an increased screening of the developed portion of the site from Bussell Highway.

 

3.8    Notification in the form of a section 70A notification, pursuant to the Transfer of Lands Act 1893 (as amended) is to be placed on the Certificates of Title of Lot 10 advising the following:

 

BUSHFIRE PRONE AREA – This lot is located within a bushfire prone area as designated by an Order made by the Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner.”

 

Prior to Occupation/Use of the Development Conditions:

 

4)     The development hereby approved shall not be occupied, or used, until all plans, details or works required by Condition(s) 2, 3 and 4 have been complied with.

 

5)     Landscaping and reticulation shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan and shall thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the City.  Unless otherwise first agreed in writing, any  trees or plants which, within a period of five years from first planting  are removed, die or, as assessed by the City as being seriously damaged, shall be replaced within the next available planting season with others of the same species, size and number as per originally approved.

 

On-going Conditions:

 

6)     The works undertaken to satisfy Condition 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be subsequently maintained for the life of the development.

 

7)     The maximum patient numbers permitted onsite are as follows: 30 resident patients (resident at the site for a maximum of 90 days at a time or in any given year), 8 inpatients (resident at the site for a maximum of seven days at a time, or in any given month, or 90 days in any given year) and 5 day patients.

 

8)     Advertising signage associate with the approved use shall no greater than 0.2m2, and shall only be located at the Roy Road entry into the site.

 

ADVICE TO APPLICANT

1)    If the applicant and/or owner are aggrieved by this decision, including any conditions of approval, there is a right to lodge a request for reconsideration. The application form and information on fees payable can be found on the City’s website.

2)    If the applicant and/or owner are aggrieved by this decision there may also be a right of review under the provisions of Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. A review must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal, and must be lodged within 28 days of the decision being made by the City of Busselton.

3)    This Decision Notice grants planning consent to the development the subject of this application (DA16/0412). It cannot be construed as granting planning consent for any other structure shown on the approved plans which was not specifically included in this application.

4)    Please note it is the responsibility of the applicant / owner to ensure that, in relation to Condition 1, this Planning Consent remains current and does not lapse.  The City of Busselton does not send reminder notices in this regard.

5)    The Landscape Plan should include a plant schedule nominating species, planting distances, numbers, planting sizes, together with the anticipated height of each plant at maturity and should indicate the type of reticulation to be installed.

6)    With respect to Condition 4.6, applicants are encourage to review the Percent for Art Policy Step by Step Guide for Developers which can be viewed on the City’s website at www.busselton.wa.gov.au and liaise with the City’s Cultural Planning Officer at the earliest possible opportunity.

7)    In accordance with the provisions of the Building Act 2011, and Building Regulations 2012, an application for a building permit must be submitted to, and approval granted by the City, prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted.

8)    Food handling, preparation and storage areas to be designed and constructed in accordance with Food Act 2008 and Food Regulations 2009 and the Australian and New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) Food Safety Standards. Detailed plan and layout of food handling and preparation areas to be submitted directly to assessing Environmental Health Officer prior to a building licence being issued.

 


Council

109

10 August 2016

11.4

Attachment a

Site Aerial

 


Council

109

10 August 2016

11.4

Attachment b

Site Photos

 


 


Council

117

10 August 2016

11.4

Attachment c

Development Plans

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

131

10 August 2016

11.4

Attachment d

Table of Submissions

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

137

10 August 2016

11.4

Attachment e

Petition

 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

141

10 August 2016

11.4

Attachment f

Applicant Response to Submissions

 


 


 


Council                                                                                      143                                                               10 August 2016

11.5           PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BUSHFIRE NOTICE COMPLIANCE DATES

SUBJECT INDEX:

Bushfire Control and Emegency Services

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Environmental Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Ranger & Emergency Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Ranger and Emergency Services Coordinator - Dean Freeman

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

  

This item was considered by the Bush Fire Advisory Committee at its meeting on 14 June 2016, the recommendations from which require Council consideration. The Committee recommendation is included in this report.

 

PRÉCIS

 

This matter was considered by the Council’s Bush Fire Advisory Committee at its meeting on 14 June 2016 and the Officer Recommendation in this item reflects the recommendation of that Committee.

 

This report recommends that Council amend the compliance dates in the City’s Firebreak and Fuel Hazard Reduction Notice (Bush Fire Notice) for when firebreaks must be installed and other bush fire risk mitigation measures implemented on rural residential, urban and industrial land from the current 1 December to 16 November in each year.

 

BACKGROUND

 

As a measure for preventing the outbreak and spread of bush fire, owners and occupiers of land within the City are sent an annual notice in the form of a Firebreak and Fuel Hazard Reduction Notice, advising owners and occupiers of land to construct fire breaks and to implement other measures for the prevention and control of bush fire.

 

The Bush Fires Act 1954 (the Act) provides the power for Council to appoint a Bush Fire Control Officer (BFCO) to carry out duties as outlined in the Act, for the prevention and control of bushfire within the district of Busselton.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 33 of the Bush Fires Act 1954 empowers a Council to require the occupier of land to undertake the installation of fire-breaks and to act as and when specified in the notice with respect to anything which is upon the land, and which in the opinion of the local government or its duly authorised officer, is or is likely to be conducive to the outbreak of a bush fire or the spread or extension of a bush fire, and further to stipulate by when such measures shall be implemented.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The City’s Bush Fire Strategic Plan was adopted in 2005 and is the overarching plan for the City’s management of bush fire related issues.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There will be minor costs associated with advertising any change of dates if agreed to, however this can be accommodated within budget allocations.

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

There are no long term financial implications associated with this matter

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

Consideration of this matter is consistent with Community Objective 6.3 - An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community – of the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan 2013.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

CONSULTATION

 

The recommendation is supported by the City’s Bush Fire advisory Committee.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The current City of Busselton Firebreak and Fuel Hazard Reduction Notice requires the occupier of land to implement measures by the following dates:

 

·    Completion of firebreaks/fuel hazard reduction on all rural residential, urban and industrial land is required by 1 December 2015 and must be maintained until 12 May 2016

 

·    Completion of firebreaks/fuel hazard reduction on all rural land is required by 15 December 2015 and must be maintained until 12 May 2016

 

Climate conditions are changing and we are now experiencing “fire sympathetic“ weather conditions in late spring and early summer. As such, it is considered that the measures required of landowners/occupiers to mitigate the risk of bush fire should similarly be implemented earlier.

 

It is acknowledged that on rural lands, many landowners would not have completed harvesting of crops for hay/animal sustenance earlier than the current dates and as such, no change to the dates currently required for rural land are proposed. It is however, recommended that for all other lands within the City, the date for completion of fire mitigation measures be brought forward by two weeks, with the proposed compliance date being the 16 November each year.

 

The implementation of an earlier date for all rural residential, urban and industrial land compliance with the City’s Firebreak and Fuel Hazard Reduction Notice will also enable earlier commencement of the inspection program by City staff. This will lead to a greater percentage of properties within the City being bush fire ready earlier in the fire season.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The changing nature of our climate and the earlier commencement of heightened fire compatible conditions is readily apparent. It is considered that there will be an increase in fire mitigation works on private land prior to the height of the fire season within the City as an outcome of implementing the proposed date change.

 

As such, it is recommended that the Council support changing the date for compliance with the City’s annual Firebreak and Fuel Hazard Reduction Notice for all rural residential, urban and industrial land from 1 December to 16 November each year.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council could resolve not to amend the current dates for the establishment of firebreaks/fire mitigation measures under the City’s Firebreak and Fuel Hazard Reduction Notice or determine an alternative date for compliance with the City’s notice.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Subject to Council endorsement of the Officer recommendation the amended time for compliance will be incorporated into the 2016/17 Firebreak and Fuel Hazard Reduction Notice prior to issue of the Notice in October 2016.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council pursuant to section 33 of the Bush Fires Act 1954, amend the commencement  date for compliance with the requirements of the City of Busselton annual Firebreak and Fuel Hazard Reduction Notice for all rural residential, urban and industrial land from 1 December to 16 November in each year.

 


Council                                                                                      151                                                               10 August 2016

11.6           DA15/0340 - USE NOT LISTED (OFFENSIVE OR HAZARDOUS INDUSTRY - CRUSHING AND RECYCLING OF BUILDING MATERIAL)

SUBJECT INDEX:

Planning/Development Applications

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Services and Policy

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Statutory Planning

REPORTING OFFICER:

Senior Development Planner - Andrew Watts

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Site Plan

Attachment b    Development Proposal

Attachment c    Schedule of Submissions

Attachment d   Noise Contour Plan  

  

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is asked to consider an application seeking approval for a Use Not Listed (Offensive or Hazardous Industry – Crushing and Recycling of Building Materials) at Lot 6 (No.19) Cable Sands Road, Yalyalup (“the site”). The approval is being sought for a temporary term of three years.

 

The planning proposal has been placed before Council due to the significant volume of public submissions received raising concern with the development and the nature of the issues requiring consideration.

 

At its meeting of 10 February 2016 Council resolved that decision on this application be deferred pending resolution issues of a legal/statutory nature.

 

After receiving external advice officers came to the conclusion that as the land is zoned Yalyalup Deferred Development and there are no specific land use provisions in either the Local Planning Scheme or Structure Plan for the zone then the proposal should correctly now be considered as a ‘use not listed’, rather than as a change of non-conforming use.

 

On the basis of the proposal being re-classified as a use not listed it is necessary to follow the requirements of clause 4.4.2 of the Scheme and as such after determining that the use may be consistent with the objectives of the zone, the proposal was re-advertised following the procedures of Scheme clause 10.4.

 

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the relevant planning framework and is recommended for approval subject to conditions including a temporary approval timeframe of three years and operations be required to cease earlier if noise sensitive development encroaches sufficiently close such that noise emitted from the proposal can no longer comply with prescribed noise levels.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Lot 6 (No.19) Cable Sands Road has street frontage to Cable Sands Road to the west and Bussell Hwy to the north, is bound by Lot 203 Bussell Hwy to the east and Lot 9032 Cable Sands Rd to the south. Lots 203 and 9032 are part of the Satterley Property Group land holdings for the Provence Estate.

 

Under Local Planning Scheme No. 21 the site is zoned Special Purpose (Yalyalup Deferred Development) and is subject of Special Provision 23. Special Provision 23 requires that:

Development (including subdivision) of the land shall be generally in accordance with the Development Guide Plan and the Detailed Area Plan for the land adopted by Council and endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission.

 

Special Provision 23 also sets out the planning requirements for Development Guide Plans and Detailed Area Plans over the land.

 

The applicant is seeking to establish for a limited duration, a facility for the recycling of construction and demolition waste. The facility is proposed to recycle concrete, brick and tile material to create road base, drainage material and sand through on-site crushing of the waste materials.

 

Historically the site has been used as a timber mill and yard, and some aspects of the use the applicant advises have been continuing. Currently, the site is predominantly used as the main operational office and workshop for the applicant’s business. The site is used for storage of vehicles and equipment, materials and their maintenance. There are parking areas for light vehicles, trucks and trailers and earthmoving/road construction equipment. There is also a large workshop that provides vehicle and machinery maintenance and repairs.

 

The applicant originally requested approval for a period of up to five years, however in response to submissions received after initial advertising of the development proposal, BCP reduced the requested approval period to three years. The applicant has further advised that they would not object to a condition requiring operations to cease earlier than three years should noise sensitive development on adjacent land approach sufficiently close that the proposal can no longer contain noise emissions to levels prescribed by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. 

 

An application for works approval and licence has been submitted by the proponent to the Department of Environment Regulation (DER). Advice has been received by the City that DER has given the proponent a Draft Works Approval with a range of environmental conditions that the proponent has agreed to accept. DER are prepared to issue a formal Works Approval subject to the City issuing Development Approval and have advised that any licence issued would be for a duration that runs concurrent to any development approval issued by the City.

 

At its meeting of 10 February 2016, Council resolved that decision on this application be deferred pending resolution of issues of a legal/statutory nature.

 

The proposal was originally advertised for public comment on the basis of it being a non-conforming land use, however since the application was initially received and advertised the Structure Plan for the area has been changed and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 have been gazetted.  Both have affected the classification of use that would be taken today.  Planning decisions in WA are made by the policies that apply at the time of the decision and not when the applications were made. After considering the legal/statutory issues, officers came to the conclusion that as the land is zoned Yalyalup Deferred Development and there are no specific land use provisions in either the Local Planning Scheme or Structure Plan for the zone then the proposal should correctly now be considered as a ‘use not listed’.

 

On the basis of the proposal being re-classified as a use not listed it is necessary to follow the requirements of clause 4.4.2 of the Scheme and as such after determining that the use may be consistent with the objectives of the zone, the proposal was re-advertised following the procedures of Scheme clause 10.4.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key elements of the statutory environment that relate to the proposal are set out in the Local Planning Scheme. Most significant is clause 4.4.2, which relates to issues not listed -

4.4.2.        If a person proposes to carry out on land any use that is not specifically mentioned in the  Zoning Table and cannot reasonably be determined as falling within the type, class or genus of activity of any other use category the local government may ‐

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

(b)    determine that the use may be consistent with the objectives and policies of the particular zone and thereafter follow the advertising procedures of clause 10.4 in considering an application for planning approval; or

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

 

Clause 11.6 (Temporary Planning Approval) is also relevant -

 

Where the local government grants planning approval, the local government may impose conditions limiting the period of time for which the approval is granted.

 

Note: A temporary planning approval is where the local government grants approval for a limited period, for example, where the land may be required for some other purpose in the future, and is different to the term of the planning approval which is the period within which the development must commence.

 

In this instance the land has been identified for future urban development and the proposal is requesting a time limited approval of 3 years. Due to potential for the development front associated with Provence Estate within the next 3 years moving closer to the subject site, it is also recommended for approval to be limited such that operations are required to cease when development encroaches significantly close that the noise emitted from the proposed operation on Lot 6 Cable Sands Rd cannot comply with the prescribed noise level of 45dB (LA10). 

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

There are no Local Planning Policies relevant to this proposal.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no financial implications to the City arising from this proposal or staff recommendation in this report.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendation of this report reflects Community Objectives 2.2 and 3.1 of the Strategic Community Plan 2013, which are:

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

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

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

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

Reputational risk should the development not be managed effectively to minimize impact on the amenity of other nearby land

Appropriate assessment of the issue and recognition of additional control provided by DER works approval and licence requirements

Minor

Possible

Medium

 

CONSULTATION

 

The proposal has been referred to adjoining landowners of the proposed development site and was also advertised in the local newspaper for a period of 21 days on two separate occasions, the second after the use was reclassified as a use not listed.

 

During the first round of advertising a total of twenty-one submissions were received, of which four were from government agencies, two were from property developers who own adjoining land, one was from a local school and 14 submissions were received from members of the general public.  The majority of public submissions received were objecting to or raising concerns with the proposal for the following reasons:

·     Properties will be devalued due to the destruction by industry of the lifestyle chosen by owners in the area.

·     Concerned about operation being proposed 6 days per week from 7am 5pm. If approved operating on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays should not be permitted and preferably shorter hours.

·     Time frame of approval should be greatly limited, i.e. to less than the five years requested and preferably only to the time necessary to process waste from the hospital demolition.

·     Concerned about proximity of proposal to residential areas and Georgiana Molloy School. Believe proposal should be located preferably in an Industrial or Rural area. Proposal is less than the 1000m from sensitive premises specified by the EPA Guidance Statement No.3. The proposal is approximately half of this distance, this variation is too great.

·     Why is the Rendezvous Rd site not being used for this proposal?

·     Concerned by dust being blown and that waste accepted will contain asbestos, affecting people’s health and contaminating rain water supplies.

·     Concerned about water volume needed for dust suppression and that may necessitate excessive abstraction of groundwater with resultant impact on the local aquifer relied upon by other landowners and needed for ecological balance.

·     Additional heavy traffic onto Bussell Hwy will increase road safety issues.

·     Believes that the proposal represents too significant a change in use from the current activities on the site with too significant impacts.

·     Noise impacts from truck movements, reversing beepers, machinery operation, dumping of materials. Constant vibration and noise causes stress.

During the second round of advertising a further two submissions from members of the public who had not previously made a submission on the application were received. These submissions raised similar issues to that raised in other submissions on the proposal.

 

Further submissions were received from a member of the public who has previously made submission reiterating previous concerns and further submissions were received on behalf of adjoining landholders Dodd and Dodd and from the Satterley Property Group in regards to the impact of the proposal on future estate development plans.  

The concerns raised in the submissions are discussed further below and specific consideration of the submissions is given in the Schedule of Submissions at Attachment C.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Key issues/questions in relation to the application are outlined and discussed below.

 

Period of approval

 

Some submissions, including from property developers owning adjoining land raised concern in regard to the proposed approval period, with comments suggesting that if approved a shorter timeframe would be more acceptable to tolerate impacts to amenity and not unduly impact on future development plans.

 

In response to submissions the applicant has reduced the original approval period requested down to three years and has agreed that operations will cease earlier if noise emission impacts on new sensitive development cannot be contained to levels prescribed by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. The relevant prescribed daytime noise level for this proposal is 45dB (LA10) and a plan illustrating this area is included as Attachment D. This reduction is considered acceptable to not impact on future development plans of adjoining landowners and combined with environmental conditions that would be imposed through the DER environmental approvals process and other conditions of the City development approval, it is considered that a three year approval would appropriately mitigate impacts on the surrounding residential uses.

 

Operation times

 

Multiple submission raised concerns in respect to the proposed operation times that they should be shorter and be restricted to weekdays only to reduce the duration each day of environmental impacts on amenity, such as that from noise and to allow for enjoyment of weekends at home free of any noise.

 

Recommended conditions include limiting all operations on weekdays to specified hours, reducing the Saturday times and limiting it to delivery of materials only, with no crushing and prohibiting any operations on Sundays and public holidays. This aims to assist in reducing the daily impact on surrounding residents whilst still allowing sustainable business operations. This type of restriction on operating hours is similar to that which are frequently imposed on development approvals for extractive industry.

 

Environmental Impacts on surrounding land (noise, dust etc.)

 

The majority of the issues raised by members of the public relate to the environmental impact from noise and dust (including potential for asbestos fibres). The application information submitted for development approval is the same as that submitted to DER for environmental approvals and includes a range of environmental management plans and measures to mitigate environmental impacts, including noise, dust and handling of asbestos.

 

Advice has been received that DER has issued the applicant a Draft Works Approval and is prepared to issue the approval formally provided the City has issued Development Approval and would only approve a licence application for a duration the same as that of any approval by the City. 

 

As the proposed operation cannot occur without environmental approval from DER, there are not any separate environmental conditions recommended to be included on the City Development Approval.

 

Traffic

 

The proposal was referred to Main Roads WA comment on traffic management issues with trucks entering onto Bussell Hwy. No concerns were raised by Main Roads in respect to the type or volume of the traffic that would be accessing the site via the Main Roads controlled section of Bussell Hwy.

 

The applicant states that there will only be an increase of 12 truck movements per day over the current site operations. This level of increase in traffic is considered to be very small and the current road access configuration is adequate to deal with this.

 

Concerns about noise from vehicle movements on site and reversing beepers is required to comply with noise management requirements set by DER.

 

The crossover into the site is not sealed. To minimise the drag out of gravel from the site onto Cable Sands Rd, the crossover is to be appropriately sealed.

 

Why is Rendezvous Rd site not being used by the applicant?

 

Submission queried why the proposal was intended to be located at Lot 6 Cable Sands Rd when there are similar activities carried out at the City owned Rendezvous Rd waste site. The City needs to assess the application that has been lodged, and the potential or otherwise of alternative sites is not a question that can or should be addressed unless and until it has first been determined that the application site is not appropriate (if this were a strategic planning process, the scope of considerations would be broader and could include the consideration of potential alternatives).

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is recommended that the Council approve the development with conditions restricting approval to a period of three years or until noise sensitive development approaches to the point where prescribed noise level requirements can no longer be met and with restrictions on scale and operating times.

 

The proposed conditions restricting operation times and total volumes of material put through aim to alleviate the occurrence of unreasonable levels of noise, dust and traffic impacts that have been highlighted as concerns in submissions received.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could:

 

1.    Refuse the proposal, setting out reasons for doing so.

2.    Apply additional or different conditions.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The proponent and those who made a submission will be advised of the Council decision within two weeks of the Council meeting.

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council resolve:

 

1)    That application DA15/0340 submitted for development at Lot 6 (No.19) Cable Sands Road, Yalyalup is considered by the Council to be generally consistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives and policies of the zone within which it is located.

 

2)    That temporary Planning Consent be granted for the proposal referred in 1. above subject to the following conditions:

 

General Conditions:

1)    The development hereby approved is permitted to operate for three years from the date of this Decision Notice or within 30 days of the issue of titles for any residential or commercial development lots which encroach within the 45 dB (LA10) noise contour line depicted on figure 5-2 of the Lloyd George Acoustics Environmental Noise Assessment, Proposed Concrete Crushing Plant 19 Cable Sands Road, Yalyalup, whichever is the sooner.

 

2)    All development is to be in accordance with the approved Development Plans   (attached), including any amendments placed thereon by the City and except as may be modified by the following conditions.

 

3)    Hours of operation of the business (including receipt of deliveries) are restricted to between 7.00am and 5.00pm on weekdays; 9.00am and 3.00pm Saturdays for delivery of materials only, no crushing; and, at no time on Sundays or public holidays.

 

4)    A maximum of 70,000 tonnes per annum of construction and demolition waste being processed at the site.

 

Prior to Occupation/Use of the Development Conditions:

5)    The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or used until all plans, details of works required by Conditions(s) 1 have been implemented and the following conditions have been complied with:

5.1          The crossover onto Cable Sands Road is to be sealed and drained for a minimum of 20m.

 

On-going Conditions:

6)    The works undertaken to satisfy Condition(s) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be subsequently maintained for the life of the development.

 


http://bsnspatial/intramaps70/ApplicationEngine/ImageProxy.ashx?imageUrl=http%3a%2f%2fBSNSPATIAL%2fIntraMaps70%2fSpatialEngineWS%2fPrintMap.ashx%3fwidth%3d950%26height%3d510%26scale%3d10000%26exportFormat%3dwmf%26id%3d1f3b14a9-bd53-41c7-931f-9305451fddf4&SessionID=mxfswd55rfmh10552zqhyf55

COB-RGB

Disclaimer: Every effort has been made to make the information displayed here as accurate as possible. This process is ongoing and the information is therefore ever changing and can not be disseminated as accurate. Care must be taken not to use this information as correct or legally binding. To verify information contact the City of Busselton office.

 

Produced on:
Friday, 22 January 2016

north

Map Scale:
1:10000

 


Council

193

10 August 2016

11.6

Attachment b

Development Proposal

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 





 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

253

10 August 2016

11.6

Attachment c

Schedule of Submissions

 

 

Submission. No

ADDRESS

NAME

Nature of Submission

Officer Comment

GOVERNMENT SUBMISSIONS

1

 

Main             Roads Western Australia

No objections to the proposal.

  Noted

2

 

Department   of Health

No specific comment on the proposal provided that the development complies with the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) requirements and is operated in accordance with plans and documentation submitted

The applicant has applied for DER approval and if DER approval is obtained would be required to comply with its conditional requirements.

3

 

Department   of Water

The site is located within the Busselton-Capel Groundwater Area as proclaimed under the ‘Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914’.

 

The subject site has a high watertable, as noted in the application documentation.

 

DoW identifies the following risks associated with the proposal:-

 

·       Contamination of groundwater due to the release of hydrocarbons/chemicals from minor and major spills during vehicle/plant maintenance (and refueling)

·       Seepage of hydrocarbons/chemicals through the workshop area floor and vehicle wash-down area (if insufficiently impermeable)

·       Breach of contaminants through the bunded area during major storm events, due to insufficient bund height or poor maintenance

·       Sufficient water to meet the needs of the operation

 

To mitigate against the risks, DoW recommends the following measure:

 

·       Contamination of groundwater due to the release of hydrocarbons/chemicals from minor and major spills during vehicle/plant maintenance (and refueling)

 

This risk is common to many industrial facilities and as part of any DER approvals would be required to be managed appropriately by the business.

 

·       Seepage of hydrocarbons/chemicals through the workshop area floor and vehicle wash-down area (if insufficiently impermeable)

 

This risk is common to many industrial facilities and as part of any DER approvals would be required to be managed appropriately by the business.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·       A detailed ‘Stormwater Management Plan’ should be provided to the satisfaction of the City of Busselton, showing clearly the surface flow directions and infrastructure locations (offices, vehicle wash-down area, workshop area  & chemical storage area, location of all  bunds, sumps, drains and the waste oil storage tank). The stormwater management measures contained on pg. 31 of the referral documentation should be incorporated into the ‘Stormwater Management Plan’.

 

·       In accordance with DoW’s Water Quality Protection Note (WQPN) No. 61 - ‘Tanks for ground level chemical storage (July 2008)’; spilt chemicals should drain into a contained recovery pit that is capable of containing potential chemical spills, plus any stormwater intrusion, from at least a 24-hour, two–year  average-return-interval, storm event (Appendix A, reference 6 of WQPN 61) (see attachment).

 

·       In accordance to WQPN No.10 - ‘Contaminant spills

emergency response (February 2006)’, an effective Emergency Response Plan (ERP) should be prepared, maintained and implemented by anyone who stores, transports, handles or uses chemicals or other substances that have the potential to contaminate water resources (see attachment). Emergencies may arise as a result of equipment malfunctions, operating accidents, employee malpractice, fires, natural events (eg storms, earthquakes), and occasionally as result of civil disturbances and unauthorised site access by intruders.   The   most   important   concern   after

 

·       Breach of contaminants through the bunded area during major storm events, due to insufficient bund height or poor maintenance

 

Page 31 of the referral documentation submitted for the application contains stormwater management measures aimed to satisfy DER approval requirements.

 

·       Sufficient water to meet the needs of the operation

 

The applicant advises that the site has an existing dam which provides water for existing dust suppression activities. The applicants advises that the dam provided sufficient water for dust suppression activities for previous timber milling activities and is anticipating that this will meet ongoing needs. 

 

·       DoW recommends the following measures, in line with the DoW’s WQPN No 68 ‘Mechanical equipment wash down (Sept 2013)’:-

 

This risk is common to many industrial facilities. BCP has constructed a concrete washdown bay with concrete collector pit aimed at satisfying City, DoW and DER requirements.

 

 

 

 

making the site safe should be to contain then recover as much of the spilt chemical as practical prior to any escape of residues into the environment.

 

·       Spill containment compounds should be constructed of waterproof reinforced concrete, or approved equivalent material, that is chemically resistant. For more information, see DoW’s WQPN No 27 - ‘Liners for containing pollutants using engineered soils’ and No. 26 - ‘Liners for containing pollutants using synthetic membranes’ (attached).

 

·       All chemical transfer activities (into and out of tanks) should occur on an impervious sealed floor, which is kerbed, graded or bunded to prevent liquid run-off into the environment.

 

DoW recommends the following measures, in line with the DoW’s WQPN No 68 ‘Mechanical equipment wash down (Sept 2013)’:-

 

·       Equipment wash down should be contained on an impervious pad, such as reinforced concrete or plastic liner (for temporary facilities), with a perimeter kerb or bund wall (ideally within a weather-proof building). If unroofed, the pad should be kept to the smallest practical surface area to minimise stormwater access and fully contain wash down residue. The wash down pad should drain to a collector pit.

 

 

 

 

 

·              Water collected from the wash down pad should drain from the collector pit via a pipe or culvert into a sediment basin to settle and allow removal of soil and other solid contaminants.  The basin should provide for effective gravity settling of solids with a minimum water detention capacity of one hour under peak flow conditions.

 

·       Sediment traps, de-emulsification basins and water treatment vessels should have an impervious lining and minimum freeboard to contain wash-water and any captured stormwater from a minimum two-year return frequency, 24-hour storm. Methods to calculate runoff from storms are described in Australian rainfall and run-off (reference 5).

 

·       All equipment wash down should occur on a contained impervious pad that drains to wastewater detention and treatment facilities.

 

·       Petroleum hydrocarbons recovered by the oil separator and emulsion break residues should be collected and securely stored in weather-proof containers for recycling, destruction by incineration or disposal at a site approved in accordance with the ‘Health Act 1911’ and the ‘Environmental Protection Act 1986’.

 

 

4.

 

Department   of Environment Regulation (DER)

The proposal is for facility that is categorised as Prescribed Premises as per the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 and as such requires works approval from DER to be obtained.

 

The proponent has contacted DER regarding works approval application requirements.

 

Works approval may not be issued until such time as planning approval has been granted.

 

The  referral  application  indicates  that  DER  issues licences for a period of 5 years, however

The applicant was seeking temporary Planning Consent, for a period of 5 years. Based on concerns raised in submissions in respect to anticipated development timeframes, the applicant has advised City staff that they are willing to reduce the requested term of planning approval from 5 years to 3 years.

 

Advice has been received by City staff that DER has provided a Draft Works Approval to the applicant which they are prepared to issue subject to advice from the City that Development Approval has been granted for the proposal. DER approval duration would be for the same period of time as any Development Approval from the City (if granted).

 

 

 

since November 2014 DER issued guidance that it supports a 20yr duration on licences with consideration of a number of other factors including the duration of other statutory approvals.

 

 

PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

 

5.

 

Satterley Property Group

(2 x submissions, 1 during each of the first and second rounds of advertising)

Objection

 

Lot 6 abuts the northern boundary of the currently undeveloped portion of Satterley’s Provence Estate and on its eastern boundary Lot 6 abuts Lot 203 which is also controlled by Satterley.

 

Satterley is currently reviewing future plans for Provence including Lot 203, which will consider the staging and timing of future residential development. At this stage the anticipated date for commencement of development of DAP8 and Lot 203 could be as early as two years.

 

Concerned about the impacts of the proposal on the amenity of current and future residents of Provence and Lot 203 due to noise (plant and truck movements), dust (incl asbestos) and visual intrusion. Whilst recognising measures are proposed to put in place by BCP to minimise impacts, not satisfied that the measures proposed will address the potentially adverse impacts of the proposal on Satterley’s land.

 

In response to second round of advertising Satterley advised that development of land in close proximity to Lot 6 Cable Sands Rd is anticipated to occur within approximately 12 months

 

 

The applicant is seeking temporary approval for the proposed use. Based on the concerns raised by the submitter in respect of its anticipated development timeframes, the applicant has advised City staff that they are willing to reduce the requested term of planning approval from 5 years to 3 years. This timeframe could fit with the submitters anticipated date of commencement (2yrs) plus the time it takes from this date to undertake civil works and satisfy all WAPC subdivision requirements prior to issue of future titles.

 

 

Concerns regarding potential impacts on the amenity of current and future residents within the submitters development area should be suitably addressed via proposed measures outlined in the application and conditions requirements set out by City and  DER approvals.

 

 

Modification to relevant Structure Plan will need to be approved prior to subdivision approval. Officer recommendation to include condition requiring proposed concrete crushing to cease at point in time when residential and commercial development comes sufficiently close to Lot 6 that prescribed noise level requirements can not be achieved.

6.

 

Georgiana Molloy Anglican School

Strongly object.

 

Concerns regarding health, safety and wellbeing of students, staff and parents at the school.

 

 

 

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) recommends separation distances for waste storage and crushing of building materials at 200m and 1000m respectively. The Georgiana Molloy Anglican School is approximately 1500m away.

 

 

 

 

 

Concerned with dust, particularly for asthmatics at school. Part of children’s curriculum includes playing outside and children, teachers and parents may be put at adverse risk because of emitted dust, reduce the time that students could be outside and have detrimental effect on their learning.

 

Concerned the site will have some asbestos delivered despite inspections by supervisors. When crushed and in a friable state asbestos is at its most dangerous.

 

Also concerned about noise levels that will travel to the school and neighbouring Provence estate where a lot of the school’s families live. Continuous exposure to noise and vibration is jarring, annoying and leads to increased anxiety and blood pressure.

Compliance with DER requirements to manage dust appropriately (including no asbestos on site) are proposed to be implemented in accordance with a Dust Management Plan to be approved and enforced by DER.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Details of noise assessment submitted with the proposal concluded that with proposed noise mitigation measures (including 5m high noise barrier around the facility) crushing operations would comply with assigned levels under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. This is an element that is considered and enforced by DER as part of their approvals process and therefore noise will be required to be maintained at acceptable levels in accordance with relevant legislation.

 

 

                               

7.

 

Dynamic Planning                             & Developments (on    behalf    of adjoining landowner  Dodd    Dodd Pty Ltd)

Objection.

 

·          Outlines the Strategic planning documents of relevance to the site and area e.g. Busselton Airport Structure Plan and Airport North Development Guide Plan and believes the proposal is not in keeping with these Strategic Planning documents, the land uses and zoning that they intend to provide for being future residential developments.

 

 

·          Questions if the proposal complies with LPS No.21 clause 4.11 ‘Extensions and Changes to a Non-conforming Use’ as the proposed use is more detrimental to the amenity of the locality than the current uses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·          Does not comply with environmental guidelines for this type of development including not meeting the 1000m separation distance.

 

 

The land is in a deferred development zone and the proposal is an interim use. Due to its temporary nature and anticipated development timeframes, the proposal if approved is not likely to compromise the intended land use as per referred strategic planning documents for the future or undermine planned development of the surrounding land.

 

 

 

That the proposed use is more detrimental to the amenity of the locality than current use of the site is subjective and it could be suggested that the previous timber mill use had the same level of impact.  Mitigation measures to address impacts if development approval is granted will be required to be implemented and reinforced by imposed conditions administered by both Council and DER approvals.

 

Subsequent to originally being presented to Council staff have determined that the processing and consideration of the proposal is more currently dealt with under Use Not Listed provision of the Scheme and proposal was re-advertised.

 

 

 

The recommended separation distance by the EPA is a default position. If measures and/or circumstances support recommended separation distances to be varied, consideration to a proposed use at a reduced distance can be considered by the local government and/or DER

 

 

 

 

 

 

·              Do not believe the proposed use is of a temporary nature such can be approved in accordance with TPS No.21 clause 11.6 ‘Temporary Planning Approval’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·          Proposal does not comply with TPS No.21 Cl 11.2 Matters to be considered’

 

It is unclear why the submitter considers the proposed use cannot be considered as a Temporary planning approval in accordance with Clause 11.6 of the Scheme. Clause 11.6 states that “a temporary planning approval is where the local government grants approval for a limited period, for example, where the land may be required for some other purpose in the future. The Scheme appears to facilitate this scenario.

 

The proposed use being temporary in nature will be provided by virtue of the development approval and specific condition of to specify the term of approval. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 11.2 of the Scheme refers to Council having “due regard” to the various ‘Matters to be Considered’. It therefore not an issue of compliance rather consideration of matters in context with a proposed use. Accordingly Council will have due regard to such matters and make a rational decision with regard to the proposed use consistent Clause 1.6 (d) of the Scheme. 

 

8.

 

16            submission from surrounding landowners raising a variety of concerns (2 x submissions received in second round of advertising from persons who had not previously made submission)

16 x Objections making the following comments:

·          Support the principles of recycling and reduction of waste material going to landfill.

·          Questions the accuracy of some aspects of the DA report e.g distance of development site to Busselton Town Centre

·          Properties will be devalued due to the destruction by industry of the lifestyle chosen by owners in the area.

 

 

·          Concerned about operation being proposed 6 days per week from 7am 5pm. If approved operating on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays should not be permitted.

·          If approved operation should be restricted to 8:30am 3:30pm, 5 days per week only.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·          Believe proposal should be located further away from residential areas, preferably in an Industrial or Rural area.

 

·          Why is the Rendezvous Rd site not being used for this proposal.

 

 

 

 

·          Proposal is less than the 1000m from sensitive premises specified by the EPA Guidance Statement No.3. The proposal is approximately half of this distance, this variation is too great.

 

Noted

 

The distance of the development site to the Busselton town Centre as stated in the DA report is approximate

 

The use is proposed to be temporary for a period of three years and located in an area which currently experiences use of heavy vehicles and adjacent to a major highway.

 

The hours of operation proposed are between 7.00am and 5.00pm Monday – Saturday. The applicant advises that it is expected crushing will only be carried out approximately 5 days a week and anticipate that only 15,000 tonnes per annum will be crushed in the first year of operation with potentially moderate increases thereafter and if crushing 100 tonnes in a day, then 15,000 tonnes per annum equates to approximately 15 days crushing per annum (3 weeks assuming 5 days per week). The application submitted does however state a throughput of 70,000 tonnes per annum. Consideration could be made by Council to limiting the hours of operation and the total volume of waste put through.

 

Proposal is for a temporary use that if environmental approval is granted by DER will be required to achieve acceptable environmental assessment outcomes.

 

The City needs to assess the application that has been lodged, and the potential or otherwise of alternative sites is not a question that can or should be addressed unless and until it has first been determined that the application site is not appropriate (if this were a strategic planning process, the scope of considerations would be broader and could include the consideration of potential alternatives).

The recommended separation distance by the EPA is a default position. If measures and/or circumstances support recommended separation distances to be varied, consideration to a proposed use at a reduced distance can be considered by the local government and/or DER.

 

 

 

 

 

·          Concerned about proximity of proposal to Georgiana Molloy School.

 

·          Concerned by dust being blown over nearby properties with particular concern for asthmatics and children at local school. Dust settling on rooves and penetrating into homes. Dust will also cause corrosion to buildings.

 

·          Waste accepted will contain asbestos and dust produced by crushing operations will contain asbestos fibres.

 

·          Dust settling on rooves and water tanks will contaminate the water supplies of nearby properties where no access to scheme water is available.

 

·          Concerned about water volume needed for dust suppression and that may necessitate excessive abstraction of groundwater with resultant impact on the local aquifer relied upon by other landowners and needed for ecological balance.

 

·          Additional heavy traffic onto Bussell Hwy will increase road safety issues.

 

·          Noise impacts from truck movements, reversing beepers, machinery operation, dumping of materials. Constant vibration and noise causes stress.

 

 

The School is approximately 1.5km from the site.

 

 

Compliance with DER requirements to manage dust appropriately (including no asbestos on site) will be required to be implemented in accordance with a Dust Management Plan to be approved and enforced by DER through the environmental approvals processes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water supply for dust suppression will be obtained from an existing dam on site under an existing water licence.

 

 

 

 

It is not expected additional heavy traffic movements onto Bussell Highway or vehicles usage on the site will significantly change from current operations given the estimated crushing of 15,000 tonnes pa.

 

 

 

 

·              Wish for confirmation that if approved the operations at the site will not be for a maximum period of 5 years and that this timeframe will be enforced and not extended.

·              The timeframe for operation if approved should be limited to that needed to deal with the waste from the hospital demolition.

·              Confirmation needed that industrial type of activities will not be approved for extension onto adjoining land.

 

·              Believes that the proposal represents too significant a change in use from the current activities on the site with too significant impacts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·              Concerned about the impact of environmental emissions on local flora and fauna, which are believed to be greater in variety than that mentioned in the application

 

The proposed timeframe requested has been revised by the applicant to be 3 years.

 

The applicant has advised that it is not commercially viable to establish the facility solely to process demolition waste from the Hospital.

Noted. The application relates to the subject land only, no request has been made or is being considered for operations on any other land

That the proposed use is more detrimental to the amenity of the locality than current use of the site is somewhat subjective and it could be suggested that the previous timber mill use had the same level of impact, especially given that the proposal is for a temporary approval timeframe.  Mitigation measures to address impacts if development approval is granted will be required to be implemented and reinforced by imposed conditions administered by both Council and DER approvals.

 

 

The area is earmarked for urban development and the proposed temporary land use is needs to meet with all environmental requirements set by the DER as part of the environmental approval process before being able to operate.

 


Council

255

10 August 2016

11.6

Attachment d

Noise Contour Plan

 

 


Council                                                                                      259                                                               10 August 2016

12.             Engineering and Works Services Report

12.1           AWARD OF TENDER RFT07/16 - PEST & WEED CONTROL SERVICES

SUBJECT INDEX:

RFT07/16

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Operation and Works Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

OPERATIONS SERVICES

REPORTING OFFICER:

Parks and Gardens Coordinator - Craig Ashley

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Confidential RFT07/16 Tender Evaluation and Recommendation Report  

  

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

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is requested to consider the tenders received in response to Request for Tender RFT07/16 for Pest and Weed Control Services. The tender has now closed and tender submissions have been received and evaluated. This report summarises the submissions received and recommends that Council awards RFT07/16 – Pest & Weed Control Services Contract to Busselton Pest and Weed Control, in accordance with the tender evaluation panel recommendation. 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Pest and Weed Control Services are currently under contract RFT06/12. A suitably experienced and resourced contractor is required to provide pest and weed control services within the district of the City of Busselton.  Pending acceptance of the recommendation contained in this report, and expiration of the current contract on 16 August 2016, RFT07/16 will supersede the existing Contract.  

 

During the term of the existing contract, a small number of issues have been identified with the contract management and traffic management, as such Officers have reviewed the contract and made improvements to RFT07/16 where necessary. However, in general, the intent and scope of services of the contract have not changed, the new contract term is for two years, with two one year extension options.

 

RFT07/16 specified the requirements of the City and invited suitably qualified and experienced Contractors to submit tenders, to enter into a Contract for the provision of the Pest and Weed Control Services.

 

The following services are required under the Pest and Weed Control Services Contract:

 

·    Urban and rural pest and weed control on road verges, drainage sumps, cycle-ways, footpaths, kerb-lines, bridges, parks and ovals;

·    Pest Control to the various building infra-structure managed by Facilities and other various infrastructure managed by the City.

1.              The successful tenderer will be reporting to the following City Officers, to fulfil the requirements as described in this report;

·    Craig Ashley, Parks and Gardens Coordinator;

·    Shawn Lombard, Building Facilities Coordinator; and

·    Matthew Twyman, Maintenance & Construction Coordinator.

 

The City issued Request for Tender documents to fifteen (15) potential Respondents and received a total of five (5) Submissions from; Cape Life,  Busselton Pest and Weed Control, Spraymow Services, CTI Pest Control, and Western Allpest Services.

 

The tender assessment was carried out by a tender review panel consisting of Karl Clively - Projects and Technical Contracts Officer (Panel Chair), Craig Ashley - Parks & Gardens Coordinator, and   Sophia Moore -Contracts and Tendering Officer.  

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Part 4 (Tenders) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 apply. In particular Regulation 14(2a) Tenders are to be publicly invited according to the requirements of the Division before a local government enters into a contract for another person to supply goods or services if the consideration under the contract is, or is expected to be, more, or worth more, than $150 000.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The following Council policies have relevance to the Tender process.

 

Policy 239 – Purchasing:

The procurement process complies with this policy.

 

Policy 049/1 –Regional Price Preference:

The Regional Price Preference was applied to this tender.

 

Policy 031 – Tender Selection Criteria:

The procurement process complies with this policy

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The budget for services within this tender are provided for in capital works and operational budgets for each financial year.  Purchasing under this contract will be in accordance with these adopted budgets, on an as required basis.

 

The budget estimate for the total contract, including all extensions options is $875,000.00. This estimate is based on actual historical figures for these services.

 

The Contract is a variable priced based contract where the contract price will be based on the successful Tenderer’s Schedule of Rates. Except for the annual CPI adjustment, all prices for performing the Requirements are to be fixed for the term of the Contract.

 

There has been a 10% increase in the recommended tender, when compared against the previous tender for these services.  Based on the last rate approved in 2012. This equates to 2.5% increase per year and would equate to an additional cost of $80,000 over the four years of the contract.

 

Appropriate selection criteria have been applied via the tender process to contribute to ensuring that the successful tenderer is offering the "best value" with respect to the provision of Pest and Weed Control Services within the City of Busselton.

 

A number of improvements have been implemented in the new contract to enable better management of overall service standards and costs.  This will lead to an improved level of service enabling the City to achieve more for the available budget.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Nil

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The officer recommendation of this report reflects and is consistent with the City of Busselton’s strategic objectives.

 

Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Place:

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

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

A risk assessment was carried out and risk assessed in the manner identified below;

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

The risk has been categorized as a low,  with minor operational consequences

Compliance checks.

Contract Management including regular meetings with the Contractor to monitor performance and

identify any issues.

Minor

Unlikely

Low

 

CONSULTATION

 

RFT07/16 was advertised in the West Australian newspaper on 11 June 2016; the Council for Community pages in the Busselton Dunsborough Mail editions on 11 and 18 June 2016; and the City of Busselton tenders website page on Monday 13 June 2016.  The closing date for submissions was 28 June 2016 at 2.00pm.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The City issued Request for Tender documents to fifteen (15) potential Respondents and received a total of five (5) Submissions from; Cape Life,  Busselton Pest and Weed Control, Spraymow Services, CTI Pest Control, and Western Allpest Services.

 

The tender assessment was carried out by a tender review panel consisting of Karl Clively - Projects and Technical Contracts Officer (Panel Chair), Craig Ashley - Parks & Gardens Coordinator, and   Sophia Moore -Contracts and Tendering Officer.   A copy of all documentation was provided to each member of the tender review panel for assessment.

 

As part of the tender evaluation process an initial compliance check was conducted to identify submissions that were non-conforming with the immediate requirements of the RFT. This included compliance with contractual requirements and the provision of requested information. Two (2) tender submissions were found to be non-compliant with the specified requirements.

 

The tender required applicants to address the specified qualitative and quantitative criteria, and complete a pricing schedule for the contract.

The qualitative criteria assessed and weightings applied were as follows;

 

 - Relevant Experience 10%

 - Key Personnel Skills & Experience 10%

 - Tenderer’s Resources 10%

 - Demonstrated Understanding 10%

 

The Tendered price was given the following weighting and has been assessed in conjunction with the

Qualitative Criteria;

 

- Tendered Price: 60%

 

The preferred tenderer has been recommended on the basis of a complete tender evaluation in accordance with the above.

 

The attached confidential Tender Evaluation and Recommendation report provides the detailed evaluation outcome.

 

In Summary, the final ranking demonstrated that the tender from Busselton Pest and Weed Control represents the best value for money option for the City.

 

CONCLUSION

 

This report seeks the Council’s endorsement of the Officer’s recommendation to award the Pest and Weed Control Service Contract to Busselton Pest and Weed Control for a term of two years, with two options for extension, each of one year.  Busselton Pest and Weed Control have the ability to fulfil the contract requirements to an acceptable standard based on their demonstrated understanding of the requirements, significant relevant experience and access to the required resources. 

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could decide;

 

1.            Not to award the RFT as per the Officers recommendation and choose one of the other tenderers. This option could have reputational and compliance risks;

 

2.            Not to award the RFT and request Officers to re-advertise the RFT;

 

3.            Not to award the RFT at any time, in which case Officers would need to commence the recruitment process for full and part time staff for the provision of the services in-house. This option may result in staff not being recruited in time for the provision of the required services, or may have budget implications.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The award of the tender to the successful tenderer can be announced immediately after the Council has endorsed the officer’s recommendation, and the successful contractor will receive formal written notification within seven (7) days of decision. The unsuccessful tenderer will also be notified in this time.


 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Award the RFT07/16 – Pest and Weed Control Service Contract to Busselton Pest and Weed Control for a term of two years, with two options for extension, each of one year at the CEO’s discretion.

 


Council                                                                                      265                                                               10 August 2016

12.2           PETITION RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR FOOTPATH ON AMBERLEY LOOP, DUNSBOROUGH

SUBJECT INDEX:

Footpath Infrastructure

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Linked networks of cycleways and pedestrian paths providing alternative transport options.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Engineering and Facilities Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Engineering and Facility Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Engineering and Facilities Services - Daniell Abrahamse

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Copy of the Petition - Amberley Loop - Request for Footpath

Attachment b    Aerial Photo of Amberley Loop

Attachment c    Extract from Liveable Neighbourhoods

Attachment d   Multi Criteria Assessment

Attachment e    Forward Capital Works Plan

Attachment f    Letter of Support - Libby Mettam MLA Member for Vasse  

  

PRÉCIS

 

This report is in response to a petition received by the Council at its ordinary meeting held on 22 June 2016 from the property owners and/or tenants located along Amberley Loop, Dunsborough. The petition is in regard to the safety concerns the residents of Amberley Loop have for pedestrians along this winding loop road due to the absence of a footpath adjacent to the road.

 

The Council resolved that the petition be received and referred to the CEO to prepare a report.  This report provides detail of the process used by City Officers to evaluate request for the provision of new infrastructure.

 

It is recommended that the Council resolve to indicate that the Council support the construction of a footpath along Amberley Loop at an appropriate time in accordance with its level of priority in accordance with the City’s Forward Capital Works Plan and asset management process. The reasons for this recommendation are set out in the ‘Officer Comment’ section of this report.

 

BACKGROUND

 

A petition was received on the 16 June, requesting the construction of a footpath for the length of Amberley Loop in Dunsborough Lakes.  The petition stated that “Amberley Loop is one of the few roads in the Dunsborough Lakes Development that is not serviced with a footpath and we strongly request, as a matter of urgency that these hazards and their potential danger to members of this segment of the community be eliminated.”

 

The petition contains 118 signatures, of which 107 could be verified as electors.

 

The petition was presented to the Council at the 22nd June 2016 meeting.

 

The Council resolved (ref C1606/143) that the petition be received and referred to the CEO to prepare a report to the Council or a Committee.

 

This report is in response to the petition received by the Council.

 

A copy of the petition is provided, in full, as Attachment “A” to this report.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The Road Traffic Code 2000 r.203 states that pedestrians may travel along a carriageway, except “where there is a footpath or nature strip adjacent to the carriageway and it is in a fit condition for use.” And a nature strip means “an area between a carriageway and the front boundary of adjacent land, but does not include a path” (RTC r.3).  I.E. ‘nature strip’ = ‘road verge’.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

City of Busselton’s Asset Management Plan for Cycle ways and Footpaths.

City of Busselton’s Long Term Financial Plan.

City of Busselton’s Bike Plan 2010.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The cost of constructing a two (2) metre wide footpath along Amberley Loop (approximately 830 metres of footpath) on one side of the road has been estimated at $314,500 (present day value). This estimate excludes the relocation of services.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

There are no financial implications to the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) should the officer recommendation be endorsed. 

 

The LTFP provides funds for footpath and cycle way projects, however the list of projects endorsed by the Council on an annual basis are determined by the City’s Forward Capital Works Plan and Asset Management Plan for Cycle Ways and Footpaths.  Indicative lists of projects are provided on the LTFP, however they are reviewed on an annual basis due to changes associated with a developing City.

 

In brief the LTFP provides the funds the City is able to allocate to the construction of footpaths, however it does not determine which footpath is built and where. The construction of a footpath is determined in accordance with the priorities allocated in the Forward Capital Works Plan. How the footpath projects are prioritized (in accordance with this plan) is detailed later in the report.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The officer recommendation of this report reflects and is consistent with the City of Busselton’s strategic objectives.

 

Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Place:

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

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Risk

Rating

Mitigation

Public health: Pedestrians being forced onto the road due to absence of footpath.

Consequence: Moderate

Likelihood: Possible

Rating: High

Construct footpath.

 


 

CONSULTATION

 

A City officer has met with Mr. John V. Williams (the organiser of the petition) prior to the petition to discuss the community need for a footpath along Amberley Loop. 

 

On the 14th July the City received correspondence from Libby Mettam MLA, Member for Vasse offering support in favour of the petition and urging the City to support the construction of a footpath along Amberley Loop. (Please see attachment F)

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Amberley Loop is located in the Western side of the Dunsborough Lakes Subdivision, off Resort Drive in Dunsborough. There are three cul-de-sacs off Amberley Loop; Fluke Walk to the South East, Lenton Brae Garden to the South West and Clairault Court located North East. Amberley Loop was constructed as part of Stage 1 of the Dunsborough Lakes sub-division by Superior Holdings Ltd early 1993.

 

Amberley Loop consists of an 18 metre road reserve and is approximately 830 metres long road with a 6 metre wide seal. There are a total of 102 lots using Amberley Loop to access their properties (Refer to Attachment “B” for an Aerial Photo of Amberley Loop). Amberley Loop is also a registered school bus route.

 

There is currently no footpath along Amberley Loop. The lack of a footpath for pedestrians has been highlighted as a safety concern by residents living along Amberley Loop and was the main driver for the submission of the petition. The road reserve (or verge) is sufficiently wide enough to accommodate a footpath on both sides of the road, noting that should a footpath be constructed this would only be constructed on one side of the road. From a physical inspection of the area, in the most part pedestrians could use the existing road reserve to walk safely off the road. There are however a number of locations where the road reserve has been blocked by boats and or other vehicles. In those locations a pedestrian using the verge would currently have to step onto the road to bypass the obstacle. Additionally pedestrians with a pram or a person confined to a wheel chair would not be able to use the existing road verge.

 

When Stage 1 of Dunsborough Lakes was approved during the latter part of 1992, the only development guidelines was the then Shire’s Technical Specifications. These guidelines did not require the construction of a footpath along Amberley Loop as part of the development application mainly due to it being a narrow width, winding, low speed environment that is not a through road.

 

With any new sub division applications, City officers are currently using the updated City of Busselton’s Technical Specifications and Livable Neighbourhoods (2009 Update 02) to determine or evaluate whether a footpath is required on any particular road. If Amberley Loop was reclassified using these two guiding documents today as part of a new subdivision, Amberley Loop would be classified as an Access Street D (Please see attachment C).  In accordance with livable neighborhoods, footpaths should ideally be provided on both sides of the street for streets classed as Access Street D. However for a number of reasons including cost, a footpath may be omitted from one side of a lower order street such as Amberley Loop. A footpath on Amberley loop would be required solely to service the residents and would not form part of a wider pedestrian link ie to a school, shopping centre etc. Therefore a second footpath would not be required.

 

City Officers receive numerous requests from members of the public for the upgrade, renewal or provision of new infrastructure on a regular basis. When considering how to prioritise these requests, City Officers refer to the Forward Capital Works Plan. The Forward Capital Works Plan has a number of sub classes, such as roads, drainage, parks and gardens, footpaths etc.

 

In relation to footpaths, when determining the projects in the Forward Capital Works Plan, City Officers make use of the detailed asset management plans (for renewal and replacement) and a multi-criteria assessment matrix for new infrastructure. The Multi Criteria assessment is used to rank infrastructure projects in order of priority. Whenever a request for a new footpath is received, officers review where the footpath sits within the Forward Capital Works Plan. If it is not already included in the Plan, the request is assessed using the matrix to determine where it sits in the priority ranking in comparison to other footpaths.  This assessment gives Officers guidance as to the priority of a project based on a score assigned to it using the matrix assessment criteria as seen in Attachment D.

 

These criteria are scored and combined to calculate a ranking alongside other footpath projects. Please see attachment E which is the current forward capital works plan for footpaths. (Note subject to change depending on requests or changing circumstances).

 

As can be seen from the table in Attachment E, the provision of a footpath on Amberley Loop has been matrixed using the Multi Criteria Assessment and the project is currently ranked as number 63. This is on the basis of the current funding allowed for in the 10 Year LTFP (assuming a basic extrapolation beyond year 10) and suggests the construction of Amberley Loop in the 2029-30 financial year. Therefore in accordance with the current forward capital works program and funding allocations the construction of this path would not occur for another 13 years.

 

City officers take this approach with requests for new footpaths in order to provide a standard approach to the community. The assessment utilising the matrix is completed in order to determine the individual project merits, which ensures that all capital works are bench marked against each other in a consistent manner. The resultant score determines the project’s ultimate priority against competing projects. Ultimately this is done to provide a fair and consistent approach to these requests.

 

On the basis of having a set amount of funds and a large number of requests for new footpaths, which far exceeds the current funding opportunities, it is essential that the City provides a standard approach to requests by prioritising a project on its merits and benefits against another project. If this was not done in this manner there would be no consistent method of planning when a footpath should be constructed. Unfortunately due to the fact that funding is limited, it is not always possible to deliver projects in accordance with the community’s expectations or timelines.  It would not be appropriate to change the ranking of these projects based on a request or petition only without a specific reason. It should be based on the benefit in comparison to another project. This has the potential to create a long lead time for the implementation of a project, which in turn can lead to community disappointment. This could only be reduced with additional funding (whether municipal or other) or a decision to raise the priority of a project outside of the Forward Capital Works Plan.

 

Therefore on the basis of being fair and equitable, with the numerous competing needs and requests for footpaths, it will be recommended that the provision of new footpath along Amberley Loop be constructed in accordance with the City’s Forward Capital Works Plan, which currently indicates that the footpath will be recommended for construction in the 2029/30 financial year. (Noting that the Forward Capital Works Plan is subject to change, pending new requests or changing circumstances).

 

CONCLUSION

 

In terms of the current road classification of Amberley Loop, (as per Livable Neighborhood Guidelines and the City’s Technical Specifications) and the current road geometry, there is merit in constructing a footpath along Amberley Loop. On the basis of that merit the request to construct the footpath has been assessed for inclusion in the City’s Forward Capital Works Plan, which is based on a multi criteria assessment. The assessment indicates that the Amberley Loop footpath is ranked at number 63 on the list of priorities. On that basis using our current Forward Capital Works Plan and funding criteria, this project is forecast for construction in 2029-30 financial year. Officers will recommend that the construction of a footpath along Amberley Loop be constructed in accordance with the City’s Forward Capital Works Plan.

 

OPTIONS

 

1.   The Council may choose to bring forward the construction of the footpath along Amberley Loop. This would require a project with a higher ranking be replaced with this project and the program adjusted accordingly.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The construction of a footpath along Amberley Loop has been included in the Forward Capital Works Plan for forecast construction in the 2029-30 Financial year.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Acknowledge the petition and plan for a footpath along Amberley Loop at an appropriate time in accordance with its level of priority in the City’s Forward Capital Works Plan and asset management process.

 

 


Council

279

10 August 2016

12.2

Attachment a

Copy of the Petition - Amberley Loop - Request for Footpath

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

281

10 August 2016

12.2

Attachment b

Aerial Photo of Amberley Loop

 


Council

283

10 August 2016

12.2

Attachment c

Extract from Liveable Neighbourhoods

 

10 August 2016

Attachment C

 

 

 


Council

285

10 August 2016

12.2

Attachment D

Multi Criteria Assessment

 

10 August 2016

Attachment D

 

Multi Criteria Assessment

Rank Infrastructure Project

 

 

The multi-criteria assessment scores the following criteria:-

 

1.    Use Measure

 

·    Access to Schools– Based on the locations proximity to a primary school or its potential usage by a number of people accessing a primary school;

·    Seniors Access – Based on its likelihood to cater for an increased number of seniors, generally within close proximity or aged care facilities or services;

·    Recreation – Where the path forms a strong connection to a recreational facility/service/location or is part of the recreational facility/service; and

·    Commuter – Where the path forms a strong connection for commuters to business/commercial centres.

 

2.    Quality Measure

 

·    Community Benefit, Economic Activity & Tourism – Where the path forms a strong connection to a retail facility or tourism service/activity;

·    Safety – This generally looks at the geometry of the surrounding facilities such as the road. i.e. Hilly, windy etc. and the ability to use the verge for refuge;

·    Traffic Volume (Adjacent Road) – A weighted measure to identify the roads that cater for increased traffic volumes;

·    Combined Project – A weighted measure to identify opportunities to combine the works with an associated project, generally a road upgrade; and

·    Environmental – A weighted measure to address pre-existing negative environmental impacts.

 

3.    Prepatory  Works

 

·    This is a negative score to highlight projects that require significant precursory investigations, works or approvals

 

4.     Contributions

 

·    A weighted measure to assist in the delivery of projects that have been partially funded by external contributions

 

5.     Additional Costs

 

·    Traffic management.

6.   Budget

 

·    Project budget, based on the scope of works, timing and quality of works.

 

These are scored and a combined to calculate a ranking alongside other footpath projects. Please see below the current Forward Capital Works Plan for footpaths. (Note subject to change depending on requests or changing circumstances)

 

Number

LOCATION (Primary Street)

 Total Est. Cost

Proposed

 Total Est.Cost/
Financial Year

1

Carey Street

 $ 164,750

  17/18

 $403,500

3

King Street

 $ 238,750

  17/18

2

Strelly Street

 $   19,300

  18/19

 $439,550

4

Alpha Road

 $ 144,500

  18/19

5

Fairlawn Road

 $ 186,000

  18/19

6

NCC Access

 $   89,750

  18/19

7

Bussell Highway

 $   26,000

  19/20

 $465,950

8

Millward Street

 $   78,900

  19/20

9

Ray Avenue

 $   28,800

  19/20

10

Beach Road

 $ 178,000

  19/20

11

Harris Road

 $ 154,250

  19/20

13