COB-RGB

 

 

 

 

 

Council  Agenda

 

 

 

14 September 2016

 

 

 

 

 

ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

 

 

 


CITY OF BUSSELTON

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA – 14 September 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, 14 September 2016, commencing at 5.30pm.

 

Your attendance is respectfully requested.

 

 

 

Mike Archer

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

2 September 2016


CITY OF BUSSELTON

Agenda FOR THE Council  MEETING TO BE HELD ON 14 September 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

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

2....... Attendance. 5

3....... Prayer. 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Council Meetings. 5

9.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 24 August 2016. 5

Committee Meetings. 5

9.2          Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 18 August 2016. 5

9.3          Minutes of the Capes Region Organisation of Councils (CapeROC) Meeting held 19 August 2016. 6

9.4          Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 24 August 2016. 6

10..... Reports of Committee. 7

10.1        Policy and Legislation Committee - 18/08/2016 - REVISED EVENTS POLICY FOR THE CITY OF BUSSELTON.. 7

10.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 18/08/2016 - REVISED ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY. 37

10.3        Policy and Legislation Committee - 18/08/2016 - REVIEW OF BUILDING INSURANCE POLICY. 49

10.4        Airport Advisory Committee - 24/08/2016 - AIRPORT UPDATE. 60

11..... Planning and Development Services Report. 65

11.1        DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY - CONSIDERATION FOLLOWING ADVERTISING.. 65

11.2        MEELUP REGIONAL PARK APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER. 330

12..... Engineering and Works Services Report. 338

12.1        PROPOSAL TO RENAME PARTS OF BUSSELL HIGHWAY AND VASSE-YALLINGUP SIDING ROAD IN VASSE. 338

13..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 357

13.1        CSRFF ANNUAL AND FORWARD PLANNING GRANT APPLICATIONS. 357

14..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 638

14.1        LEASE OF RAILWAY HOUSE TO THE MARGARET RIVER BUSSELTON TOURISM ASSOCIATION AND DEED OF SURRENDER OF PEEL TERRACE PREMISES. 638

14.2        BUSSELTON SWIMMING ENCLOSURE LEASE OF NGARI MARINE PARK. 647

14.3        LEASE RENEWALS - BUSSELTON HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND BUSSELTON POTTERY GROUP. 674

15..... Chief Executive Officer's Report. 688

15.1        AWARD OF TENDER RFT 14/16 BUSSELTON FORESHORE DEVELOPMENT: JETTY WAY PEDESTRIAN LINK EXPOSED AGGREGATE CONCRETE. 688

15.2        AWARD OF TENDER RFT 12/16 SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF OFFICE LOOSE FURNITURE ITEMS TO THE CITY OF BUSSELTON ADMINISTRATION AND CIVIC BUILDING.. 693

15.3        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 697

16..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 711

17..... Confidential Reports. 711

18..... Questions from Members. 711

19..... Public Question Time. 711

20..... Next Meeting Date. 711

21..... Closure. 711

 


Council                                                                                      5                                                           14 September 2016

 

1.               Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors

2.               Attendance 

Apologies

Approved Leave of Absence

 

Nil

3.               Prayer

The Prayer will be delivered by Pastor Lee Sykes of Cornerstone 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 24 August 2016

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Council  Meeting held 24 August 2016 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

Committee Meetings

9.2             Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 18 August 2016

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)    That the minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 18 August 2016 be received.

 

2)    That the Council notes the outcomes from the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 18 August 2016 being:

 

a)    The Revised Events Policy for the City of Busselton item is presented for Council consideration at item 10.1 of this agenda.

 

b)    The Revised Asset Management Policy item is presented for Council consideration at item 10.2 of this agenda.

 

c)    The Review of Building Insurance Policy item is presented for Council consideration at item 10.3 of this agenda.

 

d)    The general discussion item on Geographe Leisure Centre Benchmarks is noted.

 

9.3             Minutes of the Capes Region Organisation of Councils (CapeROC) Meeting held 19 August 2016

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)    That the minutes of the Capes Region Organisation of Councils (CapeROC) Meeting held on 19 August 2016 be received.

 

2)    That the Council notes the outcomes from the Capes Region Organisation of Councils (CapeROC) Meeting held 19 August 2016 being:

 

a)    Officers provided updates in relation to Tourism Directional Signage, the Regional Waste Facility, Shire of Augusta Margaret River & City of Busselton’s Economic Development Strategies and were supportive of the Calendar of Events $18,500 costing option presented.

 

b)    CapeROC endorsed the allocation of $3,000 for stage 1 of the Margaret River Wine Industry entry statement project.

 

c)    Officers provided updates in relation to the Busselton Margaret River Regional Airport, Busselton Foreshore and Administration Building Projects, and Waste Management.

 

9.4             Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 24 August 2016

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)    That the minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 24 August 2016 be received.

 

2)    That the Council notes the outcomes from the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 24 August 2016 being:

 

a)    The Airport Update item is presented for Council consideration at item 10.4 of this agenda.

 

 


Council                                                                                      23                                                         14 September 2016

10.             Reports of Committee

10.1           Policy and Legislation Committee - 18/08/2016 - REVISED EVENTS POLICY FOR THE CITY OF BUSSELTON

SUBJECT INDEX:

Events Policy

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A City recognised for its high quality events and year round tourist offerings.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Events

REPORTING OFFICER:

Events Coordinator - Peta Tuck

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Current Event Policy with changes tracked  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 18 August 2016, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The City of Busselton’s Events Policy has been reviewed and updated as part of the ongoing organisational review of policies.  The revised policy incorporates Events Policy, Surfing Events and Competitions Policy, and the Meelup Regional Park Specific Event Conditions into one consolidated Policy. This report presents the revised Events Policy for Council’s consideration prior to being made available to event organisers with information on the event application and approval processes for events held within the City of Busselton, and guidelines for the sponsorship of events through the City of Busselton.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The existing Events Policy was adopted by Council on 12 April 2006 (C0604/105) to manage the application and approval process for all types of events.

 

The original policy came about following an increase in the statutory approvals required for events, often involving various directorates within the City which caused a level of confusion for applicants, as well as exposing the City to risk if an approval of an event was not assessed. Hence, it became apparent that a comprehensive event application package was required to inform applicants of the various approvals required for events and assist the City in meeting its legislative responsibilities.

 

The preparation of the events application package was a collaborate effort between Local Government Insurance Services and representatives from the then Shires of Busselton, Capel, Dardanup, Donnybrook - Balingup, Harvey and Manjimup. This working group developed the Event Application Package to form a comprehensive document that could be used throughout the six Councils, providing the event industry with a consistent framework for event applications within the South West region. The Event Application Package was then trialled by the various Shires for seven months. During and following the successful trial periods individual Shires implemented the event application package and their specific Event Policies.

 

Since 2006, the City of Busselton has seen a significant increase in the number and types of events held within the City. The City has a dedicated events team and through the implementation of a differential rate has developed a successful and substantial event sponsorship programme and made funds available for marketing initiatives. Given the increased number of events held within the City since the implementation of the existing Events Policy, it has been necessary to assess the policy to ensure that the information contained was current and relevant to the current regulatory requirements as well as the City’s objectives for events and utilisation of public open spaces and community facilities.

The Events Policy has been updated to include the objectives and goals from the Events Strategy prepared in April 2012, improvements implemented in the event application process and fees and bonds involved in event approvals.

 

The policy has been revised to include the Surfing Events and Competition Policy (SECP) and the Meelup Regional Park Special Event Conditions to ensure that there is a consistent approach in the way the City assesses and approves event applications as well as ensuring that even organisers meet all City and State legislative requirements.

 

The existing SECP (policy number 021) was adopted by Council on 22 September 2010 (C1009/319) to manage and administer the number and types of competitive surfing events utilising City of Busselton managed reserves. The intention is to rescind the SECP and incorporate the objectives and requirements associated with running surfing events within the City of Busselton’s coastal reserves into the one Events Policy. 

 

Further, City Officers have been working with the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee since 2010 to establish a set of conditions that could be applied to events held within Meelup Regional Park to ensure that the environmental values of the Park continue to be protected. Consideration was given to creating a separate policy to deal with events held within the Park, however Officers believe that it is more efficient to have all event conditions included in the one policy. The Meelup Regional Park Special Event Conditions has been prepared in conjunction with the City’s Meelup Environmental Management Officer and the Meelup Regional Management Park Committee ensuring that the environmental sensitivity of the Park as an A Class Reserve has been considered. These conditions will guide event organisers with planning and implementing events to be held within the Park, as well as promoting greater interaction with the City’s Meelup Environmental Management Officer resulting in better outcomes for events and the Park.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The following legislation allows Council to approve or assess the following items as outlined in the Event Application Package;

 

Legislation

Item

Health Act 1911 and Regulations

• Temporary structures

• Public Buildings (event location)

• Temporary food stalls

• Toilets

• First Aid

• Crowd Control

• Risk Management Plans

• Water supply

Food Act 2008

• Temporary Food Stalls

Environmental Protection Act

1986 and Regulations

• Noise

Caravan Parks and Camping

Grounds Act 1995 and

Regulations

• Temporary onsite camping associated

with an event

Liquor Licensing Act 1988

and Regulations

• Authorising the service of alcohol

associated with an event on Council

reserve

Local Government Act 1960

and related legislation

• Trading in Public Places

• Banner signs or similar types of

advertising devices

• Car parking

• Hire City owned land and facilities

• Rubbish

• Set fees and charges relating to events

Road Traffic Act 1974 and

Regulations

•Temporary road closures

•Traffic Management Plans

Explosives and Dangerous

Goods Act 1961

• Fireworks display

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The following policies and plans are relevant to this report;

 

·    Surfing Events and Competitions Policy – Reference No. 021

·    Events Policy – Reference No. 231

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no budgetary considerations required as a result of this report. Fees and charges associated with the event application and legislative approvals are included in the annual Adopted Schedule of Fees and Charges.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

There are no implications for the Long Term Financial Plan as a result of this report.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

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

 

Well planned vibrant and active places;

 

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

CONSULTATION

 

The City’s Events Team have reviewed the information within the Events Policy in consultation with all relevant City departments and made changes to ensure that current legislations and procedures are contained within the document. Consultation with the City’s Environmental Team has resulted in the Policy being updated to include reference to relevant Environmental Management Plans when planning events held in City of Busselton reserves.

 

Extensive consultation has taken place with the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee regarding the Specific Event Conditions relating to events held in the Meelup Regional Park. Through this consultation a set of conditions that apply to a variety of event types has been developed that will form part of the event application that event organisers must adhere to in the planning and implementation of their events. The Specific Event Conditions also include a maximum number of trails and site based events that can be held in the Park each year, these limits have been included to ensure that the Park’s environmental areas are not threatened through high or frequent usage of the Park. The Meelup Regional Park Special Event Conditions were presented to the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee at its meeting on 26 July 2016 and will be presented to the Council on 10 August 2016.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Since the endorsement of the current Events Policy in April 2006, the City of Busselton has been increasingly recognised as a desirable location for the staging of a variety of events in the areas of sport, culture and lifestyle. There are currently in excess of 130 events staged within the City of Busselton’s boundaries each year.

 

The specific objectives of this policy are to;

a.    Promote and encourage events that enhance a wide variety of opportunities to residents and visitors to the City of Busselton;

b.    Ensure that the health and safety of persons attending events in the City of Busselton is considered in all planning;

c.     Provide an efficient and timely approval process and response in accordance with the City of Busselton's Customer Service Charter;

d.    Ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and standards;

e.    Incorporate controls to minimise any adverse impacts of events and protect the amenity of residents in adjoining and nearby properties;

f.     Ensure that the environmental, heritage and cultural impacts of events are assessed and appropriate measures are put in place to minimise any adverse impacts;

g.    Promote and encourage events that enhance a wide variety of opportunities to residents and visitors to the City of Busselton; and

h.    Provide information on the Event Sponsorship program available to event organisers;

 

The policy provides event organisers with information on the event application processes including detailing the Event Criteria which require approval, the event application procedure and the information that will be considered by the City of Busselton in the assessment and approval process of event applications.

 

The policy also applies to events held at private premises, when the activities being held there are outside of the current approval of use for that property.

 

The policy has been updated to include several areas within the City that may require specific event conditions, to ensure the amenity of the location and the mitigation of any potential adverse impacts. These areas are as follows:

 

·    Meelup Regional Park

·    Busselton Jetty

·    Yallingup Main Break and Smiths Beach

·    Busselton and Dunsborough Foreshores

·    Cultural Precinct on Queen Street

·    City of Busselton reserves that have an existing Environmental Management Plan.

 

The inclusion of the Meelup Regional Park Specific Event Conditions, which have been developed through considerable consultation with the Meelup Environmental Management Officer and the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee to ensure that events are consistent with the Management Plan; protect the natural environment and enhance visitor satisfaction providing event organisers with a comprehensive guide for before, during and after the event process.

The Surfing Events and Competitions Policy has been incorporated into the Events Policy to manage the use of Yallingup Main Break and Smiths Beach for events. The objective of these specific conditions is to achieve consistency for the staging of surf events; to ensure equitable use of surf locations for recreational and competition surfers; and to minimise damage to and promote recovery of coastal systems.

 

Incorporating the Meelup Regional Park Specific Event Conditions and the Surfing Events and Competitions Policy into the Events Policy allows Officers to administer the policy in one comprehensive package.

 

The Policy details information on the fees and charges (as per the Schedule of Fees and Charges) that are applicable to events held within the City of Busselton; further it details that some events may be required to pay a refundable bond if using City of Busselton facilities. The amount charged for these bonds varies according to the facility used, or the activities being undertaken and are listed in the Schedule of Fees and Charges.

 

The Policy also covers Event Sponsorship with grant funding available to event organisers through the City’s Event Sponsorship Programme. This programme is overseen by the Marketing and Events Reference Group, which makes recommendations to Council regarding the level of sponsorship.

 

With the huge growth in the number and variety of events held within the City, this updated Policy ensures that event organisers receive the most up to date guidelines on staging an event in the City of Busselton, whilst reflecting the values and priority areas of the Council and community.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Council is provided with an updated Events Policy which combines the revised ‘Events Policy’, the ‘Surfing Events and Competition Policy’ and the ‘Meelup Regional Park Special Event Conditions’.  This Policy is presented to Council for adoption. 

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may choose not to accept the Officers recommendation or to make amendments to the Events Policy.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The policy will be effective immediately following Council’s endorsement. 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Revokes the Surfing Events and Competition Policy – Reference No. 021.

 

2.    Endorses the updated Events Policy:

 

COB-RGB

EVENTS POLICY

 

Policy for the assessment of Events in the CITY of Busselton

 

PURPOSE

 

The purpose of this Policy is to provide event organisers with information on the event application and approval process for events to be held in the City of Busselton, and guidelines for the sponsorship of events through the City of Busselton.

 

The specific objectives of this policy are to;

a.    Promote and encourage events that enhance a wide variety of opportunities to residents and visitors to the City of Busselton;

b.    Ensure that the health and safety of persons attending events in the City of Busselton is considered in all Planning;

c.     Provide an efficient and timely approval process and response in accordance with the City of Busselton's Customer Service Charter;

d.    Ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and standards;

e.    Incorporate controls to minimise any adverse impacts of events and protect the amenity of residents in adjoining and nearby properties;

f.     Ensure that the environmental, heritage and cultural impacts of events are assessed and appropriate measures are put in place to minimise any adverse impacts; and

g.    Provide information on the Event Sponsorship program available to event organisers.

 

The City of Busselton will assess event applications for the conduct of events in accordance with legislative requirements under this policy.

 

SCOPE

 

This policy applies to all events held within the boundaries of the City of Busselton.

 

DEFINITIONS

 

For the purpose of this policy the following definitions apply:-

 

Event:  An occurrence proposed to be held within the City of Busselton on private or public land, either indoor or outdoor by a person(s)/group/organisation, where people assemble at a given time for entertainment, recreation or community purposes. This includes but is not limited to;

a.    Concerts and music festivals

b.    Motorsport events, motor vehicle rallies and displays;

c.     Sporting events;

d.    Cultural and community events;

e.    Shows and fairs;

f.     Exhibitions, wine and food festivals;

g.    Surfing events.

 

Event Application Form for major events, minor events and markets are required to be completed for any proposed event. Event application forms request details of size, nature, date, time, purpose, activities and facilities in relation to the event.

 

Event Applicant means the person, company or organisation, excluding the City of Busselton managed events, who is responsible for organising an event and who makes application to the City of Busselton for approval to stage an event.

 

Public Place means any street, way or place including but not limited to community reserves, facilities, halls or public open space.

 

City of Busselton Facility or Reserve means any property owned or managed (via Management Order) by the City of Busselton and includes buildings, recreation centres, community centres, halls and reserves (passive and active).

 

Passive Reserve Area means a designated reserve area within the City utilised for recreational or community purposes only ie. Mitchell Park, Rotary Park , Lions Park, Signal Park, Busselton Jetty, and City foreshore areas or beaches for water based sports and entertainment events.

 

Active Reserve Area means a designated reserve area within the City that is utilised by sporting bodies, community groups etc for the purpose of conducting sporting fixtures, carnivals etc. ie. Sir Stewart Bovell Oval, Lou Weston Oval, Churchill Park Oval, Barnard Park and Dunsborough Playing Fields.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Events Development in the ‘Events Capital WA’

 

As a significant contributor to the local economy, as well as enhancing the vibrancy of the community, the attraction and development of events is a key focus of the City of Busselton. Branded Events Capital WA, the City’s role in events is to engage and assist event organisers to support a diverse calendar of events, while maintaining the safety and amenity of the community. 

 

EVENT APPLICATION PROCESS

 

If a public gathering requires one (1) or more approvals from the following list of criteria, then it is deemed to be an event and the event organiser is required to submit an Event Application and to obtain the relevant approvals from the City:

 

 Event Criteria which requires approval

-     Preparation or sale of food to the public;

-     Erection of tents and marquees larger than 25m2, stages and other structures for public use;

-     Number of patrons attending the event, requiring the issuing of a Certificate of Approval (formally an Accommodation Certificate) in accordance with the Health Act and associated Regulations;

-     Potential noise including music, use of amplified equipment, extraordinary vehicle noise;

-     Use of or installation of electrical equipment including generators, cabling, extension cords, switches, fuses;

-     Trading in a public place - selling, hiring of goods, wares or merchandise in a public place;

-     Risk management plan;  for events identified as having possible associated risks;

-     Changes or interruptions to traffic flow (ie  traffic management plans);

-     Proposed signage for the event to be erected;

-     Sale or consumption of alcohol;

-     Additional parking requirements;

-     Additional toilet facilities;

-     Crowd control or security measures;

-     First aid requirements;

-     Amusement structures ;

-     Water safety plans for water based events;

-     Fire management plans; and

-     Appropriate level of public liability insurance coverage.

 

Where formal event approval is not required

 

If the application is a request for the hire of passive or active reserve area or equipment (see definition of passive and active reserve) located within the City of Busselton, formal event approval is not required. However, completion of a Facility Hire Form is required for each occasion.

 

Event application procedure

 

1.    All events, new and annual, must submit an event application at least eight (8) weeks prior to the proposed date of the event; twelve (12) weeks for events to be held in the Meelup Regional Park;

 

2.    Applicants are required to submit a completed Event Application Package to the City of Busselton, consisting of the following:

a.    Event Application Form;

b.    Event Checklist (to be read in conjunction with the ‘Event Information for Applicants’);

c.     Event Site Plan; and

d.    Complete all relevant Forms included in the Event Application Package and obtain any other approvals as required.

 

3.    All sections of the Event Application Form and Event Checklist must be completed in order for the application to be eligible for assessment;

 

4.    The applicant must submit a Risk Management Plan that complies with the requirements of AS4360 if the event participation deemed to require a Risk Management Plan, as directed by the City of Busselton;

 

5.    The applicant must provide a Certificate of Currency indicating a minimum of $10 million Public Liability Insurance coverage that is valid for the period covering the event date;

 

6.    The applicant must be familiar with the relevant Reserve / Park Environment Management Plan if using City of Busselton reserves and prepare an Event Environmental Management Plan as directed;

 

7.    The City of Busselton may request any additional information to be supplied by applicants in order to ensure comprehensive assessment of the application.

 

Assessment of event applications

 

The following information will be considered by the City of Busselton in the assessment and approval process of event applications:

 

1.    The nature, size and suitability of the event in relation to the venue requested and the likely impact of the event on the facility;

2.    The amenity of the event (including the presence of alcohol);

3.    The ability of the facility to accommodate the event at the proposed time of year (taking into consideration weather and the condition of the land, if on a community reserve or public open space);

4.    The likely impact on residents as a result of the location of the event (including noise, dust, excessive light, traffic congestion or other adverse effects perceptible outside the venue);

5.    The period of time for which the event will operate and the proposed times of operation;

6.    Conflict or potential conflict with other events or community use in that location or a surrounding location;

7.    The benefits to the City of Busselton community;

8.    Reputation of the operator;

9.    Risk to natural, heritage and cultural values of the event area or surrounding area; and

10.  Any other factors that may be considered necessary in relation to a particular event.

 

Fees for Event Approval

 

1.    All events will attract an application fee in accordance with the City of Busselton’s Adopted Schedule of Fees and Charges;

2.    The applicant will be advised of any additional fees and charges upon event approval. These must be paid at least seven (7) days prior to the event;

3.    Concerts will attract separate fees in accordance with the 'Staging of Concerts' in the

City of Busselton’s Adopted Schedule of Fees and Charges;

4.    Refund of fees will only be considered in the event of a cancellation notice being received at least seven (7) days prior to the event date and may attract an administration fee.

 

Bonds for Events

 

1.    Bonds will be requested for events using City of Busselton facilities,  the amount requested will vary depending on the facility used, in accordance with the City of Busselton’s Adopted Schedule of Fees and Charges;

2.    The Bond money will be refunded in full following the successful completion of the conditions of approval outlined in the City’s acknowledgement letter;

3.    Failure to comply with any of the conditions specified in Councils acknowledgement letter may result in all or part of the bond money not being refunded to the applicant;

4.    Failure to pay the bond money less than seven (7) days prior to the event may result in the event approval being withdrawn.

 

This POLICY does not cover:

 

1.    Events to be held at:

a.    Educational premises including primary, secondary and tertiary centers; and

b.    Religious centers including churches and worship centers.

2.    An event approval is not required providing there is no variation from the following existing approvals:

a.    Conditions associated with a Planning Consent under the City of Busselton Town Planning Scheme.

b.    Approvals as required in accordance with the Health Act 1911 and associated Regulations. However if the event proposed exceeds any established accommodation numbers or differs in nature to any approvals already in place then an event approval is required and the requirements of this Policy apply.

 

EVENT VENUES

 

Within the City of Busselton there are a number of venues where events are held, ranging from coastal/beach sites, nature reserves and parks, urban and business districts, community halls, sporting grounds, City facilities including the Busselton Cultural Precinct, and private properties and estates.

 

In addition to the standard event conditions, the following venues require specific conditions to ensure any potential impacts to the location’s amenities are minimised or mitigated:

 

 

 

Meelup Regional Park

 

Meelup Regional Park (‘the Park’) is an A-class reserve vested in the City of Busselton for the purpose of conservation and recreation. The Meelup Regional Park Management Committee has been established by the City of Busselton Council to assist in ensuring that the full range of issues relevant to the making of decisions about the management and promotion of the Park are considered, including environmental, amenity, recreational, community, social, economic and financial considerations.

 

Required by the Land Administration Act 1997, the Meelup Regional Park Management Plan’s vision for the Park is “manage the Park for conservation and environmental enhancement and allow recreation and other uses of the Park to occur to the extent that they do not impair the conservation values of the Park.”

Cognisant of this, the following objectives provide guidance in managing events in the Park;

 

1.    Natural systems should be able to sustain the recreation that is occurring or proposed

2.    The intensity, frequency, type, duration, timing and distribution of recreational activities may need to be controlled to maintain the amenity of the park and the enjoyment of visitors

3.    Recreation planning will seek to foster appreciation of the Park’s natural values.

 

In addition to the general event conditions, specific Meelup Regional Park Event Conditions (see Appendix 1) are required to be met to ensure that events are consistent with the Meelup Regional Park Management Plan.

 

Event organisers utilising Meelup Regional Park must complete the Event Application form and comply with the Meelup Regional Park Specific Event Conditions and any additional conditions that may arise depending on the type of the event to be held. Event organisers will be requested to consult directly with the City of Busselton’s Meelup Environment Officer.  Approval to proceed with the event will not be given until this consultation process has taken place.

 

A fee per participant or event may be charged and the event organiser may be required to provide a bond in accordance with the City of Busselton’s Adopted Schedule of Fees and Charges

 

Events held in Meelup Regional Park are categorised in the following areas:

 

1.    Trail Based Events

Trail Based Events generally involve participants walking, running or cycling on designated trails or roads within the Park on a specified day. Trail-based events are subject to the Specific Event Conditions for Meelup Park.

 

2.    Site Based Events

Site Based Events generally involve use of a beach and/or adjacent picnic and car park area. They range from relatively small social gatherings to larger scale events. Site-based events, other than wedding ceremonies, school excursions, functions or informal gatherings are subject to the Specific Event Conditions for Meelup Regional Park.

 

3.    Road Based Events

Whilst road reserves within the Park are technically not part of the Park, an integrated approach to management of events utilizing or within these road reserves is essential if the Park’s values are to be protected and enjoyment of the Park by the broader community is not to be adversely impacted.

 

Due to the environmental significance of the Meelup Regional Park, the frequency of events is restricted as follows:

 

1.    Trail Based Events

•     Maximum of four (4) trail based events per calendar year;

•     No two events occurring within the same month.

 

2.    Site Based Events

•     Maximum of four (4) site based events per calendar year;

•     No two (2) events occurring within the same month at the same site.
 

Wedding ceremonies, school excursions, functions or informal gatherings held in the Park require a booking, completion of a Facility Hire form and payment of a fee (if it applies) through the City of Busselton. Such activities are generally permitted subject to City of Busselton terms and conditions, including non-exclusive use of the location, parking only in designated areas, no damage to coastal or natural environments, no amplified music, no unauthorized consumption of alcohol, and removal of all litter. They will generally only be permitted at Meelup Beach, Castle Bay and Bunker Bay.

 

Busselton Jetty

 

The Busselton Jetty (Jetty) is vested by the State to the City of Busselton under a Management Order.

 

For any event to be held or utilising the Busselton Jetty, event organisers are required to complete a specific Jetty event application form which includes applying for a permit to use the Jetty. The Jetty event application form is applicable for water based sporting events, cultural events, functions and community fireworks.

 

Yallingup Main Break and Smiths Beach

 

In addition to the general event conditions, specific conditions are required for surfing events and/or competitions held at Yallingup and Smiths Beach within a 12 month period to achieve consistency and co-ordination for the staging of surfing events at these locations, and to ensure equitable use of the surf locations by recreational and competition surfers. It also assists to minimise damage, and promote the recovery of coastal systems within the City of Busselton’s coastal reserves.

 

The Yallingup and Smith Beach Surf Competition Categories specific event conditions (see Appendix 2) applies to organisations wishing to conduct surfing events and/or competitions at international, national, state or club level and applies to all forms of surf craft including, but not limited to surfboards, wave skis, body boards, wind surfers and kite surfers.    

 

Busselton and Dunsborough Foreshores

 

The Busselton and Dunsborough Foreshores have undergone a significant redevelopment to improve recreational facilities and to add vibrancy and activity to these areas. 

 

Events can be conducted in these foreshore areas under the same conditions as all public space events. However, as they are high usage areas for local residents and visitors, the City may require additional measures to be implemented to ensure equitable access for all users.

 

Cultural Precinct on Queen Street

 

The Cultural Precinct is located on Queen St between Marine Terrace and Adelaide Street and consists of the Weld Theatre, Art Geo Complex with the ArtGeo Gallery and Courthouse Gallery, and artist studios around the courtyard.

 

The Cultural Precinct is the preferred location for a future Performing Arts and Convention Centre that will also serve as a venue for meetings, conferences and conventions, further growing the business tourism market. As an entry point to the foreshore, the Cultural Precinct is central to the promotion of a blended commercial and recreational/cultural experience

 

All Other Areas

 

All events held in the City of Busselton boundaries require the completion of appropriate event application forms and granting of relevant approvals from within the City and also from external Government agencies including but not limited to; Department of Health, Department of Transport, Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor, and Main Roads WA.

 

EVENT SPONSORSHIP

 

Recognising the significance that events play in delivering economic and social benefits to the community, and building on the City as the ‘Events Capital WA’, the City has an Events Sponsorship Programme that is funded through the following sources:

 

1.    Municipal Funds

 

The Council allocates a fixed amount annually towards funding events, these funds are historically allocated to well established, annually recurring events.

 

2.  Industrial/Commercial Differential Rate

 

Industrial and Commercial rated properties across the City directly contribute toward the City’s continued support of tourism, marketing and event activities through a Differential RateAn established Marketing and Events Reference Group makes recommendations to Council with respect to the allocation of funds generated through the Differential Rate specifically towards the funding of events and marketing initiatives.

 

Event sponsorship can be provided as cash or in-kind contributions and once approved by Council, event organisers are required to enter into a sponsorship agreement with the City under one of the following terms:

 

1.   Single Year Events

 

Events that are held once and not over a consecutive period

 

2.   Multi-Year Events

 

Events that are held on an annual basis over a period of years.

 

Event sponsorship requests are assessed through the Event Sponsorship Programme against the following criteria:

·    Economic impact – the direct and indirect dollars that an event generates to the City of Busselton community;

·    Strategic alliance – events that are held within the off-peak shoulder season, and events that are of a cultural nature;

·    Media/promotion – the direct and indirect value of marketing and promotional activities;

·    Environmental impact – the level of impact on the environment and associated resources; and

·    Social benefits – the associated value to the community.

 

 

 

Post Event Evaluation Reports

 

Events sponsored by the City are subject to a funding agreement and a post event evaluation report, within three (3) months of the date of the event outlining the following:

1.    General performance and activities of the event;

2.    Measure against Key Performance Indicators as per the funding agreement;

3.    Economic impact ;

4.    Benefit to the local community;

5.    Benefit to local businesses; and

6.    Media coverage of the event.

 

Post event evaluation reports will be used to determine if future funding will be approved for event organisers.

 

POLICY REVIEW

 

The Events Policy will be reviewed every two years.

 

HISTORY

 

Council Resolution

Date

Information

 

 

Version 2

Update to the Events Policy including the incorporation of the Surfing Events Policy and the inclusion of specific requirements for Meelup Regional Park and other locations

C0604/105

12 April, 2006

Version 1

Note: This policy incorporates concerts and therefore the concerts policy (073/2) was revoked as part of the adoption of the Events policy.

 

Appendix 1 -  Meelup Regional Park Specific Event Conditions

 

These specific event conditions apply to events proposed for specific sites, trails or roads within Meelup Regional Park (the ‘Park’). The conditions outlined below are based on the provisions of the Meelup Regional Park Management Plan (the ‘Management Plan’), and all events in the Park must comply with the Management Plan.

 

Pre-event information from event organisers

 

The event organisers are to:

 

1.    Apply to the City for the proposed event at least 12 weeks prior to the event, to allow for consideration and assessment by the City after consultation with the Meelup Regional Park Committee. (Committee).

2.    Contact the City of Busselton’s Meelup Environmental Management Officer for guidance on the specific management measures required, and arrange to meet onsite to inspect the event areas.

3.    Be familiar and comply with the Management Plan and other guiding documents.

4.    Provide an aerial photograph with either: a) the GPS alignments for trail-based and road based events, or   b) the boundary within which the event will be held for site-based events.

5.    Submit a detailed Event Management Plan addressing:

a.    Date, duration and event location(s);

b.    Participant/competitor numbers and management;

c.     Spectator numbers and management, including proposed locations for spectators;

d.    Numbers and management of officials, marshals, volunteers and support vehicles;

e.    Details of road closures and/or traffic management measures, including locations and duration;

f.     If exclusive use of a site, trail or road within the Park is required, detail how it will be managed;

g.    Evidence of the event organiser’s track record, business and environmental ethics

h.    Details and outcomes of consultation with other stakeholders, for example, government agencies, local government, community groups etc.

6.    Submit a detailed Environment Management Plan addressing:

a.    Plans for prevention and mitigation of environmental impacts which are relevant to the event such as preventing damage to vegetation, impact on fauna and coastal beach environments;

b.    Dieback and weed management measures

c.     Compatibility of the event with the wider community, Park neighbours and other Park users and how conflict is to be minimised;

d.    Rubbish management

e.    Noise/disturbance to residents, if applicable;

f.     Promotion of the event, including websites, print and other media.

7.    Notify the Meelup Environmental Management Officer of any proposed alterations to the requested alignment/venue immediately.

8.    Consult with Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) and/or Department of Environment Regulation(DER) regarding activities proposed in the vicinity of declared rare flora, threatened ecological communities, threatened fauna and/or priority ecological communities.

9.    Include interpretative material, to be agreed between the City and event organiser, which provides information on the Park’s environmental, cultural and recreational values, as part of the event information pack and/or on the event website.

10.  As bike riding is prohibited in the Park, ensure that any bike section of the route contained within the Park will not be advertised, published in any publication or circulated in any material or electronic form so as to not promote its use for bike riding.

 

Further specific conditions may also be required, and this will be assessed on a case by case basis once the event management plan has been submitted.

 

During the Event

 

The event organisers are to ensure that all participants, marshals, race officials and any support crew are briefed on:

1.     Where possible provide an opportunity for the Meelup Environmental Management Officer to address the event participants or provide environmental information on the Park to officials.

2.     The natural values of the Park and environmental issues identified in the EMP.

3.     That all flora is protected and it is illegal to pick wildflowers or damage vegetation.

4.     The principles of Leave No Trace, which must be adhered to at all times while in the Park.

5.     That all persons are to remain on designated trails and use authorised access points at all times except in an emergency.

6.     For trail-based events, the current prohibited status of riding bicycles in the Park, and the one-off nature of the event allowing bicycles on designated trails in the Park.

7.     That areas of the Park are regularly baited with 1080 dried meat baits for feral animal control and that these baits are toxic and should not be handled or ingested.

8.     No person is to interfere with existing signage in the Park.

9.     Ensure that all promotional material and media information associated with the event directs spectators to areas designated as spectator locations approved by the City prior to the event.

10.   Ensure that all competitors, officials, marshals and any other support crew remain on designated tracks and authorized access points at all times except in an emergency.

11.   Provide course markers, bunting and/or marshals to ensure competitors do not veer off the course alignment.

12.   Ensure that any signage is: a) corflute and at least A3 in size, b) erected in a manner that makes it difficult to remove, and c) replaced if it is removed before or during the event.

 

Post-event information/actions

 

The event organisers are to:

1.    Remove all evidence of the presence of the event within 24 hours of the conclusion of the event, including all signage, litter, markings, flagging tape, bunting, traffic management infrastructure and other materials that have been placed for the event.

2.     Submit an event report within three months after the event detailing any event issues including environmental impacts and proposed improvements. You will receive feedback from the City of Busselton on the event including any event management improvements.

 

Appendix 2 - Yallingup and Smith Beach Surf Competition Categories

 

Event Categories

It is imperative that City of Busselton manages the number and types of surfing competitions and events utilising City of Busselton managed land at Yallingup and Smiths Beach. The prescribed number and types of events is as follows:

 

1.    International and National Events (100 + competitors and large spectator component)

 

Only one (1) International or National event organised in conjunction with Surfing WA, will be approved by the City of Busselton in any one year. Confirmation shall be provided at least 6 months prior to the event date, in order to assess the proposal and exclude other potential events.

 

2.    Major Events  (Up to 100 competitors)

 

Only two (2) major events, organised in conjunction with Surfing WA, comprising of a period of up to four days in duration will be approved by the City of Busselton in any one year.

 

3.    Large Events  (50-70 competitors) Ballot System

 

Only two (2) large events comprising of a period of up to four days in duration will be approved by the City of Busselton in any one year. A ‘Surfing Competition Ballot Application Form’ will be submitted to City of Busselton by December 1st for the following calendar year.

              

Surfing WA and the City of Busselton will jointly assess the application(s) and successful applicants will notified and ask to submit a City of Busselton event application package for the event.

 


 

4.     Minor Events (0 – 50 competitors) Ballot System

 

Only one (1) minor event in any one year comprising of a period of up to four days in duration will be approved by the City of Busselton in any one year. A ‘Surfing Competition Ballot Application Form’ will be submitted to City of Busselton by December 1st for the following calendar year. Surfing WA and the City of Busselton will jointly assess the application(s) and successful applicants will notified and ask to submit a City of Busselton event application package for the event.

 

5.     Club Events

 

Local board riding clubs, such the Indian Ocean Longboard Club and the Yallingup Boardriders, are permitted to conduct their annual round of club events at sites previously nominated with the City of Busselton.

 

Clubs will be required to complete annually, prior to nominating their seasonal calendar of events, a ‘Surfing Club Beach usage application form’ for sites controlled by the City of Busselton. Dates for competition, particularly at the ‘Yallingup Mainbreak’ surf break, need to be included in the ‘Surfing Club Beach usage application form.’

 

6.     Traditional Contests and Philanthropic Events

Traditional and Philanthropic contests and events outside this Policy will be continued to be supported for the period that the contests continue to run successfully and with minimum impact of the surfing community.

 

Surfing Event and/or Competition Locations

Whilst there are many surfing locations across the western and northern boundaries of the City, many of these foreshore reserves are either not managed by the City of Busselton or have inadequate facilities to successfully conduct a surfing competition. Below is a table of the nominated sites:

 

Table 1. Nominated competition sites at City of Busselton Managed Foreshore reserves

 

INTERNATIONAL SITES

ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED

Yallingup Mainbreak

Additional Infrastructure to be provided as directed by the City of Busselton

MAJOR EVENT
SITES (70 – 100 COMPETITORS)

ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED

Yallingup / Smiths Beach

Rubbish Bins, Taping off dunes / sensitive areas Environmental Control

LARGE EVENT
SITES (50-70 COMPETITORS)

ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED

Yallingup / Smiths Beach

Rubbish Bins, Taping off dunes / sensitive areas Environmental Control

MINOR EVENT

SITES (0-50 COMPETITORS)

ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED

Smiths Beach

Rubbish Bins and Toilets

 

All sites, at City of Busselton managed foreshore reserves, other than those nominated are to be excluded from competitions. No events are to be held on Public Holiday weekends.

Number of Annual Events and/or Competitions

By prescribing a set number of events at the Yallingup and Smiths Beach surf breaks, this policy will allow for a fair and equitable surfing environment for club, competition and recreational surfers alike.

 

The prescribed number of competitions / events, as per event categories 1 to 5 listed above, from January the 1st to December the 31st of each calendar year will be 13 competitions / events inclusive.

 

This figure is based on the average of one competition / event per every four weeks at this venue. The prescribed breakdown of these competitions / events includes:

 

CATEGORY

ORGANISATION

NUMBER

CLUB

Yallingup Boardriders

4

CLUB

Indian Ocean Longboard Club

4

INTERNATIONAL, MAJOR or LARGE

Surfing Western Australia

2

TRADITIONAL and PHILANTHROPIC

Yallingup Malibu Classic

Taj Small Fries

2

LARGE or MINOR

Ballot system

1

 

* any application for an event that is in addition to the number of events allowed in the policy will referred to the Council for consideration

 

Approval Procedures

Please refer to the City of Busselton’s Event Policy. The City of Busselton Event Policy outlines in detail the Event Application processes required at the City of Busselton in order to comply with legislative requirements.


Council

35

14 September 2016

10.1

Attachment a

Current Event Policy with changes tracked

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      45                                                         14 September 2016

10.2           Policy and Legislation Committee - 18/08/2016 - REVISED ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY

SUBJECT INDEX:

Asset Renewal and Replacement

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Engineering and Facilities Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Asset Management

REPORTING OFFICER:

Asset Coordinator - Daniel Hall

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Asset Management Policy  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 18 August 2016, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The purpose of this report is to present for adoption an updated City of Busselton Asset Management Policy.  The policy provides an overview of the Council’s commitment to the long-term sustainability of its infrastructure assets. This is through the recognition of the need to undertake asset management planning to ensure that adequate levels of maintenance and renewal are undertaken, whilst also ensuring that demand for new and upgraded infrastructure assets is being catered for.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The asset management policy was first adopted by the Council on 8 October 2008 (C0810/303).  Whilst this policy adequately captured the City’s asset management philosophies at the time, it is required to be updated in order to better reflect the present day requirements.

 

The original policy (as shown in attachment A) defined asset management for the City of Busselton and provided some guidance on issues such as donated assets and asset management plans.

 

The City’s asset management maturity and expectations of asset management are now much more defined than they were in 2008. The updated policy aims to capture this through the provision of more specific information capturing the present day requirements and providing guidance on future areas for improvement.

 

To this end, a major review of the policy has been undertaken to ensure adherence to present day requirements and capture of areas for improvement.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

In accordance with Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 it is the role of the Council to determine the local government’s policies. The Council does this on the recommendation of a Committee it has established in accordance with Section 5.8 of that Act.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The data from Asset Management Plans is incorporated into the Long-term Financial Plan and in this way informs the Corporate Business Plan and Annual Budget.

 

This policy also has some linkage with other asset management related policies of the Council, namely Road Renewal Funding Policy, Footpaths and Cycleways Funding Policy, Asbestos Management Policy and Building Insurance Policy.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no direct financial implications with the adoption of this policy.  However, the policy does provide guidance on the assessment of lifecycle costs for infrastructure assets, prioritisation of renewal works and fair value – all of which have some financial aspects.

 

They are defined as follows within the policy:

 

Lifecycle Costs

 

The total cost of an asset throughout its life, including planning, design, construction, acquisition, operation, maintenance, rehabilitation and disposal costs will be considered prior to construction / implementation of an asset.

 

Prioritisation of Renewal Works

 

Consideration for budgetary priority will be given to existing assets for their operation, maintenance and renewal where required before the provision of new assets. This is to ensure that expenditure on new and upgraded assets is not at the detriment of required renewal expenditure on existing assets. This approach will assist in the long-term sustainability of the City’s infrastructure assets.

 

Where appropriate, separate policies should be developed outlining minimum levels of renewal to be applied to individual asset sub class i.e. (roads, buildings, paths and cycleways).

 

Fair Value According to AASB

 

Australian Accounting Standards Board AASB13 – Defines Fair Value as “the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date”.

 

Three valuation techniques recommended by AASB13:

·    Market approach: A valuation technique that uses prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable (i.e. similar) assets, liabilities or a group of assets and liabilities, such as a business.

 

·    Cost approach: A valuation technique that reflects the amount that would be required currently to replace the service capacity of an asset (often referred to as current replacement cost).

 

·    Income approach: Valuation techniques that convert future amounts (e.g. cash flows or income and expenses) to a single current (i.e. discounted) amount.

 

Fair Value at the City of Busselton

 

Infrastructure assets are “specialised” in nature (i.e. roads, drainage, footpaths, carparks etc.), therefore market evidence is not always available to guide fair value measurement. AASB116 recognises the specialised nature of some assets and provides for an income or current replacement cost approach to be used to determine fair value. The City will predominately use the current replacement cost approach to value all infrastructure assets. AASB13 defines replacement cost as “a valuation technique that reflects the amount that would be required currently to replace the service capacity of an asset (often referred to as current replacement cost)”.

 

The City will use two methods under the current replacement cost approach for calculating fair value depending on the data that is available / able to be sourced for that particular asset.

 

The City will determine Fair Value by an assessment of the current replacement cost of the asset, measured against its existing condition to determine the percentage of its life consumed and in turn; the life remaining.  This technique reflects the amount that would be required currently to replace the service capacity of an asset.

 

Where detailed condition data is either unable to be obtained within the required timeframes, unreliable or incomplete; an assessment will be made based on construction date, useful life and replacement cost. This differs from the condition based method as it uses an assumed remaining life based on how old the asset is, rather than a detailed inspection of its current condition.

 

For each infrastructure asset sub class, a determination will be made to use either condition or age as the determining factors, not a mix of both within the one infrastructure class. This will be done to avoid any inconsistencies when comparing values within a particular class.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Under the guidance of the philosophies set by the policy, asset management plans are required to be formulated. These plans are to outline relevant information about each asset class such as location, size, value, condition and timing and cost of replacements/renewals of existing infrastructure. The outcomes of the adopted asset management plans then inform the Long-term Financial Plan.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 2 – ‘Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Place’ and more specifically Community Objective 2.3 ‐ ‘Infrastructure assets that are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. There were no risks identified that required either a formal assessment or noting within this report.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Not required.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Since 2008 when the original policy was adopted, there has been significant growth in the City’s asset management knowledge base. This increase in knowledge has led to an increase in asset management output and associated expectations of continued improvement of asset management.

 

This developing asset management ‘maturity’ provides the City with ever-improving asset management data and processes. It also provides a clearer sense of what still needs to be done to ensure that asset management continues to improve. The updated policy aims to capture this current asset management maturity as well as outlining some areas for improvement.

 

The current maturity is captured through the inclusion of sections relating to continuous improvement of asset management, improvement planning, integrated planning framework compliance, prioritisation of renewal works, core and advanced asset management planning and fair value. All of these aspects are recognised requirements which are embedded in the current day to day functions of asset management and where necessary are backed by separate policies.

 

The areas for improvement within the policy are sections relating to donated assets, as-constructed data, life-cycle costs, and asset management information systems. Whilst these areas are still providing effective outputs to a point, they represent the areas with the greatest need for improvement.

 

Planning for improvements will be enabled by the implementation of an Asset Management Improvement Plan. The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of which activities have been undertaken up until the present day and those which are required into the future.  This summary will be provided at an asset type level (Roads, Buildings etc.) in order to provide detail on each area’s progress and current status.

 

The Policy can be reviewed at any time, should these priorities for improvement change over time.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The updated policy reflects the present day asset management requirements for the City of Busselton and also provides guidance on how to further improve asset management at the City of Busselton.

 

Adoption of the policy will reaffirm the Council’s commitment to the long-term sustainability of its infrastructure assets. It will also provide recognition of the need to undertake asset management planning to ensure that adequate levels of maintenance and renewal are undertaken allowing the Council to better plan for new and upgraded infrastructure.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could resolve to not adopt the updated asset management policy, however in doing so, may not be recognising the current asset management requirements for the City of Busselton.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The implementation of the Asset Management Policy would be effective immediately upon adoption of the officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council adopts the following updated Asset Management Policy:

 

002

Asset Management

V2 Draft

 

1.      PURPOSE

 

The intention of this policy is to outline the City of Busselton’s commitment to continuous improvement of asset management through a structured, well-planned and integrated approach. This will ensure that the City’s infrastructure assets are well maintained for their current purpose and are able to adapt to the changing expectations of future generations.

 

2.      STATEMENT

Scope

 

The Policy applies to existing infrastructure assets as well as assets that are to be purchased or donated to the City. It covers infrastructure assets, including but not limited to roads, bridges, footpaths and cycleways, stormwater drains, parks and open spaces, buildings, facilities and leisure centres that are owned and directly managed by the City of Busselton.

 

The definition of an infrastructure asset applicable to this policy is as follows:

 

“Stationary systems forming a network and serving whole communities, where the system as a whole is intended to be maintained indefinitely, at a particular level of service potential by the continuing replacement and refurbishment of its components. The network may include normally recognised ordinary assets as components.” (International Infrastructure Management Manual – 2011)

 

This includes constructed or improved physical assets. Hence, in the example of a reserve area under Management Order with the City of Busselton, the reserve is not included in the asset register, however the physical components such as footpaths, furniture, roads, seawalls, jettys, boatramps, drains and any buildings would be included as assets.

 

3.      POLICY CONTENT

 

The Council is committed to the long-term sustainability of its infrastructure assets, and recognises the need to undertake asset management planning to ensure that adequate levels of maintenance and renewal are undertaken; whilst also ensuring that demand for new and upgraded infrastructure assets is being catered for.

 

This will be done by the Council adopting the following asset management principles:

 

Continuous Improvement of Asset Management

 

Through the commitment to continuous improvement of asset management, the City will ensure that asset management plans are reviewed and updated at least every three years. This regular review will ensure that the plans are an accurate reflection of the current status and required funding for the various assets at any given time.

 

Development, review and update of the asset management plans will be done in a cyclic manner to ensure that some form of asset management development, update and review is being undertaken in any given year.

 

Improvement Planning

 

Effective Asset Management Planning will be enabled by the implementation of an Asset Management Improvement Plan. The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of which activities have been undertaken up until the present day and those which are required into the future.  This summary will be provided at an asset type level (Roads, Buildings etc.) in order to provide detail on each areas progress and current status.

 

The Improvement Plan should give a task breakdown for each asset type and a basic timeline to assist with future planning of the City’s asset management tasks. The improvement plan should cover activities ranging from initial data collection up to asset management plan adoption and review.

 


 

Integrated Planning Framework Compliance

 

The Council utilises a suite of corporate planning documents in order to comply with the State Government’s Integrated Planning Framework. These documents are: a Strategic Community Plan and a Corporate Business Plan, supported and informed by key resourcing and informing plans, namely Asset Management Plans, a Long-term Financial Plan and a Workforce Plan.  Falling out of such planning each year will be the local government’s Annual Budget.  This framework is commonly referred to as Integrated Planning.

 

Under the guidance of the framework, asset management plans are required to be formulated outlining relevant information about each asset class such as location, size, value, condition and timing and cost of replacements/renewals of existing infrastructure.

 

Donated Assets 

 

When considering the provision or receipt of a new asset, the following practices are taken into account:

 

A business case (considering elements such as (but not limited to) condition, age, asset type, location) has been completed to ensure that any new asset will deliver direct and tangible benefits to the community and stakeholders.

 

(A)   This includes assets that are proposed to be transferred to the City of Busselton (e.g. where the City of Busselton is obliged to accept assets or applies under a Management Order) or where assets are donated (e.g. the City of Busselton is not legally obliged to take ownership). This could show some assets should not be accepted by the City.

 

(ii)    That the “life-cycle” costs and cost effectiveness of the asset have been considered over the life of the asset;

 

(iii)   Any financial implications to the City of Busselton have been taken into account and can be incorporated into the City’s corporate and financial plans. This should include operational costs as well as maintenance, renewal or replacement of the asset.

 

As-constructed Data

 

The City recognises the importance that provision of detailed as-constructed data plays in the effective lifecycle management of an infrastructure asset.  As-constructed data will be required from all contractors / consultants before final close out of construction projects.

 

Detailed as-constructed data will also be provided for infrastructure asset construction undertaken by the Council’s internal construction teams.

 

Lifecycle Costs

 

The total cost of an asset throughout its life, including planning, design, construction, acquisition, operation, maintenance, rehabilitation and disposal costs will be considered prior to construction / implementation of an asset.

 

Prioritisation of Renewal Works

 

Consideration for budgetary priority will be given to existing assets for their operation, maintenance and renewal where required before the provision of new assets. This is to ensure that expenditure on new and upgraded assets is not at the detriment of required renewal expenditure on existing assets. This approach will assist in the long term sustainability of the City’s infrastructure assets.

 

Where appropriate, separate policies should be developed outlining minimum levels of renewal to be applied to individual asset sub class i.e. (roads, buildings, paths and cycle ways).

 

Core and Advanced Asset Management Plans

 

Initial asset management plans will be prepared in the context of core asset management working towards advanced asset management planning. The initial plans will be undertaken to meet minimum organisational and legislative requirements for financial planning and reporting. This is referred to as the “core” approach and provides basic technical management outputs such as statements on current levels of service, forward replacement programmes and associated cash flow projections based on historical performance.

 

Advanced asset management involves engaging with the community to discuss and agree on alternative levels of service, applying analysis to individual assets and implementation of improvements identified in core planning.

 

The City of Busselton will progress towards advanced asset management through ongoing review and update of asset management data and practices – continuous improvement.

 

Fair Value According to AASB

 

Australian Accounting Standards Board AASB13 – Defines Fair Value as “the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date”.

 

Three Valuation Techniques recommended by AASB13:

 

·    Market approach: A valuation technique that uses prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable (i.e. similar) assets, liabilities or a group of assets and liabilities, such as a business.

 

·    Cost approach: A valuation technique that reflects the amount that would be required currently to replace the service capacity of an asset (often referred to as current replacement cost).

 

·    Income approach: Valuation techniques that convert future amounts (e.g. cash flows or income and expenses) to a single current (i.e. discounted) amount.

 

Fair Value at the City of Busselton

 

Infrastructure assets are “specialised” in nature (i.e. roads, drainage, footpaths, carparks etc.), therefore market evidence is not always available to guide fair value measurement. AASB 116 recognises the specialised nature of some assets and, provides for an income or current replacement cost approach to be used to determine fair value. The City will predominately use the current replacement cost approach, to value all infrastructure assets. AASB13 defines replacement cost as “a valuation technique that reflects the amount that would be required currently to replace the service capacity of an asset (often referred to as current replacement cost)”.

 

The City will use two methods under the current replacement cost approach for calculating fair value depending on the data that is available / able to be sourced for that particular asset.

 

The City will determine Fair Value by an assessment of the current replacement cost of the asset, measured against its existing condition to determine to percentage of its life consumed and in turn, the life remaining. This technique reflects the amount that would be required currently to replace the service capacity of an asset.

 

Where detailed condition data is either unable to be obtained within the required timeframes, unreliable or incomplete, an assessment will be made based on construction date, useful life and replacement cost. This differs from the condition based method as it uses an assumed remaining life based on how old the asset is, rather than a detailed inspection of its current condition.

 

For each infrastructure asset sub class, a determination will be made to use either condition or age as the determining factors, not a mix of both within the one infrastructure class. This will be done to avoid any inconsistencies when comparing values within a particular class.

 

Asset Management Information systems

 

The City will ensure that appropriate Asset Management Information Systems (AMIS) are in place to effectively manage asset management data. This will entail a combination of processes, data, software and hardware; which are used to provide the essential outputs for effective asset management.

 

Review of Policy

 

This policy will be reviewed as required to ensure the Policy properly reflects the current asset management requirements of the City.

 

Definitions

 

Renewal Work is defined as works to replace existing assets or facilities with assets or facilities of equivalent capacity or performance capability.

 

New works are assets acquired for a new (never before provided) service to the community.

 

Upgrade works result in a higher (improved) level of service than previously offered. As distinct from new assets, the service currently exists.

 

Asset – an item that has potential value to an organisation (International Infrastructure Management Manual – 2011).

 

Asset Management Plan (AM Plan) Long-Term plans (usually 10-20 years or more for infrastructure assets) that outline the asset activities and programmes for each service area and resources applied to provide a defined level of service in the most cost effective way (International Infrastructure Management Manual – 2011).

 

Lifecycle Cost – The total cost of an asset throughout its life including planning, design, construction, acquisition, operation, maintenance, rehabilitation and disposal costs.

 

Advanced Asset Management – Asset Management which employs predictive modelling, risk management and optimised decision-making techniques to establish lifecycle treatment options and related long-term cash flow predictions (International Infrastructure Management Manual – 2011).

 

Core Asset Management (Also called basic AM) – Asset Management which relies primarily on the use of an asset register, maintenance management systems, top down condition assessments, simple risk assessment and defined levels of service, in order to establish a long term cash flow prediction (International Infrastructure Management Manual – 2011).

 

Levels of Service – Defines standards for the construction, maintenance and operation of types of assets (i.e. roads, footpaths).

 

4.      APPLICATION OF THE POLICY

 

Policy Background

Policy Reference No. - 002

Owner Unit – Engineering and Facilities Services

Originator – Asset Management Coordinator

Policy approved by – Council

Date Approved – 8 October, 2008

Review Frequency – as required

Related Documents – Roads Asset Renewal Policy, Footpaths and Cycleways Renewal Policy, Building Insurance Policy, Asbestos Management Policy.

Background/History –

 

Council Resolution

Date

Information

 

 

Version 2

The City’s asset management maturity and expectations of asset management are now much more defined. The updated policy aims to capture this through the provision of more specific information regarding the present day requirements and providing guidance on future areas for improvement.

C0810/303

8 October, 2008

Date of implementation

Version 1

 

 

 


Council

47

14 September 2016

10.2

Attachment a

Asset Management Policy

 


 


 


Council                                                                                      53                                                         14 September 2016

10.3           Policy and Legislation Committee - 18/08/2016 - REVIEW OF BUILDING INSURANCE POLICY

SUBJECT INDEX:

Insurance - Policies

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Engineering and Facilities Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Asset Management

REPORTING OFFICER:

Asset Coordinator - Daniel Hall

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Current Building Insurance Policy with changes tracked  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 18 August 2016, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Building Insurance Policy is presented for review and update as part of the ongoing policy review process.  The policy has been reviewed and assessed as requiring only minor changes as outlined in this report. While no substantial changes are recommended, the operation of the policy has been examined in detail to ensure no other changes are required.

 

BACKGROUND

 

In 2011, the Council resolved (C1103/091) to adopt an approach of taking out different levels of insurance for City owned building assets based on a Service Level Hierarchy (SLH). The SLH defines an appropriate hierarchy, subject to the building’s use, condition and service needs.

 

Further to this, a policy to adopt a philosophy and approach in relation to insurance of City owned buildings and improvements was presented to the Council on 24 July, 2013.  The Council resolved (C1307/192) to adopt the Building Insurance Policy. The purpose was to outline the rationale for allocating different levels of insurance for City owned buildings and/or improvements. It also formalised  the requirement for Lessees of City owned or managed buildings to reimburse the City for the cost of insurance.

 

The adopted policy is to be reviewed every three years to coincide with the review of the Asset Management Plan and the revaluation of City buildings. 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

In accordance with Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 it is the role of the Council to determine the local government’s policies. The Council does this on the recommendation of a Committee it has established in accordance with Section 5.8 of that Act.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

This report proposes the minor update of the Building Insurance Policy of the Council.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no financial implications arising from the review of this policy.



Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Not applicable.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

Consideration of this matter is consistent with Key Goal 2 – Well planned, vibrant and active places,

Community Objective 2.3 - Infrastructure assets are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations – of the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan 2013.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

A financial implication if a higher level of SLH is to be applied to a building and the change to the level of insurance has not been implemented resulting in underinsurance.

Regular reviews of SLH to identify changes to the building condition and/or the community needs.

Moderate

Possible

Medium

Damage occurs to a number of buildings valued at under $50,000 which are not insured.

Insurance needs for these buildings to be covered through the existing building reserves fund when and if required. 

Minor

Rare

Low

 

CONSULTATION

 

Not required.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

This report presents the Building Insurance Policy.  The policy has provided consistent guidance to the City in allocating an insurance level appropriate to each building. This guidance is based on the SLH, current condition and planned future use.

 

The Building Insurance Policy has been reviewed and assessed as requiring only a minor change.  Where referred to in the report, the words ‘reinstatement /reinstatement’ should be replaced with the words ‘replacement/reinstatement’.  These changes are shown as track changes on Attachment A.

 

CONCLUSION

 

While no substantial changes are recommended, the operation of the policy has been examined in detail to ensure no other changes are required. It is the considered view of officers that the policy included in this report has been operating efficiently and effectively since it was adopted by the Policy and Legislation Committee and the Council.

 


 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could choose not to adopt the updated Building Insurance Policy in favor of an alternative building insurance policy. This would require further investigation and presentation of an alternative policy to the Policy and Legislation Committee.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The implementation of the Building Insurance Policy would be effective immediately upon adoption of the officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council adopts the following updated Building Insurance Policy:

 

029

Building Insurance Policy

V2 Draft

 

1.            PURPOSE

 

The purpose of this policy is to outline the rationale for allocating different levels of insurance for City owned buildings and/or improvements and to formalise the requirement for Lessees of City buildings to reimburse the City of Busselton for the cost of insurance.

 

2.            SCOPE

 

This policy applies to all City owned buildings and / or improvements located in the City of Busselton that are covered by the City insurance policy.  It also applies to all community and sporting groups and commercial lease holders of City owned buildings.

 

3.            POLICY CONTENT

 

The Council has determined that a strategic approach is required with regards to levels of building insurance to ensure that the best value for money is obtained for each and every building covered.

When determining the appropriate level of insurance to be applied to a particular building, certain information pertaining to this building needs to be obtained so that an informed decision can be made. This will also ensure that all buildings are assessed on an individual basis as well as within the context of the entire asset portfolio.

 

Buildings, where practicable, should be assessed on the basis of their Service Level Hierarchy (SLH) explained in more detail below, current overall condition which is based on an asset management assessment and whether there is an alternative should the building be no longer in operation.

 

Service Level Hierarchy

 

A Service Level Hierarchy (SLH) for buildings has been developed as part of the Building Asset Management Plan adopted by Council in December 2010 and has been used as the basis for determining insurance levels for buildings.  The SLH defines an appropriate hierarchy for all City owned and managed buildings, which includes leased buildings and further defined below.

 

The buildings are to be assessed under the following three criteria;

 

Importance to the community

A rating based on perceptions of community expectations of services provided the scores are allocated between:

1              Very important

2              Important

3              Fair importance

4              Low importance

5              Not important

 

Criticality to the operations of Council

How critical a building is to the day to day operations of the City the scores are allocated as follows:

1              Very critical 

2              Critical

3              Fair criticality

4              Low criticality

5              Not critical

 

Usage Factor

An assessment of the usage level of each building including workforce and public use, the scores are allocated between:

1              High usage

2              Moderate usage

3              Low usage

4              Some degree of usage

5              Little or no use

 

Each Criteria is given an equal weighting and points are allocated according to the score i.e. score 1 = 1 point, 2 = 2 points, 3 = 3 points, 4 = 4 points and 5 = 5 points.   Points are allocated up to a maximum of fifteen across the three criteria. The scores can then be broken down into five (5) service level hierarchies for buildings as a guide for determining the Service Level Hierarchy.

Additional to this, leased buildings (both community and commercial) can be allocated into a hierarchy six (a, b or c) dependant on the City’s level of obligation towards these buildings.

This will assist further in the allocation of insurance levels.

 

Service Level Hierarchy One (1)

A building that scores between a 1 and 3 is identified as core service, high usage and high public profile asset to be in very good condition operationally and aesthetically.  A building that falls into this category would be insured for replacement/reinstatement value.

 

Service Level Hierarchy Two (2)

A building that scores between a 4 and 5 is identified as core service, moderate usage and /or moderate public profile asset to be in good / very good condition operationally and aesthetically.  A building that falls into this category would be insured for replacement/reinstatement value.

 

Service Level Hierarchy Three (3)

A building that scores between a 6 and 7 is identified as core service, low usage and/or public profile asset to be in serviceable / good condition operationally and aesthetically.  A building that falls into this category would generally be insured for replacement/reinstatement value and in some instances indemnity value.

 

Service Level Hierarchy Four (4)

A building that scores between an 8 and 10 is of non-core service, some degree of usage and / or profile, condition only needs to meet minimal operational and statutory requirements. A building that falls into this category would generally be insured for replacement /reinstatement value and in some instances indemnity value.

 

 

Service Level Hierarchy Five (5)

A building that scores 11 plus is of non-core service, little or no usage and / or profile, it is unoccupied or surplus to requirements. A building that falls into this category would generally be insured for demolition value.

 

Service Level Hierarchy Six (a)

Commercial and community leased buildings for which the City is responsible to maintain and renew either directly or through coordination of funding programs.  Due to the lease obligations a building that falls into this category would be insured for replacement /reinstatement value.

 

Service Level Hierarchy Six (b)

Commercial and community leased buildings for which the City is responsible for the structural integrity only (tenant or lessee responsible for day to day maintenance and minor renewal). Due to the lease obligations a building that falls into this category would be insured for replacement /reinstatement value.

 

Service Level Hierarchy Six (c)

Commercial and community leased buildings for which the City has no obligation with respect to the ongoing maintenance and renewal of the building i.e. not required to have a yearly budget allocation for these buildings. Due to the lease obligations a building that falls into this category would be insured for replacement /reinstatement value.

 

Insurance Levels

Each building, once assessed as per the requirements of this policy will be allocated an insurance level appropriate to its SLH, current condition and planned future use.

These insurance levels are as follows;

 

Replacement / Reinstatement: cost for full replacement of a building to current day standards including provisions for contingencies such as architects and engineers fees, removal of debris, extra cost of reinstatement, extinguishment costs and miscellaneous structures and equipment.

 

Indemnity Only: The “market value” of the building only. In the event of a total loss then that amount would be the maximum amount payable, there will be no consideration of replacing or rebuilding the asset in the processing of the claim.

 

This cover would be valid when it is deemed that a certain building would not be rebuilt in its current form and/or location, therefore doesn’t require full replacement / reinstatement insurance cover.

 

Demolition Only: This value can be set by the Council, nominating a value to a certain building based on previous quotations, actual costs or an estimation of the probable costs to demolish it after a significant damage event.

 

No Insurance: Council may elect in some instances not to insure a building where other insurance cover already exists or the situation dictates that insurance cover is not necessary. This option would not be utilised in many instances.

 

Buildings Valued at under $50,000 (excluding leased buildings): With the exception of Leased Buildings, the City will not insure buildings valued at under $50,000, unless the CEO considers it necessary due to special circumstances to take out a separate policy of insurance in respect to a particular building.   The City believes the City’s existing Building Reserve sufficiently provides for the insurance needs of such buildings.

 

 

 

Valuation of Assets

To ensure that all building values are consistent with current replacement costs and / or market values, the City will undertake a revaluation carried out by a Certified Practising Valuer every three (3) years. This value will then form the basis of each building’s insurance cover and will be indexed each financial year by the Perth Consumer Price Index (CPI) until such time as an updated valuation is undertaken.

 

Leased Building

All leased buildings and improvements are to be insured for replacement/reinstatement value. Lessees are required to reimburse the City to the full extent of the cost of insurance for Leased Buildings.    An exemption is applied to not for profit community and sporting groups leasing City owned or managed buildings that are listed with the Heritage Council of WA with conservation plans.  A concession of 50% of the insurance premium is to be applied. No concession will be granted for commercial tenants.

 

Review

The policy is to be reviewed every three (3) years to coincide with the review of the Building Asset Management Plan and the re-valuation of City Buildings.

 

Policy Background

Policy Reference No:  029

Owner Unit – Asset Management

Originator – Coordinator, Asset Management, Engineering and Works Services

Policy approved by – Council

Date Approved – 24 July, 2013

Review frequency – Every 3 years

 

History

 

Council Resolution

Date

Information

 

 

Version 2

Policy update generally to replace  the words ‘reinstatement/ reinstatement’ with ‘replacement/ reinstatement’ to more accurately reflect the insurance type being referred to.

C1307/192

24 July 2013

Version 1

 

 

 


Council

59

14 September 2016

10.3

Attachment a

Current Building Insurance Policy with changes tracked

 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      63                                                         14 September 2016

10.4           Airport Advisory Committee - 24/08/2016 - AIRPORT UPDATE

SUBJECT INDEX:

Busselton Margaret River Airport

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Airport

REPORTING OFFICER:

Airport Operations Coordinator - David Russell

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

 

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 24 August 2016, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report provides an overview on the Busselton-Margaret River Airport (BMRA) operations and activities for the reporting period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The airport has seen a reduction in FIFO services from 14 to 10 in the last financial year due to the withdrawal of the Maroomba / Ad Astral Beech 1900 services to Karara mine site as of December 2015. Despite this reduction in services, passenger numbers and aircraft movements have continued to increase over the year.

                   

Below is a table indicating the number of FIFO/ Charter passengers travelling through BMRA for the reporting period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016:

 

 

Departing FIFO/Charter Passengers

Arriving FIFO/Charter

 Passengers

 

2014/15

2015/16

2014/15

2015/16

July

1036

1277

830

1016

August

1069

1189

673

956

September

1077

1280

854

1145

October

1039

1422

862

1090

November

1154

1295

926

1036

December

1065

1290

945

994

January

954

1065

760

798

February

1134

1188

946

928

March

1355

1469

1124

1212

April

1125

1314

955

969

May

1315

1154

961

907

June

1050

1101

881

926

Total

13373

15044

10717

11977

 

Total FIFO/Charter passengers for 2015/16 = 27,021

Total FIFO/Charter passengers for 2014/15 = 24,090

 

             

 

The total number of departing FIFO services from BMRA is currently 10 flights per week.

 

A total of 5213 aircraft landings were recorded for the 2015/2016 financial year, an increase from the numbers reported for the same period in 2014/2015 of 5144 landings.

 

This increase has been due to a number of visiting aircraft for Aerofest 2016, and an increase in Local commercial aircraft activity by Busselton Aero Club, Geronimo Skydivers, Tigermoth Adventure Flights and SLSWA.  

                            

There have been decreases in Emergency Services airport usage for, Helitac Firefighting, Police Airwing, RFDS and Aerorescue last financial year as seen in the table below. This table includes all license renewal and approved training flights for Emergency services as well as emergency flights.

 

The City does not restrict license renewal flights for emergency services or FIFO operators and is actively managing these operations. Voice recordings of all aircraft using BMRA and their activities are used to assists City Officers in addressing noise complaints received from the public about flight operations at the airport.

 

Emergency Service

2014/15

2015/16

SLSWA

236

248

RFDS

292

220

Aerorescue

23

20

Police Airwing

19

9

Helitac Firefighters

74

72

 

NMP Non-Compliance Reporting

 

Under the Noise Management Plan (NMP) the City is required to submit its annual compliance report to the Office of Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) prior to 22 September 2016 for the reporting period of 23 June 2015 to 22 June 2016.

 

The annual compliance report was submitted on 3 August 2016 and reported that ten (10) out of an available twelve (12) CEO approved non-conforming activities (section 3.3.3 Approval for Non-Conforming Activity of the NMP) were used. Additionally, the report stated that nine (9) non-compliant incidents had been reported to the OEPA during the reporting period and that one (1) other non-compliance had occurred during the year but in accordance with the Compliance Assessment Plan (CAP).

Telethon Charity Event

 

The City has received a request from Channel 7 Telethon Trust, the event organizer for a charity flight to raise funds for Telethon and the Telethon Type 1 Diabetes Family Center, to waive the landing fees and passenger facilitation fees for an event to be held on Sunday 13th November 2016. The event comprises of two F100 aircraft, with expected passenger numbers of 200 who fly down to Busselton and spend the day in the region. The fundraising proceeds go to Telethon Type 1 Diabetes Family Center.

 

The total waived fees, including landing fees and passenger facilitation fees, is expected to be $5,900 (excluding GST) and does not include staff time (approx.$150.00) and as such requires Council endorsement. Other sponsors for this event include Network Aviation, Leeuwin Estate and South West Coachlines.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

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

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

There are no policy implications with this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The net operating result of the BMRA as at 30 June 2016 was a surplus of $257,197 including depreciation of $229,323 , compared to a surplus of $181,774 including depreciation of $147,860 at the same time last year. The revenue for the year was $1,088,784, which was $112,919 under the projected annual revenue. A number of factors influenced the revenue for 2015/16 including;

 

•             Decreased budgeted revenue from the secure car park with parking fees totaling $261,835 compared to the projected budgeted revenue for 2015/16 of $302,920. This was mainly due to roster changes of car park patrons using the carpark for less days and some impact from incorrect ticket usage by some patrons

•             Decreased budgeted revenue from landing fees totaling $494,836 compared to the projected budget revenue of $509,210 due to a reduction of FIFO services during the year.

 

The operating expenditure for 2015/2016 totaled $830,504 compared to $886,656 in 2014/2015.  The decrease in expenditure was due to;

 

•             Lower staffing levels during the beginning part of the year

•             Airport Maintenance projects associated with the runway and runway strip being put on hold due to the Airport Development Project

•             Decreased Contractor costs being reduced due to works being cancelled due to the Airport Development Project


Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

There are no financial implications as a result of this report.


 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

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

 

Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Places:

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

 

Connected City

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

CONSULTATION

 

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

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

FIFO/ Charter passengers through the BMRA have continued to increase last financial year with passengers provided with a more enjoyable experience by the completion of the following projects:

 

•             Completion of the terminal seating upgrade

•             Implementation of boarding gate counters to streamline passenger departures

•             Information provides by a standalone Airport website

 

The 2015/16 financial year has also seen a number of operational improvements and maintenance taking place including; the deployment of a new 110,000ltr water tank funded by DPAW to support fixed wing firefighting operations, removal of airside farm fences to improve the safe take-off and landing of aircraft, City officers conducted a desktop emergency exercise in conjunction with local emergency services, and improvements to the Wildlife Management Plan Database reporting and Fly Neighborly Agreements (FNA) and Aerodrome Manual. Additionally the employment and induction of two new Airport Reporting and Maintenance Officers has ensured that the Airport is operating efficiently and complying with all relevant Government regulations.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Airport Operations Team is looking forward to an exciting and challenging time during the 16/17 financial year with the Airport Development Project. Ensuring the airport is operating safely and providing a high level of customer service will be a priority throughout this.

 


 

OPTIONS

 

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

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Not Applicable.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Airport Advisory Committee;

 

1.        Receives and note the Airport operations report.

 

2.        Endorses the waiving of landing and passenger facilitation fees for the Telethon Charity flights to be held on the 13th November 2016 for 2 x F100 aircraft and estimated 200 passengers, to the total value of $5,900 excluding GST and staffing costs of $150.00.

 

Note:                 The Committee proposed an alternative recommendation that would separate the two decisions and enable the City to donate funds to the Telethon Charity.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Airport Advisory Committee;

 

1.        Receives and note the Airport operations report.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Airport Advisory Committee;

 

1.        Endorse a donation to the value of the landing and passenger facilitation fees for the Telethon Charity flights to be held on the 13th November 2016 for 2 x F100 aircraft and estimated 200 passengers, to the total value of $5,900.

 

 

 

  


Council                                                                                      85                                                         14 September 2016

11.             Planning and Development Services Report

11.1           DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY - CONSIDERATION FOLLOWING ADVERTISING

SUBJECT INDEX:

Local Planning Strategy

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:

Principal Strategic Planner - Louise Koroveshi

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Draft Local Planning Strategy (as advertised)

Attachment b    Western Australian Planning Commission consent to advertise

Attachment c    Draft Local Planning Strategy (as adopted by Council)

Attachment d   Future Busselton 2050

Attachment e    Schedule of Submissions

Attachment f    Schedule of Modifications

Attachment g   Matters to be Considered in the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy  

  

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Name/Position

Louise Koroveshi, Principal Strategic Planner

Item No./Subject

11.1 - Draft Local Planning Strategy – Consideration Following Advertising

Type of Interest

Impartiality Interest

Nature of Interest

Spouse lodged submissions on behalf of landowners in response to advertising of the draft Local Planning Strategy.

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is requested to consider the draft Local Planning Strategy (draft Strategy) following advertising, with the aim of referring the draft Strategy to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for its final endorsement. The advertised version of the draft Strategy is provided at Attachment A. The draft Strategy sets out the long term, broad planning direction for the District.

 

Development of the draft Strategy follows consultation processes undertaken commencing late in 2012. More recently, public consultation on the draft Strategy, including two public information sessions, was carried out over a period of 60 days ending 13 May 2016; 52 submissions were received.

 

The Schedule of Submissions, provided at Attachment E, contains a number of recommendations that are either partially supportive or not supportive of matters raised in submissions (both government agency and public submissions) and given that those matters are relatively straightforward to deal with and they are not viewed as having strategic significance, they are not specifically discussed within the main body of this report.

 

Other matters raised in submissions are considered to be more significant and include: settlement expansion at Carbunup River & Metricup; re-subdivision and consolidation within the Commonage & Dunbarton rural residential areas; the Ridgeway Drive precinct to the immediate west of Dunsborough Lakes; the Molloy Street/Ford Road precinct; ‘Abbey South’; the Caves Road tourist strip; and expansion of Vasse north of the Vasse Bypass. Whilst not matters raised specifically in response to advertising, further consideration is also given to ‘Vasse South’, the Bunker Bay tourism node (specifically the adjoining ‘Farmbreak’ site) and outcomes of the Busselton Traffic Study (specifically the ‘Eastern Link’).

 

Consideration of the draft Strategy has also identified a number of issues that are recommended the Council identify for assessment through the preparation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy (LNSRS), as set out in Attachment G. 

 

Officers are recommending that the draft Strategy is adopted by the Council for final approval in accordance with a Schedule of Modifications provided at Attachment F and subsequent referral to the WAPC for final endorsement.

 

BACKGROUND

 

At its meeting of 25 September 2013, the Council resolved to adopt a draft Strategy for advertising and referral to the WAPC for consent to advertise. The version of the draft Strategy (text and map) initially adopted by the Council is provided at Attachment C.

 

Subsequent to the adoption of the draft Strategy by the Council, Department of Planning staff provided informal advice to the City on elements of the draft Strategy that they would not be prepared to support, and sought feedback from the City. City staff informally discussed the advice of the DoP with Councillors and a revised working draft was prepared, reflecting some changes for consideration by the WAPC.

 

The WAPC granted consent to advertise the draft Strategy on 18 November 2015, subject to a number of further modifications (Attachment B). The key modifications that were required were as follows -

 

1.    Delete Urban Growth Area 11 ‘Abbey South’ – due to inconsistency with State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge.

2.    Delete Urban Growth Area 13 ‘Vasse South’ – due to inconsistency with State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge.

3.    Urban Growth Area 12 ‘Vasse East’ - to be considered through the preparation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy due to inconsistency with State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge.

4.    Modify Urban Growth Area 16 ‘Quindalup South - by illustrating with an indicative symbol (star and arrows) and to be considered through the preparation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy due to inconsistency with State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge.

5.    Delete the Bunker Bay tourism node from Table 1: Settlement Framework – due to inconsistency with State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge.

6.    Include the Dunsborough Light Industrial Area within Table 4: Industrial/Service Commercial Framework and to be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy for urban expansion and the associated relocation of the future LIA to a more suitable location.

 

Development of the draft Strategy prior to adoption by the Council for advertising followed a consultation programme which included, amongst other things, the release in late 2012 of an options paper entitled Future Busselton 2050 – Strategic Growth Scenarios (Attachment D). Feedback received via written submissions and as part of a series of workshops guided the development of the draft Strategy. The overwhelming preference expressed through the consultation process was for ‘Scenario 3: Focused Growth’. The draft Strategy reflects that scenario most closely.

 


 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key statutory environment relevant to consideration of this report is set out in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. A local planning strategy is intended to set out the long‐term, overall planning and development direction for a local government district. A local planning strategy is also a prerequisite for the adoption of a new local planning scheme that provides for significant change in planning direction. According to Regulation 11 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

 

(2) A local planning strategy must —

(a) set out the longterm planning directions for the local government; and

(b) apply any State or regional planning policy that is relevant to the strategy; and

(c) provide the rationale for any zoning or classification of land under the local planning scheme.

 

The Regulations also require that a local planning strategy is endorsed by the WAPC, and also establishes minimum requirements for advertising.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

There are a wide range of State and local level plans and policies that have been taken into consideration in the formulation of the draft Strategy, including the WAPC’s SouthWest Regional Planning and Infrastructure Framework, which sets out the State Government planning direction for the South‐West of WA, and identifies Busselton as a ‘high growth potential, sub‐regional centre’, and Dunsborough as a ‘medium growth potential, major town’. Other important State‐level plans, policies and guiding documents are –

·    State Planning Strategy

·    State Planning Framework (SPP1)

·    Environment and Natural Resources (SPP2)

·    Basic Raw Materials (SPP2.4)

·    Agriculture and Rural Land Use (SPP2.5)

·    State Coastal Planning (SPP2.6)

·    Water Resources (SPP2.9)

·    Urban Growth and Settlement (SPP3)

·    Residential Design Codes (SPP3.1)

·    Development Contributions for Infrastructure (SPP3.6)

·    State Industrial Buffer (SPP 4.1)

·    Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (SPP4.2)

·    Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge (SPP6.1)

·    Liveable Neighbourhoods: Community Design Code.

·    Busselton Wetlands Conservation Strategy

·    Infrastructure plans and policies that address such matters as roads and transport, power, water, wastewater, education, health facilities and so forth.

·    Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Department of Environmental Regulation and Department of Water guidance related to habitat and vegetation protection, wetlands and water quality.

·    WAPC endorsement of the preferred alignments for the Busselton Outer Bypass (BOB) and Vasse‐Dunsborough Link.

 

The City has a range of strategies and plans that have also informed the preparation of the draft Strategy including –

·    Busselton Urban Growth Strategy

·    Local Rural Planning Strategy

·    Local Commercial Planning Strategy

·    Local Tourism Planning Strategy

·    Local Cultural Planning Strategy

·    Local Environmental Planning Strategy

·    Biodiversity Incentive Strategy

·    Community Strategic Plan

·    Busselton Foreshore Master Plan

·    Airport Master Plan and Conceptual Land Use Plan

 

Other key documents include the Commonage Policy Area Consolidated Structure Plan and approved structure plans for existing, planned urban growth areas of Yalyalup, Vasse, Ambergate North, Dunsborough Lakes, Port Geographe, South Broadwater, Yalyalup Industry Park, as well as the Busselton Foreshore.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

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

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Nil.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The preparation of the draft Strategy has been cognisant of the issues identified by the community as being important through the Strategic Community Plan process. The draft Strategy reflects the six key goal areas and community objectives set out in the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The draft local planning strategy sets out the long‐term planning direction for the City and it is not practicable to undertake a risk assessment of a project of this nature using the City’s risk assessment framework.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The draft Strategy was advertised for 60 days between 16 March and 13 May 2016. 52 submissions were received (11 government agency and 41 public submissions). A Schedule of Submissions is provided at Attachment E. Public information sessions held in Busselton (5 April 2016) and Dunsborough (26 April 2016) attracted an attendance of six and approximately 35 people respectively. Feedback from both public information sessions indicated broad support for the overall direction of the draft Strategy.

 

The Schedule of Submissions also contains a number of recommendations that are either partially supportive or not supportive of matters raised in submissions (both government agency and public submissions) and given that those matters are relatively straightforward to deal with and/or are not viewed as having strategic significance, they are not specifically discussed within the body of this report. The substance of the submissions concerned can be broadly classified as follows –

 

1. Molloy Street/Ford Road Precinct

·    4 submissions advocating the identification of the precinct as an urban growth area.

 

2. Abbey South

·    3 submissions requesting the identification of Lots 12, 402 and 4 Caves Road, Abbey as a ‘Medium Term Urban Growth Area’.

 

3. Dunsborough

·    1 submission not supportive of town centre expansion and advocating a shop retail floorspace cap for Dunsborough Lakes;

·    3 submissions supportive of ‘Dunsborough South’ urban expansion area;

·    1 concern over the location of the ‘separation of settlements’ line; and

·    2 submissions supportive of, and 1 submission objecting to, the Ridgeway Drive precinct (immediately west of Dunsborough Lakes) being identified as an urban growth area.

 

4. Commonage and Dunbarton Rural Residential Areas

·    8 submissions supporting re-subdivision and consolidation of numerous properties; and

·    1 submission commenting that a review of the Commonage Policy Area Consolidated Structure Plan should avoid further development in vegetated areas.

 

5. Busselton City Centre

·    3 submissions advocating the preparation of an activity centre plan to redefine the boundary of the City Centre to include Lot 17 West Street and Lots 2, 3 and 11 Bussell Highway.

 

6. Ambergate

·    1 submission requesting text and mapping modifications for Chapman Hill Road Industrial/Service Commercial growth area to reflect a proposed scheme amendment; and

·    1 submission proposing to rezone Lots 4 and 2363 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, within Ambergate North, for short term urban development.

 

7. Caves Road Tourist Strip and Strata Titled Tourism Development in Rural Areas

·    1 submission suggesting the draft Strategy could be misinterpreted as not supporting strata titling of major tourist accommodation development in rural areas; and

·    1 submission objecting to the ‘Rural Areas’ classification for Lot 200 Caves Road, Dunsborough and requesting the site’s identification for tourist and residential purposes.

 

8. Industrial/Service Commercial Growth Areas – Busselton

·    2 submissions supportive, but suggesting inclusion of triggers/mechanisms for the staged release of identified areas.

 

9. Vasse

·    1 submission requesting expansion of Vasse north of Busselton Bypass extension and increase in retail floorspace cap for the Vasse village centre;

·    2 submissions expressing concern about traffic/safety issues; and

·    1 submission supporting an increased retail floorspace cap for Vasse townsite.

 

10. Carbunup River and Metricup

·    1 submission not supportive of settlement expansion at Carbunup River and Metricup due to the potential for land use conflict; and

·    1 submission requesting changing Metricup from ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area’ to ‘Short/Medium Term Urban Growth Area’.

 

11. South Broadwater

·    1 submission requesting mapping modification to Urban Growth Area 6 - South Broadwater to reflect the boundary of the ‘Conservation’ zone proposed by Amendment 13 to Local Planning Scheme 21 (Nilgup Park).

12. Eagle Bay

·    1 submission requesting the identification of Lot 50 Eagle Bay Road as a ‘Medium Term Urban Growth Area’.

 

13. Aged persons’ accommodation

·    2 submissions supporting greater emphasis and certainty on the provision of aged persons’ housing and aged care accommodation.

 

14. Miscellaneous

·    1 submission supporting the draft Strategy and continued community consultation;

·    1 submission supporting planned airport upgrades;  and

·    1 submission supporting road and waste management initiatives and commenting that a high speed passenger rail link between Perth and Margaret River is unrealistic.

 

15. Government Agencies

·    6 submissions suggesting text and/or mapping changes, some of which are recommended in the ‘Schedule of Modifications’; and

·    5 submissions of general commentary, no comment or no objection.

 

The matters raised in submissions that are viewed as being more complex and/or strategically significant include: settlement expansion at Carbunup River & Metricup; re-subdivision and consolidation within the Commonage & Dunbarton rural residential areas; the Ridgeway Drive precinct to the immediate west of Dunsborough Lakes; Molloy Street/Ford Road precinct; Abbey South; Caves Road tourist strip; and the expansion of Vasse north of the Vasse Bypass. Whilst not raised specifically in response to advertising, further consideration is also given to Vasse South, the Bunker Bay tourist node (specifically the adjoining ‘Farmbreak’ site) and the outcomes of the Busselton Traffic Study (specifically the ‘Eastern Link’). These matters are discussed further under the ‘Officer Comment’ section of this report.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The more complex and/or strategically significant issues raised during the public consultation process, and three additional matters for further consideration are addressed under the following sub-headings:

 

1.    Settlement expansion at Carbunup River & Metricup;

2.    Re-subdivision and consolidation within the Commonage & Dunbarton rural residential areas;

3.    The Ridgeway Drive precinct;

4.    Molloy Street/Ford Road precinct;

5.    Abbey South;

6.    Caves Road tourist strip;

7.    Expansion of Vasse north of Vasse Bypass;

8.    Vasse South;

9.    Bunker Bay tourist node; and

10.  Busselton Traffic Study – ‘Eastern Link’.

 

1. Settlement expansion at Carbunup River & Metricup

 

One government submission received recommended against settlement expansion at Carbunup River and Metricup due to the potential for land use conflict. A second submission received requested changing Metricup from ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area’ to ‘Short/Medium Term Urban Growth Area’.

 

The main concern raised by the government agency in relation to settlement expansion at Carbunup River and Metricup focuses on the potential for land use conflict between residents and commercial agricultural activities and practices (principally chemical spray, fumigant drift, noise and dust).

 

Carbunup River and Metricup were identified as medium and long term growth areas respectively because the draft Strategy must have due regard to State Planning Policies, and in particular State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge (LNRSPP). The LNRSPP settlement hierarchy identifies both Carbunup River and Metricup as ‘hamlets’ (i.e. settlements with up to 500 residents). The general locations for settlement expansion for Carbunup River and Metricup are shown in the following images – 

 

Carbunup River

 

Metricup (note: no more specific location yet identified)

 

In considering proposed settlement expansion at Carbunup River (and to some degree, Metricup), the Council resolved at its meeting on 10 February 2016, to recommend that the WAPC (inter alia) -

 

1.    Does not support the progression of the Carbunup River settlement expansion proposal to the       scheme amendment and structure planning stages for the following reasons –

 

·    The proposal does not reflect contemporary planning and sustainability principles that support compact urban form with an emphasis on redevelopment and consolidation within, and expansion focused on, existing urban areas to best utilise infrastructure, services and community facilities.

·    The proposal is inconsistent with State Planning Policy 1: State Planning Framework and State Planning Policy 3 Urban Growth and Settlements as it would facilitate the development of a small, isolated and ‘off-grid’ settlement remote from existing infrastructure such as reticulated sewer and water services, community and commercial services, employment and schools, with very few services and facilities and with an almost total reliance on private cars for transport.

·    Population growth and land supply projections that underpin the City of Busselton Draft Local Planning Strategy demonstrate that there is sufficient zoned and structure planned urban land to accommodate projected growth for at least the next 15 years (without any substantiated need for a new settlement at Carbunup River).

·    Advertising of the proposal did not elicit a strong view or consensus from the local community that settlement expansion at Carbunup River is either warranted or supported.

·    Whilst a number of matters raised as grounds of objection/concern would need to be comprehensively addressed and resolved through subsequent rezoning and structure planning phases (should the current proposal be supported), a new settlement at the proposed location would place residents in an established agricultural area surrounded by, and in close proximity to, intensive agricultural operations and subject to chemical spray, fumigant drift, noise and dust. There would be a strong potential for land use conflicts. This would be inconsistent with State Planning Policy 1 State Planning Framework, State Planning Policy 2.5 Rural Land Use Planning, State Planning Policy 3 Urban Growth and Settlement and the South West Planning and Infrastructure Framework.

2.    Includes the reassessment and review of potential settlement expansion areas (as currently           set out in Table 5 Settlement Hierarchy of State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste               Ridge) for Carbunup River and Metricup as an integral part of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub- Regional Strategy.

 

After consideration of the two submissions, and in light of the resolution of the Council, officers are recommending that Carbunup River is amended from ‘Medium Term Urban Growth Area’ to ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area’ (same as Metricup) with settlement expansion for both Carbunup River and Metricup to be considered via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy (LNSRS).

 

2. Re-subdivision and consolidation within the Commonage & Dunbarton rural residential areas

 

The main focus of submissions received advocated broad support for re-subdivision and consolidation within the Commonage and Dunbarton rural residential generally, and with specific preference for subdivision of individual and/or groups of landholdings. The rural residential areas are shown in the following image -

 

Commonage

 

Dunbarton

 

Some of the locations suggested in submissions for re-subdivision are not considered the most appropriate for consolidation (especially in the southern and more distant from Dunsborough areas of the Commonage).

 

The intent of the draft Strategy is to plan to identify suitable areas for re-subdivision and therefore there is seen to be a need to manage landowner expectations in this regard. It is considered that the identification of suitable areas should be a targeted process via a City-led project and not on an ad hoc basis driven by individual landowners. Land supply within the Commonage is also not an issue currently, as there remain significant opportunities under the Commonage Policy Area Consolidated Structure Plan for subdivision that have not been taken up. There are numerous other considerations that such a process would need to account for, such as –

·    Protection of remnant native vegetation and other environmental issues;

·    Bush fire risk;

·    Landscape character and visual amenity;

·    Road connectivity;

·    Proximity to and provision of infrastructure services such as scheme water;

·    Settlement planning principles (especially in the southern and more remote areas of the Commonage) and proximity to community services and facilities; and

·    Diversity of lot sizes.

Consideration of settlement planning principles would suggest that potentially the most appropriate area for initial consideration within the Commonage would be within part of the Quedjinup locality northwest of Biddle Road. The general area is more gently undulating, mostly cleared, close to scheme water and other community services/facilities in, and near to, the Dunsborough Town Centre, easily accessible from Caves Road and would potentially allow consideration of smaller Special Residential sizes lots (i.e. 2,000 – 5,000m2). Notwithstanding this, land supply in particular is not a pressing issue, and officers are of the view that this is not a project that should be a strategic priority for the City (and that is expected to remain the case for at least a decade).

 

The Dunbarton rural residential area is viewed as having a higher priority for City-led review as rural residential land supply in the Busselton area is more constrained; the area is generally less environmentally constrained and is relatively close to existing urban areas, services and facilities.

 

3. Ridgeway Drive precinct 

 

Two submissions were received requesting the identification of the Ridgeway Drive precinct as a ‘Medium Term Urban Growth Area’. The precinct is identified as those larger lots located between the western boundary of Dunsborough Lakes and Ridgeway Drive/Koopin Place. The general location of the area is indicated by the blue star on the following aerial photograph -

 

Ridgeway Drive precinct

 

An objection to closer settlement in this area was also received from a landowner in the precinct requesting that the area remain un-subdivided for the following reasons –

·    To separate urban development in Dunsborough Lakes from Commonage rural residential lots;

·    Visually aesthetic buffer area; and

·    Provide a buffer to Dunsborough Lakes in the event of a bushfire.

 

The Ridgeway Drive precinct was identified on the version of the draft Strategy adopted by the Council in 2013 as ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area 19’. The land was identified for a number of reasons, including –

·    Large lot sizes; 

·    Gentle topography and mostly cleared;

·    Close to the Dunsborough Town Centre, community and recreational facilities;

·    Close proximity to reticulated water and sewerage infrastructure;

·    Opportunity for pedestrian and vehicle connectivity to Dunsborough Lakes Drive; and

·    Logical extension to existing urban development.

 

Officers have considered two key questions in relation to the focus of the submissions -

·    Is there a need to identify new urban growth areas in addition to those already identified in the draft Strategy?

·    If so, where is the best location for that to occur?

 

In terms of need, the land supply/dwelling yield projections that underpin the draft Strategy indicate that there is insufficient zoned and structure planned land in Dunsborough to accommodate anticipated population growth. 

 

In terms of location, the Ridgeway Drive precinct is generally environmentally unconstrained, and in terms of settlement planning principles, represents a logical extension of urban development at Dunsborough Lakes (for the reasons as set out above). Other than generally in a south/south east direction from Dunsborough and immediately west of Dunsborough Lakes in the Ridgeway Drive precinct, the physical expansion of Dunsborough is highly constrained.

 

Officers are recommending that consideration of the Ridgeway Drive precinct for ‘Medium Term Urban Growth Area’ development be given through the preparation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.

 

4. Molloy Street/Ford Road precinct

 

Four submissions (all appearing to be from related parties) were received requesting the identification of the Molloy Street/Ford Road precinct for future urban development and in particular the rezoning of Lots 17 and 18 Molloy Street from ‘Agriculture’ to ‘Residential’. The precinct is shown in the following image -

 

     Molloy Street/Ford Road precinct

 

Reasons provided in the submissions in support of the proposal include –

·    Land is fragmented and lot sizes are unsuitable for agriculture;

·    1km from Busselton City Centre;

·    Existing Residential R20 development is close by;

·    Lot 17 is serviced by a sealed road, reticulated water, power, rubbish collection and postal delivery;

·    Neighbouring land uses are non-agricultural; and

·    Land has no conservation values.

 

The pattern of land fragmentation within this precinct is not a recent outcome - the area’s value for productive agriculture was lost long ago. The area is, in fact, in many ways already a de facto rural-residential area. The unsuitability of land for agriculture is also very clearly not a sufficient basis to support closer settlement or urban development. Notwithstanding this, officers have considered two key questions in relation to the focus of the submissions -

·    Is there a need to identify new urban growth areas in addition to those already identified in the draft Strategy?

·    If so, where is the best location for that to occur?

 

In terms of need, the land supply/dwelling yield projections that underpin the draft Strategy indicate that, in Busselton, there is already sufficient zoned and structure planned land, or identified growth areas, to accommodate anticipated population growth for at least the lifetime of the Strategy (15 years+) without the need to identify additional areas.

 

In terms of location, the Molloy/Ford Road precinct is highly constrained for environmental reasons (wetlands, flood risk) and is an area being considered for a number of intersecting infrastructure projects, such as planned future road network upgrades into the Busselton City Centre (e.g. Causeway Road upgrade, Eastern Link). Urban development in this area would also necessarily be fragmented and not integrated with a broader or coherent residential neighbourhood.

 

Officers are recommending that the Molloy Street/Ford Road precinct is not supported for identification as a new urban growth area as it is highly constrained due to: wetlands and flood risk; alternative traffic & access routes into Busselton City Centre and it is not needed for urban land supply. If the strategic direction were to change, ‘Conservation’ zoning would be the most appropriate, as it would not provide for further subdivision potential and have limited development potential, and would, in fact, be more appropriate than the existing zoning of the land.

 

5. Abbey South

 

Three submissions were received in support of the identification of ‘Abbey South’ as a ‘Medium Term Urban Growth Area’ to reflect the version of the draft Strategy adopted by the Council in 2013; essentially the area shown in the image below -

 

Abbey South

 

Officers have considered two key questions in relation to the focus of the submissions -

·    Is there a need to identify new urban growth areas in addition to those already identified in the draft Strategy?

·    If so, where is the best location for that to occur?

 

In terms of need, the land supply/dwelling yield projections that underpin the draft Strategy indicate that, in Busselton, there is already sufficient zoned and structure planned land, or identified growth areas, to accommodate anticipated population growth for at least the lifetime of the Strategy (15 years+) without the need to identify additional areas. That is, though, dependent upon planned/proposed urban growth areas (such as Bovell) commencing development in the medium term. Should that not occur, supply will diminish, with choice and diversity in the market becoming more constrained. The ‘Abbey South’ area has the potential to address that potential shortfall in a meaningful way.

 

In terms of location, officers are of the view that ‘Abbey South’ has considerable merit for identification for urban development for a number of reasons, including -

·    The area is the last undeveloped coastal or near-coastal land with significant development potential in the Busselton-Vasse Urban Area;

·    Further residential expansion to the west is constrained by land in public ownership (Locke Conservation Estate);

·    It will round off existing residential development/settlement consolidation;

·    There will not be any affect in terms of separateness of settlements;

·    The area is close to neighbourhood shopping, schools, community infrastructure, public transport and servicing infrastructure; and

·    No visual impact or significant environmental constraints.

Given that the WAPC did not support the inclusion of ‘Abbey South’ in the advertised version of the draft Strategy due to: inconsistency with the State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge; not identified in the existing planning framework; and the Minister for Planning’s decision to refuse to grant final approval to Amendment 176 to Scheme 20, which would have facilitated structure planning for urban development officers are recommending that consideration of ‘Abbey South’ for ‘Medium Term Urban’ development is given during the preparation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy. That would allow for consideration of the proposal at that strategic level.

 

6. Caves Road tourist strip

 

One submission was received objecting to the inclusion of Lot 200 Caves Road, Dunsborough in ‘Rural Areas’ and seeking a change in designation to tourist and residential. Lot 200 is one of four lots that form a pocket of land zoned ‘Tourist’ under Local Planning Scheme 21 along Caves Road, as shown on the following image -

 

    Caves Road tourist strip

 

The draft Strategy does not specifically identify ‘Tourist’ zoned land within urban areas or land having tourist accommodation in non-urban areas (such as the numerous ‘Additional Use’ areas throughout the District that provide for both low-key (i.e. chalets) and more significant tourist development).

 

The focus of the submission raises a number of planning issues related to the intensification of development that are applicable not only to Lot 200, but also the neighbouring ‘Tourist’ zoned lots. The planning issues are summarised as follows -

·    remnant vegetation and steep topography;

·    area and surrounds are designated as bush fire prone on State Map of Bushfire Prone Areas;

·    no secondary road access (could not comply with State Planning Policy 3.7 Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas);

·    State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge, the draft Strategy and the Local Tourism Planning Strategy do not contemplate tourist accommodation sites in the Rural or other zones outside of town sites as being suitable for a residential component; and

·    To achieve acceptable fire management/protection outcome, even putting aside the fundamental flaw relating to access, there would be a significant impact on vegetation and the visual landscape amenity which is contrary to State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge, the ‘Landscape Value Area’ pursuant to Local Planning Scheme 21 and the Local Rural Planning Strategy.

 

Officers are recommending that the submission is not supported due to these planning issues.

7. Vasse

 

One submission was received seeking support for expansion of the Vasse urban footprint north of the Vasse Bypass, broadly the area highlighted on the following image –

 

Vasse

 

The expansion of the Vasse footprint north of the Vasse Bypass is not contemplated by State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge. If this land had been contemplated for inclusion as part of Vasse, the alignment of the Vasse Bypass would in any case have been planned further northwards, to avoid the significant road severance issues that would result. Potentially, however, part of the land could be considered for the location of institutional uses, such as medical or educational uses, with a District-wide or regional catchment, wherein severance from the Vasse settlement would be much less problematic.

 

The same submission also sought an increase in the permissible shop retail floorspace for the Vasse Village Centre to 8,500m2. An increase in shop retail floorspace to 8,500m2 is also not contemplated by State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge. It would result in an activity centre significantly larger than the ’neighbourhood centre’ classification in SPP6.1 and the shop retail cap for the Village Centre established by the current endorsed structure plan (4,650m2). Such a significant increase in shop retail floorspace would undermine/delay the delivery of discount department store & additional supermarket development within the Busselton City Centre, the Dunsborough Town Centre and the future Ambergate North district centre. As such, it is not supported.

 

8. Vasse South

 

Land to the south of Vasse (i.e. between the southern extent of the Vasse footprint and the alignment of the Busselton Outer Bypass corridor) was identified as a ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area’ on the version of the draft Strategy adopted by the Council in 2013. The indicative area is highlighted on the following image (with the currently planned Outer Bypass alignment also indicated in orange) -

Vasse South

 

Officers have considered two key questions in relation to ‘Vasse South’:

·    Is there a need to identify new urban growth areas in addition to those already identified in the draft Strategy?

·    If so, where is the best location for that to occur?

 

In terms of need, the land supply/dwelling yield projections that underpin the draft Strategy indicate that, in Busselton, there is already sufficient zoned and structure planned land, or identified growth areas, to accommodate anticipated population growth for at least the lifetime of the Strategy (15 years+) without the need to identify additional areas. That is, though, dependent upon planned/proposed urban growth areas (such as Bovell) commencing development in the medium term. Should that not occur, supply will diminish, with choice and diversity in the market becoming more constrained. The ‘Vasse South’ area has the potential to address that potential shortfall in a meaningful way.

 

In terms of location, ‘Vasse South’ has considerable merit for identification for future urban development as the land is relatively unconstrained, would consolidate settlement around Vasse (commercial, retail, education and other community infrastructure, service infrastructure) and would not have major road severance issues.

Strategically, the option of ‘Vasse South’ becomes more significant for consideration of the extension of Vasse, particularly given that ‘Vasse East’ (which is included as an additional urban growth area in the draft Strategy) is already zoned ‘Rural Residential’. Although structure planning to guide consolidated subdivision is yet to commence, officers have recently been made aware that the owner of the largest land parcel is potentially contemplating pursuing subdivision and development under the current zoning. Notwithstanding the identification of this land in the draft Strategy for long term urban, there is no certainty that this desirable future development will not be compromised by the current zoning.

For the abovementioned reasons, officers are recommending that ‘Vasse South’ be investigated for long term urban growth through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.  

9. Bunker Bay tourism node

 

The Bunker Bay tourism node was included in Table 1: Settlement Framework in the version of the draft Strategy adopted by the Council in 2013 to enable further consideration of the potential for tourism accommodation development within Lots 50 and 203 Bunker Bay Road and Location 683 Cape Naturaliste Road, Naturaliste (‘Farmbreak’ site). The subject land is adjacent to the existing tourist resort at Bunker Bay, broadly as illustrated on the image below -

 

 Bunker Bay tourism node

 

The principal reason for this proposal being deleted from the advertised version of the draft Strategy by the WAPC related to inconsistency with State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge.

 

The strategic rationale for Council including the Bunker Bay tourism node was essentially that very high end accommodation needed to attract certain kinds of tourists will require iconic development in iconic sites, and there are very limited opportunities available for that. The other key strategic issue was that development at ‘Farmbreak’ would facilitate improved access to the beach at Bunker Bay, which is important for the community and tourism. The plans for the expansion/upgrading of the Busselton-Margaret River Airport will also support tourism and provide the impetus for further investment in new tourism accommodation product.

 

Inclusion of the Farmbreak site in the  Bunker Bay tourism node in the Council adopted version of the draft Strategy highlighted the need for further, more detailed planning that might provide for development at the Farmbreak site, subject to the resolution of visual/landscape planning issues and a range of other relevant planning matters. Officers are of the view that there is merit in advocating extension of the Bunker Bay tourism node to include the Farmbreak site and this is recommended to occur through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy process.

 

10. Busselton Traffic Study – Eastern Link

 

The Busselton Traffic Study contains proposals for planned future road network upgrades into the Busselton City Centre such as the Causeway Road upgrade, ‘Eastern Link’ and development of Ford Road. The advertised version of the draft Strategy flags two possible options for a link between Bussell Highway and Layman Road via the upgrading of Ford Road, but does not include the ‘Eastern Link’ route (largely because the Busselton Traffic Study was not advanced at the time the draft Strategy was formulated). Officers are of the view that the inclusion of the ‘Eastern Link’ route as a ‘Planned Potential Strategic Local Road’ should be a recommended modification to the draft Strategy, particularly given that the Ford Road options have significant environmental implications.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The draft Local Planning Strategy is seen as providing a sound framework for the ongoing growth and development of the District, building on existing settlement patterns and planning that has already been undertaken. The draft Strategy that has been prepared is seen to be a forward‐looking, but fairly orthodox document in terms of underlying planning philosophy. The draft Strategy received a broad level of support in its direction stemming from public advertising, and in particular, the public information sessions.

 

Officers are recommending that the draft Local Planning Strategy is supported, in accordance with the modifications proposed in the ‘Schedule of Modifications’ (Attachment F), and referral to the Western Australian Planning Commission for endorsement. The Council is also asked to endorse the Schedule of Submissions (Attachment E). Further, acknowledging the apparent requirement for higher-level strategic consideration of some proposals, Council is asked to identify a range of matters to be considered as part of the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy process (Attachment G).

 

OPTIONS

 

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

 

Option 1: Resolve not to support final endorsement of the draft Local Planning Strategy.

 

Option 2: Resolve to support the draft Local Planning Strategy subject to further/lesser/different modifications

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve the referral of the draft Local Planning Strategy and associated documents to the WAPC for endorsement, and it is envisaged that will occur within one month of a Council decision.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Pursuant to r.14(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, resolves to:

(i)            support the draft Local Planning Strategy, in accordance with the modifications   proposed by the ‘Schedule of Modifications’ at Attachment F, to address issues    raised in the submissions.

(ii)           endorse the ‘Schedule of Submissions’ at Attachment E, prepared in response to                 submissions received on the draft Local Planning Strategy, following public            consultation between 16 March 2016 and 13 May 2016.

 

2.    Pursuant to r.14(3) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, resolves to submit the draft Local Planning Strategy to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a request for endorsement.

 

3.    Asks that the WAPC, in addition to any other issues raised during the process, consider the matters set out in Attachment G in developing the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.

 


Council

141

14 September 2016

11.1

Attachment a

Draft Local Planning Strategy (as advertised)

 


 

 


 


 


 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

147

14 September 2016

11.1

Attachment b

Western Australian Planning Commission consent to advertise

 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

167

14 September 2016

11.1

Attachment c

Draft Local Planning Strategy (as adopted by Council)

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

259

14 September 2016

11.1

Attachment d

Future Busselton 2050

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

309

14 September 2016

11.1

Attachment e

Schedule of Submissions

 

 

No

ADDRESS

NATURE OF SUBMISSION

COMMENT

RECOMMENDATION

GOVERNMENT AGENCY SUBMISSIONS

1

Main Roads

PO Box 5010

Bunbury WA 6230

 

1. The interchange south of Carbunup is not part of the planning for the BOB.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. A possible consideration could be the connectivity and access into Wonnerup and Port Geographe where freeway connections are under review. These assessments will be ongoing for some time before they are finalised.

3. The proposed railway planned in the BOB median is suitable however no link into Busselton is shown. Also the proposed extensions to Dunsborough and Margaret River adjacent to (or in median) of the Vasse-Dunsborough Link and Bussell Highway respectively would need to be considered in future road planning in consultation with PTA/DoT. It is recommended that the Local Planning Strategy include a notation as outlined below –

‘the planning for the Busselton Outer Bypass, Freeway requirements and future railway requirements shown in the Local Planning Strategy is preliminary and subject to review and further detailed investigation by Main Roads and relevant transport agencies’.

1. The connection of the BOB with Bussell Highway south of Carbunup River is potentially planned as a priority controlled ‘T’ intersection. However given that actual construction of the BOB is long term, detailed planning for BOB connections with Bussell Highway could change over time.

 

2. Noted and could be considered as part of future reviews of the Strategy should that information be available.

 

3. Not supported. Part B - Report of the draft LPS includes a statement to the effect that current State planning for the BOB and Bussell Highway east of Busselton includes securing a sufficiently wide corridor to accommodate a potential passenger rail link, noting that such a service will not be required for the very long term and not within the lifetime of this Strategy.

That the submission is partially supported and the following modification is made to the draft LPS map –

 

Change the symbol for the BOB/Bussell Highway connection south of Carbunup River to ‘Planned Busselton Outer Bypass Intersection/Interchange’.

2

Department of Fire and Emergency Services

PO Box 1288

Bunbury WA 6230

No comment.

Noted.

That the submission is noted.

3

ATCO Gas

81 Prinsep Road,

Jandakot WA 6164

 

No objection.

Noted.

That the submission is noted.

4

Water Corporation

PO Box 100

Leederville WA  6902

1. Wastewater - generally the urban growth areas are catered for in the infrastructure planning for Busselton and Dunsborough. As structure planning occurs the Corporation can further refine its wastewater planning to accommodate any changes. It should be noted that the industrial precinct Airport North (8) has not been provided for in our overall planning.

2. Wastewater treatment plant buffers - the buffers for the Busselton and Dunsborough Wastewater Treatment Plants should be shown on the strategy map.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Drainage - when urban expansion areas are rezoned and structure planned, consideration should be given to addressing the affected sections of rural branch drains that lead into the main Vasse River Diversion Drain and other main rural drains through the preparation of Local Water Management Strategies.

1. Noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Buffers to the Busselton Wastewater Treatment Plan are already shown on the Scheme Map. No buffer is shown for the Dunsborough WWTP. It is assumed that the submission refers to the introduction of a buffer for the Dunsborough WWTP and revised interim and long term buffers for the Busselton WWTP similar to those that were proposed via Amendment 151 to the City’s previous District Town Planning Scheme 20. The amendment was not finalised and effectively ‘fell away’ with the gazettal of Local Planning Scheme 21. The buffers proposed by Amendment 151 affected private land and generated a significant level of concern and objections from affected landowners.

It is considered that to change the draft strategy to show indicative WWTP buffers after the strategy has been advertised would not only be inappropriate, but also confusing, and would be better addressed through a new amendment (at the instigation of the Water Corporation) to enable public consultation. It should also be noted that the Ambergate North Structure Plan (‘Current Urban Growth Area 7’ on the draft LPS map) reflects the Busselton WWTP interim and long term buffers. The structure plan states that the timing of urban development within the interim buffer would be subject to a separate scheme amendment. The structure plan also designates land within the long term WWTP buffer partly as future district open space, with land uses for the balance of the buffer area to be determined by a future, separate structure plan. This matter is not viewed as strategically significant as it has been addressed through structure planning and does not have a negative impact on projected residential land supply.

3. Consideration of rural drains has already occurred and will continue to be addressed through the preparation of Local Water Management Strategies as part of the structure planning process.

That the submission is noted and no modifications are recommended.

5

Department of Agriculture & Food

PO Box 1231

Bunbury WA 6230

1. Supports Theme 1(f) and Theme 2(j)(l). Agrees with the planning rationales set out in the draft LPS explanatory report concerning no new proposed rural residential areas, general presumption against subdivision of rural land (unless provided for by other strategies/State policy), tourism accommodation providing support for the ongoing viability of agricultural enterprises.

·      2. Recommends that Carbunup and Metricup should not be identified as possible settlement expansion areas in any strategy as it is highly unlikely to develop these areas without significant potential for land use conflict.

1. Noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Support. Carbunup River and Metricup were identified as medium and long term growth areas respectively because the draft LPS must have due regard to State Planning Policies, and in particular the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy (LNRSPP). The LNRSPP settlement hierarchy identifies both Carbunup River and Metricup as hamlets. Notwithstanding this, in considering settlement expansion at Carbunup River, the Council resolved (at its meeting on 10 February 2016), to recommend that the WAPC (inter alia):

1. Does not support the progression of the Carbunup River settlement expansion proposal to the scheme amendment and structure planning stages for the following reasons –

·      The proposal does not reflect contemporary planning and sustainability principles that support compact urban form with an emphasis on redevelopment and consolidation within, and expansion focused on, existing urban areas to best utilise infrastructure, services and community facilities.

·      The proposal is inconsistent with State Planning Policy 1: State Planning Framework and State Planning Policy 3 Urban Growth and Settlements as it would facilitate the development of a small, isolated and ‘off-grid’ settlement remote from existing infrastructure such as reticulated sewer and water services, community and commercial services, employment and schools, with very few services and facilities and with an almost total reliance on private cars for transport.

·      Population growth and land supply projections that underpin the City of Busselton Draft Local Planning Strategy demonstrate that there is sufficient zoned and structure planned urban land to accommodate projected growth for at least the next 15 years (without any substantiated need for a new settlement at Carbunup River).

·      Advertising of the proposal did not elicit a strong view or consensus from the local community that settlement expansion at Carbunup River is either warranted or supported.

·    Whilst a number of matters raised as grounds of objection/concern would need to be comprehensively addressed and resolved through subsequent rezoning and structure planning phases (should the current proposal be supported), a new settlement at the proposed location would place residents in an established agricultural area surrounded by, and in close proximity to, intensive agricultural operations and subject to chemical spray, fumigant drift, noise and dust. There would be a strong potential for land use conflicts. This would be inconsistent with State Planning Policy 1 State Planning Framework, State Planning Policy 2.5 Rural Land Use Planning, State Planning Policy 3 Urban Growth and Settlement and the South West Planning and Infrastructure Framework.

2. Includes the reassessment and review of potential settlement expansion areas (as currently set out in Table 5 Settlement Hierarchy of State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge) for Carbunup River and Metricup as an integral part of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.

In light of the resolution of the Council it is recommended that Carbunup River is identified as a ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area’ with investigation via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub Regional Strategy.

That the submission is supported and the following changes to the draft Strategy are recommended –

 

1. In relation to Carbunup River amend –

 

(i) the draft Strategy Map to show ‘Medium Term Growth Area 16’ as ‘Long Term Growth Area 16’

 

(ii) Table 1: Settlement Framework: Approximate maximum population/development potential to read -

“To be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy”

 

(iii) Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework to read -

·      Timeframe column – ‘Long Term’

·      Approximate Potential Population column – ‘To be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy’

·      Key Issues column – ‘The appropriateness of settlement expansion at Carbunup River is to be considered via a comprehensive evaluation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy’s settlement hierarchy through the proposed Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy’. Should settlement expansion be appropriate consideration to be given to the following –

 

Exact location of settlement expansion subject of further detailed planning.

Buffers to environmentally sensitive areas required. Servicing (water and effluent disposal).

Significant values of threatened flora, ecological communities and fauna habitat.’

Access to groundwater from domestic bores may not be supported due to the risks to existing licensed commercial operators.

 

(iv) Table 3: Activity Centre Framework to read –

·      Approximate maximum potential size – ‘To be determined by more detailed planning processes and following retail sustainability analysis. Expansion may be as part of long term urban growth area (to be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy), rather than as expansion of existing store.’

 

2. In relation to Metricup amend –

 

(i) Table 1: Settlement Framework: Approximate maximum population/development potential to read -

“To be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy”

 

(ii) Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework to read -

·      Key Issues column – ‘The appropriateness of settlement expansion at Metricup is to be considered via a comprehensive evaluation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy’s settlement hierarchy through the proposed Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy’. Should settlement expansion be appropriate consideration to be given to the following –

 

Exact location of settlement expansion subject of further detailed planning.

Servicing (water and effluent disposal).

Planning and development constrained currently by presence of mineral sands resources.

 

6

Department of Water

PO Box 261

Bunbury WA 6230

Suggested wording changes to the following strategies/sections of the draft LPS text -

1. The Government has funded $7.15 million for the Royalties for Regions Revitalising Geographe Waterways project, which includes looking at the waterways and wetlands.  Recommend adding additional underlined text:

9.2(a) Protect and enhance the habitat of native fauna, native vegetation, waterways and wetlands as part of the planning and development of the District; and

9.2(e) Support and implement initiatives to maintain and improve water quality in Geographe Bay, the Vasse-Wonnerup Estuary, Toby Inlet, Lower Vasse River, Vasse Diversion Drain and other waterways and wetlands in the District.

2. Due to the low lying nature and proximity to the coast of the major urban areas any flood analysis will need to consider coastal and inland flooding together. Recommend adding additional underlined text:

9.2(f) Develop a comprehensive, long term approach to address issues related to coastal erosion, coastal flooding and inland flooding risk.

9.2(g) Ensure that new and existing urban areas and other development infrastructure are adequately protected from inland and coastal flooding risks.

3. The Department of Water has actively been involved in the development of WAPC’s 2015 Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas.to ensure that adverse impacts do not result on important environmental assets. It has become apparent that through development applications it is critical that bushfire risk is assessed in unison with any landscaping, foreshore or buffer rehabilitation plans. Recommend adding additional underlined text:

9.2(h) Ensure that management of bush fire risk is a central consideration in planning and development decisions and that it is undertaken at the same time as development of any landscape or vegetation management planning to avoid unintended consequences.

4. Recommend adding the following text to the key issues column for Vasse, Yalyellup, Port Geographe, Ambergate, Old Broadwater Farm, Bovell, Yalyellup East, Dunsborough Lakes and Cape Rise/Naturaliste Heights: Limited groundwater allocation for irrigation of public open space.

5. Table 2 Urban Growth Area Framework - Rural residential areas are currently unsewered, which meets the requirements of the Draft Country Sewerage Policy. However a number of unsewered areas are hydrogeologically connected to the wetlands and estuaries of significance, and there is a current long term risk of nutrients and other pollutants migrating towards these systems.

Recommend adding the following text to the key issues column for Vasse East -  Due to proximity to Broadwater Nature Reserve opportunities to sewer should be investigated.

6. Table 2 Urban Growth Area Framework - domestic bores are not licensed, however when there is a high concentration of them they have the potential to impact on adjacent licensed commercial operators. The Department of Water has undertaken preliminary modelling to asses this risk for the proposed Carbunup River hamlet and found it to be high. Based on the results of the more detailed modelling work at the next planning stage, that the developer will be required to undertake the Department of Water may then seek to develop a local policy to mitigate the risks and protect the rights of the existing licensed commercial operator.  Recommend adding the following text to the key issues column for Carbunup River:

Access to groundwater from domestic bores may not be supported due to the risks to existing licensed commercial operators.

7. Table 4 Industrial/Service Commercial Area Framework - the Department of Water and GeoCatch have partnered with the City to implement a number of LIA street scale and lot stormwater management practises to improve water discharged to the New River.  Recommend adding the following text to the key issues column for Strelly Street / Busselton LIA:

Water quality issues critical given proximity of Vasse and New River.

 

 

 

1. Support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Support but note that the recommended wording change should relate to strategies 9(f) & 9(g).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Support.

 

 

 

 

5. Noted. Vasse East is identified as an urban growth area, not Rural Residential, and would be required to be fully connected to reticulated sewerage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Support.

That points 1 – 4, 6 and 7 of the  submission be supported and the following modifications are recommended –

 

1. Strategies 9.2(a) & 9.2(e) be amended to read –

 

‘9.2(a) Protect and enhance the habitat of native fauna, native vegetation, waterways and wetlands as part of the planning and development of the District’; and

‘9.2(e) Support and implement initiatives to maintain and improve water quality in Geographe Bay, the Vasse-Wonnerup Estuary, Toby Inlet, Lower Vasse River, Vasse Diversion Drain and other waterways and wetlands in the District.’

2. Strategies 9.2(f) & 9.2(g) be amended to read -

‘9.2(f) Develop a comprehensive, long term approach to address issues related to coastal erosion, coastal flooding and inland flooding risk.’

‘9.2(g) Ensure that new and existing urban areas and other development infrastructure are adequately protected from inland and coastal flooding risks.’

3. Strategy 9.2(h) be amended to read -

‘9.2(h) Ensure that management of bush fire risk is a central consideration in planning and development decisions and that it is undertaken at the same time as development of any landscape or vegetation management planning.’

4. Amend Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework by adding: ‘Limited groundwater allocation for irrigation of public open space. in the key issues column for Vasse, Yalyellup, Port Geographe, Ambergate, Old Broadwater Farm, Bovell, Yalyellup East, Dunsborough Lakes and Cape Rise/Naturaliste Heights.

5. Amend Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework by adding: ‘Access to groundwater from domestic bores may not be supported due to the risks to existing licensed commercial operators.’ in the key issues column for Carbunup River.

6. Amend Table 4: Industrial/Service Commercial Area Framework by adding: Water quality issues critical given proximity of Vasse and New River.’ in the key issues column for Strelly Street/Busselton LIA.

7

Department of Education

151 Royal Street

East Perth WA 6004

1. The draft LPS Housing Supply Projections have been reviewed in conjunction with the Department’s forward planning for schools. There are currently sufficient identified future sites to accommodate the anticipated student yield from the projected housing yield.

2. The Strategy identifies the need for public infrastructure (high school) in Dunsborough. The Department appreciates the early identification of a site but does not see the need to build a high school in Dunsborough in the foreseeable future as the provision of a high school is generally required to be serviced by 4-5 primary schools and Dunsborough is currently serviced by Cape Naturaliste College.

1. Noted.

 

 

 

 

2. Support for the early identification of a public high school site in Dunsborough is noted. Previously the Department had advised a preferred ratio of 3-4 primary schools to 1 high school (reflected in the structure plan for Ambergate North, for example, which identifies 3 primary school sites and 1 high school site for an estimated residential population of 12,000). The City of Busselton already has a ratio of 5 public primary schools to 2 public high schools. Sites for new public primary schools are identified in structure plans for Yalyalup (1); Ambergate North (3); Vasse (1); Dunsborough Lakes (1) and planning for the expansion of Dunsborough (Dunsborough South 14) is likely to identify at least one, and potentially two, further primary school sites. Ambergate North also has an identified public high school site. A public high school for Dunsborough would realise a ratio of existing and planned public primary schools to existing and planned public high schools of 12:4.

 

That the submission is noted and no modifications are recommended.

8

Housing Authority

90 Plain Street

East Perth WA 6004

1. Supports the draft LPS strategies relating to –

·      Planning for ageing in place with a mix of housing types, higher densities close to activity centres and identification of suitable areas of aged and dependent persons housing and care facilities; and

·      Urban consolidation areas within the Busselton-Vasse Urban Areas within areas of established urban development, surrounding local businesses and along strategic roads.

2. The Geographe residential area is considered to be an appropriate focus area for urban consolidation and infill as it has a level of ageing public housing stock and other assets in the Geographe area.

 

 

 

3. The City is encouraged to develop a housing strategy as part of the implementation of the draft LPS in line with the State Affordable Housing Strategy.

1. Noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Support. The ‘urban consolidation’ area for Busselton, as shown on the advertised version of the draft LPS, has the eastern boundary at Ford Road. The area could be extended eastwards to Guerin Street to include the area identified by the Housing Authority.

3. Noted and the City will give consideration to undertaking the preparation of a housing strategy in association with the overall direction of the Strategy. 

That the submission is supported and the following modification is recommended -

 

Amend the draft LPS Map by extending the eastern boundary of the Busselton ‘urban consolidation’ area to Guerin Street.

9

State Heritage Office

PO Box 7479

Perth WA 6850

 

Thirty one places within the City of Busselton are included in the Register of Heritage Places and approximately 192 places are on the Municipal Heritage Inventory. The strategy does not contain any reference to historic cultural heritage.

Inclusion of the following is recommended –

·      A description of the City’s heritage assets and reference to the MHI as the main reference document for identification of places with heritage significance.

·      Acknowledge within the State and regional context of State Planning Policy 3.5: Historic Heritage Conservation objectives for the future of heritage places and strategies/actions to achieve those objectives.

Support modifying the draft strategy to recognise Aboriginal and European historical and cultural heritage.

That the submission is supported and the following modifications to the draft LPS text are recommended –

 

1. Amend Theme 4 Environment and landscape to read: ‘Environment, landscape and heritage’.

2. Include the following additional objective under section 9.1 Theme 4 objectives –

d) Preserve Aboriginal and European historical and cultural heritage.

10

Department of Health

PO Box 8172

Perth WA 6849

1. Aims of the strategy should include a direct reference to ‘enhancing the public health of the community’.

2. The potential negative impacts of the mixed and increased density development such as noise, odour, and anti-social activities should be minimised as these issues affect public health. The strategy foresees positive growth outcomes but does not highlight potential negative impacts of such growth.

1. Support.

 

2. Noted.

 

That the submission is partially supported and the following modification to the draft LPS text is recommended –

 

Amend Theme 1: Settlement and community objectives to include the words ‘health and wellbeing’ as follows - 

 

c) The creation of compact, liveable and sustainable settlements that provide their residents with housing and lifestyle choice and affordability, a high quality of life, health and wellbeing, and convenient access to high quality employment and services.’

 

11

Department of Parks & Wildlife

PO Box 1693

Bunbury WA 6230

1. Western Ringtail Possum – the Department has recently undertaken an extensive WRP habitat study and recommends that urban intensification/development and/or infill development does not occur within areas mapped as having a medium, or higher WRP habitat quality vegetation. Urban consolidation areas zoned R30 provide little scope for fauna habitat protection. Suggested wording change for strategy 6.2(e) ‘Planning for consolidation should have regard to special character areas, amenity and streetscape and high quality WRP habitat areas.’

2. Supportive of a WRP habitat protection strategy and an associated WRP recovery plan to achieve long term protection of WRP populations.

3. Section 8.1 Transport and Infrastructure objectives – should aim to avoid impacts on corridor linkages for WRP and other wildlife.

 

4. Strategy 9.2(k) – taller building around the perimeter of Port Geographe should not be supported due to lighting impacts on wetland wildlife.

5. Strategy 10.2(d)(i) reference to structure plans to guide development for the Dunsborough Urban Area should also include area 13.

6. The identification of ecological corridors should refer to relevant technical studies completed by the DPaW.

 

7. Table 1 Urban Growth Area Framework

·      Carbunup River – should note the significant values of threatened flora, ecological communities and fauna habitat.

·      Bovell – may be potential development constraints concerning the Vasse Ramsar wetlands.

·      Yalyalup East – contains the Yate Priority Ecological Community in proximity to Sabina River and the interchange area.

8. Cape Rise/Naturaliste Heights – contains high conservation values which warrant review of the structure plan.

1. The Local Environmental Planning Strategy recognises the importance of identifying mechanisms and incentives to protect areas of habitat value and contains recommendations that consider these matters. It should be noted that the urban consolidation area in Busselton is already coded R30.

 

 

2. Noted.

 

 

3. State planning studies that determined the alignment of the BOB and Vasse-Dunsborough Link Road addressed this issue.

4. Agree - the direction of the draft Strategy in this regard does not target the perimeter of Port Geographe.

5. Cape Rise/Naturaliste Heights (13) is included in the Dunsborough Urban Area.

6. As planning processes occur, the latest available departmental technical advice will be utilised.

7. Support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. This matter is already addressed in the draft strategy in Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework.

That the submission is partially supported and the following modifications to the draft LPS text are recommended –

 

Amend Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework by adding the following to the ‘Key issues’ column:

·      Carbunup River – ‘significant values of threatened flora, ecological communities and fauna habitat.’

·      Bovell – ‘Vasse-Wonnerup Ramsar wetlands.’

·      Yalyalup East – ‘Yate Priority Ecological Community in proximity to Sabina River and future BOB interchange area.

PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

1

Dunsborough & Districts Progress Association

PO Box 63

Dunsborough WA  6281

We congratulate the City for a well-considered document, and as one of the principal residents associations in Dunsborough we look forward working closely with the City in order to provide feedback and operational input as the strategy develops. We continue to support a policy of community consultation for all planning and development matters, and will always be available for consultation on any matters of relevance to Dunsborough and Districts.

Noted.

That the submission is noted.

2

Busselton & Districts Residents Association

225 Nuttman Road

Busselton WA 6280

1. Supportive of many key proposals including proposed upgrades to the Busselton Margaret River Airport.

2. Supports return of passenger rail service to Busselton but concerned that, should current railway reserves adjacent to Causeway Road be disposed of, a future train station would be located too far from the city centre.

 

3. Waste management – need better opening hours for the Busselton transfer station.

1. Noted.

 

2. The railway reserves are already fragmented and alienated. Land is necessary to facilitate the expansion of Causeway Road to cater for future increased traffic usage.

3. Noted and is an operational matter for the City, rather than a strategic planning matter for the draft LPS to contemplate.

That the submission is noted and no modifications are recommended.

3

Busselton Chamber of Commerce & Industry

PO Box 611

Busselton WA 6280

 

Generally supports the intent of the strategy. The following matters are raised:

1. Planning for primary schools as there is seen to be a desperate need for additional schools.

 

 

 

 

2. Retail Sustainability Assessments should recognise retail mix as the retail mix in Busselton is not appropriate (too many low quality discount shops that detract from creating a versatile, quality and diverse retail experience).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. North-south pedestrian/cycling and local public transport connections are presently limited.

 

 

4. Building heights require a thorough re-assessment as current arrangements do not encourage prospective developers and investment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. The Busselton City Centre and CBD needs redefining and should incorporate West Street development approvals.

 

Noted.

 

1. The planning framework can identify sites for public primary schools at the structure planning stage however the timing for the actual delivery of primary schools is the responsibility of the Department of Education.

2. Noted, however the purpose of a Retail Sustainability Assessment is to assess the potential economic and related effects of a significant retail expansion on the network of activity centres in a locality. Such assessments do not and cannot control the retail mix for any activity centres, neither can an activity centre plan itself. Where and when particular types of shops occur is largely economically driven. Activity Centre Plans can guide, but cannot dictate, this type of detail.

3. Noted. The strategy supports improvements in pedestrian/cycling routes and local public transport services.

4. At present there is limited control on building heights in Local Planning Scheme 21. The Local Cultural Planning Strategy and Local Commercial Planning Strategy support a relaxation of building height controls in the Busselton City and Dunsborough Town Centres and the Busselton City Centre and Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plans further developed the recommendations of these strategies.

5. Not supported. The City is likely to prepare an Activity Centre Plan for part of the Busselton City Centre but that will not include Lot 17 West Street. That site already has an adopted Land Use Concept Plan that is a quasi-structure plan.

 

That the submission is noted and no modifications are recommended.

4

M F Chartres

45 Osprey Drive Reinscourt  WA  6280

1. High speed rail link Perth-Margaret River unrealistic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Local/highway/Busselton City Centre road upgrades supported.

3. Waste management strategies supported.

 

1. The Busselton Outer Bypass corridor (BOB) is of sufficient width to accommodate a future potential high speed passenger rail corridor and the submission from MRWA (submission 1) notes that the recognition of this element in the draft LPS as suitable, albeit very long term, and not within the timeframe of this strategy.

2 & 3. Support for road and waste management initiatives noted.

That the submission is noted and no modifications are recommended.

5

Peter De Cuyper

5 Broyage Retreat Quindalup  WA  6281

 

1. Re-subdivision/consolidation in Commonage should not be permitted in any existing vegetated areas and any subdivision elsewhere should retain a minimum lot size of 5,000m2.

 

 

 

2. The strategy should include no fracking permitted.

 

3. Review of Commonage rural residential area should include provision for ‘granny flat’ accommodation for an aged relative on existing blocks to assist in provision of housing for an ageing demographic.

1. Areas of remnant vegetation within the Commonage would not be considered suitable for consideration for closer re-subdivision/consolidation due to bushfire risk and environmental impact.

2. Noted, but this matter is beyond the scope of the Strategy.

3. The City’s Local Planning Policy 5C: Relative (Ancillary) Accommodation Provisions already provides for this type of accommodation within the Rural Residential zone.

That the submission is noted and no modifications recommended.

6

Grant Adams

19 Estuary Drive,

Wonnerup WA 6280

 

1. Request support for rezoning of Lot 17 Molloy Street and all lots bordering Ford Road and Molloy Street from Agriculture to Residential for the following reasons –

·      1km from city centre

·      Land is fragmented and lot sizes unsuitable for agriculture

·      Neighbouring land uses include a church, concrete products manufacturing and a bobcat business

·      Land has no conservation values

·      Land is fragmented and unsuitable for agriculture;

·      Existing Residential R20 is close by;

·      Lot 17 is serviced by a sealed road, reticulated water, power, rubbish collection and postal delivery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. R15 Residential Zonings – consider recoding to R30 to create more lots closer to the city centre and beachfront and reducing the need to rezone agricultural land on urban fringe. Better utilise existing infrastructure, reduce transport time and associated benefits to the environment.

 

1. Not supported.

The pattern of land fragmentation within this precinct is not a recent outcome - the area’s value for productive agriculture was lost long ago. The area is, in fact, already a de facto rural-residential area. The unsuitability of land for agriculture is very clearly not a sufficient basis to support closer settlement or urban development. Notwithstanding this, officers have considered two key questions in relation to the focus of the submission -

·      Is there a need to identify new urban growth areas in addition to those already identified in the draft Strategy?

·      If so, where is the best location for that to occur?

The land supply/dwelling yield projections that underpin the Strategy support that there is already sufficient zoned and structure planned land in Busselton to accommodate anticipated population growth for at least the lifetime of the Strategy (15 years+) without the need to identify additional new areas. In terms of location, the Molloy/Ford Road precinct is highly constrained for environmental reasons (wetlands, flood risk) and is an area being considered for a number of intersecting infrastructure projects such as planned future road network upgrades into the Busselton City Centre (e.g. Causeway Road upgrade and Eastern Link).

 

2. The strategy supports consideration of the potential for consolidation in existing urban areas and in particular in areas close to the Busselton City Centre, Dunsborough Town Centre and other activity centres, and where merited, in some coastal locations.

That the submission is not supported.

7

Peter Adams

101 Peel Terrace,

Busselton WA 6280

 

As per point 1 of submission 6.

Refer to comments for submission 6.

That the submission is not supported.

8

Mike Adams

896 Geographe Bay Road,

Busselton WA 6280

As per submissions 6 and 7.

Refer to comments for submission 6.

That the submission is not supported.

9

Andrew Grono

18 Kent Street

Busselton WA

Request rezoning of Lot 17 Molloy Street from Agriculture to Residential for similar reasons as set out in submissions 6, 7 and 8.

Refer to comments for submission 6.

That the submission is not supported.

10

Tim Koroveshi on behalf of Lowe P/L and Lukin Unit Trust

64 Espinos Road

Busselton WA 6280

Lot 12 Caves Road, Abbey

Supports the identification of this land as Medium Term Urban Growth Area (Abbey South 10) as originally recommended in the version of the draft strategy adopted by the Council on 25 September 2013 for the following reasons –

1. The City’s rationale for Abbey South was: ‘Last undeveloped coastal or near coastal land with significant development potential in the Busselton-Vasse Urban Area. Important this land accommodates housing choice and some non-residential uses.’ The City of BusseIton believes that the land is suitable for urban development and in the medium term regardless of any existing planning documentation. Being the local authority, its position regarding the matter should be of paramount importance and relevance.

2. The City of BusseIton Local Rural Planning Strategy (introduced in 2006), endorsed by both the City of BusseIton and the Western Australian Planning Commission, clearly identifies the subject land as being in the Urban (BusseIton) precinct.

3. The land consists of ex-grazing land and has no environmentally sensitive qualities or constraints. It is therefore easily developable.

4. It is directly adjacent to urban development to the north and east and therefore will be in keeping in that regard.

5. All reticulated services are conveniently and economically available to the site.

6. The land has no viable agricultural capabilities because of the soils types and small lots.

7. The land can also be economically developed in relation to required land fill requirements, particularly in comparison to other already identified urban areas (i.e. Ambergate).

8. It is conveniently located to numerous community facilities and commercial activities including Vasse.

9. It is located adjacent to Caves Road and Bussell Highway and close to the Busselton Bypass and therefore has excellent access to all areas.

10. It is located along public transport routes.

11. The area already accommodates a number of commercial type uses (i.e. markets, caravan park, restaurant/tavern/tourist accommodation, ice works business) so it cannot be considered a typical rural environment/rural wedge scenario.

Alternatively it is requested that the subject land be treated similar to other future urban land in the advertised LPS as land "to be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub- Regional Strategy".

 

Supported for the reasons set out in the submission.

Officers have considered two key questions in relation to the focus of the submissions -

·      Is there a need to identify new urban growth areas in addition to those already identified in the draft Strategy?

·      If so, where is the best location for that to occur?

 

In terms of need, the land supply/dwelling yield projections that underpin the draft Strategy suggest that there is sufficient zoned and structure planned land to accommodate projected population growth, but that is dependent upon planned/proposed urban growth areas (such as Bovell) commencing development in the medium term. Should that not occur, supply will diminish, with choice and diversity in the market becoming more constrained.

 

In terms of location, officers are of the view that ‘Abbey South’ has considerable merit for identification for urban development for a number of reasons, including -

·      The area is the last undeveloped coastal or near-coastal land with significant development potential in the Busselton-Vasse Urban Area;

·      Further residential expansion to the west is constrained by land in public ownership (Locke Conservation Estate);

·      It will round off existing residential development/settlement consolidation;

·      There will not be any affect in terms of separateness of settlements;

·      The area is close to neighbourhood shopping, schools, community infrastructure, public transport and servicing infrastructure; and

·      No visual impact or significant environmental constraints.

Given that the WAPC, in granting consent to advertise the Strategy, required the exclusion of Abbey South 10 (largely due to inconsistency with the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy), it is recommended that the WAPC be requested to consider the identification of the land as a ‘Medium Term Urban Growth Area’ (consistent with the version of the draft Strategy adopted by the Council in September 2013) as part of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.

 

 

That the submission is supported and the following modification to the draft LPS text is recommended –

 

1. Amend Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework by inserting the following –

·      Settlement column – ‘Busselton-Vasse Urban Area’

·      Urban growth area column – ‘Abbey South’

·      Map ref. column – ‘18’

·      Timeframe column – ‘Medium term’

·      Approximate potential population column - ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.’ 

·      Key issues column – ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy. Other than Port Geographe, this is the last undeveloped coastal or near-coastal land with significant development potential In Busselton-Vasse Urban Area. Important this land accommodates housing choice and some non-residential land-uses.’

 

2. Amend the draft Strategy Map to include Abbey South as ‘Medium Growth Area 18’ as per the version of the draft Strategy adopted by the Council.

11

Tim Koroveshi on behalf of CM & DM Carlyle

64 Espinos Road

Busselton  WA  6280

Lot 402 (12) Caves Road, Abbey.

Supports the identification of this land as Medium Term Urban Growth Area (Abbey South 10) as originally recommended in the version of the draft strategy adopted by the Council on 25 September 2013 for the following reasons set out in submission 10.

Alternatively it is requested that the subject land be treated similar to other future urban land in the advertised LPS as land "to be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub- Regional Strategy".

 

Supported for the reasons set out in the submission. Refer to comments for submission 10.

That the submission is supported as per the recommendation for submission 10.

12

Shrapnel Urban Planning on behalf of M & V Stewart

336 Churchill Avenue

Subiaco WA 6008

Lot 4 (51) Caves Road, Abbey.

Maintaining all of the subject land as a “Rural Area” in the LPS does not represent the most appropriate future use of the land from an urban planning perspective. Alternatively, designating the northern part of the subject land as a “Current Urban Growth” area in the LPS does represent an appropriate planning outcome because:

·      Designating the northern half of the subject land as an urban growth area is consistent with well‐established town planning principles in terms of location, context, accessibility,

·      proximity to utility and other urban services, highest and best land use and the opportunity to neatly “round off” the existing established urban form.

·      It would be inappropriate from a town planning point of view, and a waste of a valuable potential urban land resource, to retain all of the subject land as a remnant agricultural “island” surrounded by land with other non‐agricultural zonings.

·      Planning the subject land as an urban growth area would retain all important local environmental values and not be at odds with the intent and provisions of SPP 6.1 – the Leeuwin‐Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy (LNRSPP).

It is therefore requested that the draft LPS be modified by:

·      Changing the designation of the subject land on the LPS Map from “Rural Areas” to “Current Urban Growth”; and

·      Inserting and/ or modifying where necessary all relevant text within the LPS document to accord with this modified strategic intention

The designation of the land as ‘Current Growth Area’ is not appropriate as the land is neither zoned nor structure planned for urban development. However the reasons set out in the submission for the land to be identified for urban purposes are supported and identification as a ‘Medium Term Urban Growth Area’ is being recommended as per the comments in response to submission 10.

That the submission is partially supported as per the recommendation for submission 10.

13

RPS on behalf of J & L Thomas

PO Box 749

Busselton WA 6280

Lot 22 Commonage Road, Quindalup.

1. The land owners provide their 'in principle' support for the strategic directions outlined in the draft LPS, particularly as it relates to the Dunsborough South' urban expansion area.

2. Clarification is sought in relation to the:

·      timing  of the preparation/release of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy; 

·      high degree of uncertainty over future land use permissibility, and potential impediment to the landowner's current intentions to rationalise land ownership through subdivision;

·      intended planning process in terms of hierarchy/milestones relating to ‘Dunsborough South'; and

·      details around the intended timeframe for the delivery of the Dunsborough South' urban area (short, medium or long term).

 

1. Noted.

 

 

 

2. The timing of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy will be determined by the Western Australian Planning Commission and the City of Busselton has no control over how that process progresses. It is the City’s understanding that the WAPC will finalise a ‘report card’ on the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy in the latter part of 2016, with a draft Strategy anticipated 12 months following. There is nothing to prevent the landowner pursuing aspirations for their land that are consistent with the existing planning framework and any planning application brought forward would be considered in the context of the direction set out by this draft Strategy. The draft Strategy identifies Dunsborough South as Medium Term’ (10 – 15 years) with immediate consideration being given to commencing structure planning and rezoning processes following final endorsement of this draft Strategy.

That the submission is noted and no modifications are recommended.

14

Sturt McDonald

118 Ridgeway Drive

Dunsborough WA 6281

Concern over the location of the ‘separation of settlements’ line in relation to Medium Urban Growth Area 14 Dunsborough South. Although the draft strategy recommends that the extent of Dunsborough South be addressed through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy, the ‘separation of settlements’ line should be relocated further west to retain important agricultural land.

 

Noted. The separation of settlements line broadly reflects the ‘Wetland Amenity Area’ of State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturalist Ridge and, east of Bussell Highway, the continuance of the wetland chain. The alignment south of the Vasse-Dunsborough Link is indicative and could be considered for adjustment, potentially westwards, in response to the outcomes relating to the expansion of Dunsborough (Medium Term Growth Area 14). 

That the submission is noted and no modifications are recommended.

15

Tim Koroveshi on behalf of Herbert Schaal

64 Espinos Road

Busselton  WA  6280

 

Lot 21 Commonage Road, Quindalup

Landowner supports the identification of this, and adjoining properties, within the medium urban growth area ‘Quindalup South 1’ in the version of the draft LPS as adopted by the Council on 25 September 2013. Notes that the WAPC adopted a modified version of the strategy to remove the Council’s preferred direction for this area with the land now identified as: ‘the extent, location and density of urban development expansion is to be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.’ 

Landowner remains supportive of Lot 21 being identified as a medium term urban growth area either through modification to the advertised version of the draft strategy to reinstate the area previously referred to as ‘Quindalup South 1’ or via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.

Support for the identification of this land, and adjoining properties, as a medium term urban growth area is noted and agreed with.

The WAPC, in its decision to grant to consent to advertise the draft LPS, was clear in its directive that any consideration of expansion/growth for Dunsborough, outside of boundaries identified by the Leeuwin Naturaliste State Planning Policy, is to occur via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy process.  The designation of Dunsborough South 14 area as ‘indicative’ provides the opportunity for consideration, but is not pre-emptive of possible outcomes of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-regional Strategy.

That the submission is supported and no modifications are recommended.

16

Stan Lawrence-Brown on behalf of David & Katrina Lodge

PO Box 315

Dunsborough WA 6281

Lot 205 Wylarah Way, Quindalup

The subject land formed part of long term growth area 17 ‘Quindalup South 2’ in the version of the draft LPS adopted by the Council on 25 September 2013.

Land to the north of the subject lot is flagged as medium urban growth area 14 ‘Dunsborough South’, but the extent of this area is undefined, removes any identification of land which may be considered for the long term expansion of Dunsborough and has a deferred timeframe status dependent upon the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy. The strategic intent of the draft LPS is to support and proactively plan for the urban growth of Dunsborough in the medium and long term, therefore Quindalup South (17) should be reinstated.

The WAPC in granting consent to advertise the draft Strategy was clear in its directive that any consideration of medium or long term expansion/growth for Dunsborough, outside of boundaries identified by the Leeuwin Naturaliste State Planning Policy, is to occur via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy process.  The designation of Dunsborough South 14 area as ‘indicative’ provides the opportunity for consideration, but does not define specific land parcels for inclusion. Determination of the extent of the Dunsborough South 14 area is to be explored through the preparation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy and at this stage it is not clear whether or not this particular lot would be identified. 

That the submission is noted and no modifications are recommended.

17

Stan Lawrence-Brown on behalf of J & G Holroyd and C & M Campbell

PO Box 315

Dunsborough WA 6281

Lots 77 and 79 Ridgeway Drive, Quedjinup

The lots formed part of an identified long term urban growth area ‘Ridgeway’ (area 19) in the version of the draft LPS adopted by the Council on 25 September 2013. It is requested that the Council and the WAPC reinstate the “Ridgeway Urban Growth Area” into the Draft Local Planning Strategy Map and identify within Table 2 as a “short to medium urban growth area” for the following reasons:

1. The lot sizes within the subject area range between 3 – 5 hectares with each hosting a single residential dwelling. Accordingly the lots sizes are generally considerably larger than the prevailing rural residential lots to the west which are generally 2 hectares.

2. Together the lots effectively form the interface and transition area between the existing rural residential land use of the Commonage and the single residential redevelopment of Dunsborough Lakes. In this regard the subject area does not form part of the Commonage Consolidated Structure Plan Area.

3. The subject area is predominantly cleared with open pasture and generally void of any significant remnant vegetation.

4. The subject area is bounded by Ridgeway Drive and its identification within a future urban growth area is an effective rounding off to the existing settlement pattern for the western portion of the Dunsborough urban area.

5. The subject area forms the direct interface to the existing urban area of Dunsborough Lakes to the east with strong opportunities for connectivity and sustainable urban design application.

6. The land is slightly higher than the lower lying areas to the east thus providing greater separation to ground water and less constrained ground surfaces for urban development, including housing construction.

7. Due to its proximity to the Dunsborough Lakes, utility services (including reticulated sewer and water) are readily accessible to support future urban development.

8. Ridgeway Drive forms the western perimeter of the subject area and suitably separates it from the surrounding rural residential land. While the topography rises slightly over a portion of the subject area from east to west, it is only marginal and does not pose any significant concerns in relation to visual impact along the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge.

9. The subject area is roughly between 800m to 1.8 km from of the town centre and only 500m to the Dunsborough Playing Fields and Naturaliste Community Centre, from its nearest point. The southern portion directly abuts the current Cornerstone Primary School and is also suitably positioned to utilise future planned community and public infrastructure to the west (e.g. new playing fields, primary school, potential high school and a local neighbourhood centre).

10. The subject area also offers strong pedestrian and potential vehicle movement corridors from east to west, thus providing connectivity to Dunsborough Lakes and the town centre.

11. Future urban development of the subject area will enable greater walkability and pedestrian movement opportunities thus contributing to sustainable residential outcomes in accordance with WAPC policy objectives (i.e. Liveable Neighbourhoods).

Support the identification of Ridgeway as ‘Medium Term Urban’ and agree with the justification set out in the submission.

The Ridgeway Drive precinct was identified on the version of the draft Strategy adopted by the Council in 2013 as ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area 19’. The land was identified for a number of reasons, including –

·      Large lot sizes; 

·      Gentle topography and mostly cleared;

·      Close to the Dunsborough Town Centre, community and recreational facilities;

·      Close proximity to reticulated water and sewerage infrastructure;

·      Opportunity for pedestrian and vehicle connectivity to Dunsborough Lakes Drive; and

·      Logical extension to existing urban development.

 

Officers have considered two key questions in relation to the focus of the submissions -

·      Is there a need to identify new urban growth areas in addition to those already identified in the draft Strategy?

·      If so, where is the best location for that to occur?

 

In terms of need, the land supply/dwelling yield projections that underpin the draft Strategy indicate that there is insufficient zoned and structure planned land in Dunsborough to accommodate anticipated population growth. 

 

In terms of location, the Ridgeway Drive precinct is generally environmentally unconstrained, and in terms of settlement planning principles, represents a logical extension of urban development at Dunsborough Lakes (for the reasons as set out above). Other than generally in a south/south east direction from Dunsborough and immediately west of Dunsborough Lakes in the Ridgeway Drive precinct, the physical expansion of Dunsborough is highly constrained.

 

The WAPC did not support the retention of Ridgeway (19) in the advertised version of the draft Strategy due to inconsistency with State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge. It is suggested that the WAPC be requested to consider the Ridgeway Drive precinct for medium term urban growth through the preparation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.

 

Should Ridgeway be identified as an urban growth area, there are two public access ways linking Ridgeway Drive with Dunsborough Lakes Drive and structure planning would need to identify one or both to be constructed as a public road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That the submission be supported and the following modification is recommended –

 

1. Amend Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework by inserting the following –

·      Settlement column – ‘Dunsborough Urban Area’

·      Urban growth area column – ‘Ridgeway’

·      Map ref. column – ‘19’

·      Timeframe column - ‘Medium Term’

·      Approximate potential population column – ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.’

·      Key issues column - ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy. Should urban development be appropriate consideration to be given to the following –

·      There are two public access ways linking Ridgeway Drive with Dunsborough Lakes Drive and structure planning would need to identify one or both to be constructed as a public road.

·      Visual/ landscape assessment and fire management.

2. Amend the draft Strategy Map to include Ridgeway as ‘Medium Urban Growth Area 19’. The extent of Ridgeway 19 is to reflect the version of the draft Strategy as adopted by the Council.

18

Tim Koroveshi on behalf of Echo Pastoral P/L; G & L Pike; D Lovejoy; Bontempo Nominees; G & S Waters and A & P Hind

64 Espinos Road,

Busselton

Lots 74, 75, 76 & 78 Ridgeway Drive, Lot 13 Windle Place and Lot 27 Koopin Place, Quedjinup.

The lots formed part of an identified long term urban growth area ‘Ridgeway’ (area 19) in the version of the draft LPS adopted by the Council on 25 September 2013. It is requested that the advertised version of the LPS be modified identify these and other Ridgeway lots as ‘Medium Term Urban’ or, at minimum, reflect the version of the LPS as adopted by the City of BusseIton at its meeting held on 25 September 2013, which identifies the land as "Long Term Urban Growth". Alternatively, and as a third option, the subject land be treated similar to other future urban land in the advertised LPS as land "to be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub- Regional Strategy" (i.e. Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework — Area 14). The following reasons are provided in support of the submission:

1. The land is currently zoned Rural Residential and directly abuts the Dunsborough Lakes urban area. For this reason it is therefore a logical extension of urban development in the Dunsborough area including in relation to servicing arrangements and minimising costs in this regard.

2. The subject lots have large land areas of between approximately 3.4 to over 3.9 ha which are even very large for Rural Residential lots by today's standards where they can get down to 2,000 m2. Further subdivision and for normal urban purposes is therefore recommended.

3. The lots are all of a relatively regular/basically rectangular shape which again assists with future subdivision design.

4. The lots are generally cleared (ex-pasture land) with most existing buildings close to the existing roads which allows for an easier subdivision design process.

5. The mostly cleared land also has other advantages in that significant amounts of remnant vegetation will not need to be removed for future development which is an excellent outcome, particularly being in a Landscape Value Area under the City of BusseIton Local Planning Scheme 21.

6. Generally cleared land is also of considerable of benefit in relation to fire prevention/control in regard to safety of potential residents and also from an environmental perspective as limited vegetation needs to be cleared to comply with fire requirements.

7. Unlike most of the existing Dunsborough urban area, the subject land is at a much higher contour, contains sandy soils, is therefore well drained and easier to develop and at a lower cost than lower lying areas (i.e. no fill required, etc).

8. The area has an excellent existing road system providing easy, safe and convenient access to Caves road and nearby areas.

9. The Dunsborough CBD and all the services provided there is within very close proximity (i.e. approximately a 5 minute drive).

10. The land forms part of the Margaret River Wine Region and is therefore conveniently located to a wide range of activities available there, both man-made and natural.

11. There is limited land readily available in the Dunsborough area for future urban development and close to the existing urban area because most of the land is very low lying, contains a significant amount of good quality remnant vegetation or is much further out which further justifies the qualities of the subject area for urban development.

Support. Refer comments in response to submission 17.

That the submission be supported and refer to the recommendation for submission 17.

19

Yvonne Winchcombe

113 Ridgeway Drive

Quedjinup WA 6281

Objection to submissions 17 & 18 and request that the large blocks in the Ridgeway Drive area remain unsubdivided because –

·      Separate urban development in Dunsborough Lakes from Commonage rural residential blocks.

·      Visually aesthetic buffer area

·      Would provide a buffer to the urban area in event of bush fire.

Ridgeway was identified as ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area 19 on the version of the draft LPS adopted for advertising by the Council on 25 September 2013. Consideration of this area for medium term urban development is supported for the reasons set out in submissions 17, 18 and 34. Structure planning for the Ridgeway area would have consideration for the matters raised in this submission.

That the submission is not supported.

20

C & A Harding

PO Box 202

Dunsborough WA  6281

Lot 75 Yallingup Siding Road and Lot 76 Cowrang Lane, Yallingup Siding.

 

As current and long term owners of these large rural residential lots (used for an intensive horticulture business) we support the identification of suitable areas within the Commonage for re-subdivision/consolidation. The physical characteristics of our lots make them suitable for closer subdivision. Having actively managed the land for 20 years and physically monitored decreasing rainfall during this time, we feel the 8ha blocks would be better suited for smaller lifestyle lots.

We lodged a joint submission with seven other landowners in this precinct requesting modification to the Commonage Consolidated Structure Plan in 2007 to provide for closer subdivision and this indicates a level of local community agreement to the direction advocated by the draft LPS.

 

Support for re-subdivision and consolidation within the Commonage is noted. The strategic direction of the draft LPS is to identify suitable areas for re-subdivision within the Commonage and this will be a targeted process via a City-led review of the Commonage Consolidated Structure Plan (CCSP) and not on an uncoordinated and ad hoc basis driven by individual landowners. Land supply within the Commonage is not considered to be an issue as there are opportunities under the CCSP for subdivision that have not been taken up.

There are numerous other considerations that such a review of the CCSP would need to account for, such as:

 

·      Protection of remnant native vegetation and other environmental issues;

·      Bush fire risk;

·      Landscape character and visual amenity;

·      Road connectivity;

·      Proximity to infrastructure services such as scheme water;

·      Settlement planning principles (especially in the southern and more remote outskirt areas of the Commonage) – proximity to community services and facilities; and

·      Diversity of lot sizes.

The application of settlement planning principles to a targeted review of the CCSP would suggest that potentially the most appropriate area for initial consideration would be within the Quedjinup locality northwest of Biddle Road. The general area is more gently undulating, mostly cleared, close to scheme water and other community services/facilities in and near to the Dunsborough Town Centre, easily accessible from Caves Road and would allow consideration of smaller Special Residential sizes lots (i.e. 2,000 – 5,000m2).

Notwithstanding this, land supply in particular is not a pressing issue, and as such a targeted review of the CCSP is not viewed as a strategic priority for the City.

That the submission is noted.

21

L & S Schoppe

PO Box 395

Dunsborough  WA  6281

 

Lot 72 Hayes Road, Yallingup Siding.

Same as submission 20.

Refer to comments for submission 20.

That the submission is noted.

22

RPS on behalf of Notable Downs Partnership

PO Box 749

Busselton WA 6280

Lot 35 Woodbridge Vale and Lot 40 Vasse-Yallingup Siding Road, Yallingup Siding.

Support for rural residential consolidation. A development concept plan is provided that demonstrates the site’s suitability for closer  subdivision and is justified for the following reasons –

·      The generally cleared nature of the landform and the limited amount of remnant vegetation that will be affected;

·      The limited land capability of the subject land for viable agricultural or "hobby farm" purposes;

·      The strategic context, the City's vision outlined in the Draft LPS and the general subdivision framework for the locality;

·      The general suitability of the topography and soils for onsite effluent disposal;

·      Increased development can readily be accommodated.

·      The proposal for further subdivision maintains the current land use, while allowing a larger population to enjoy the rural residential lifestyle;

·      The commitment from landowners to proceed with subdivision in a sustainable manner on the basis of existing land use activity and its appropriateness within this locality; and

·      There is seen to be community benefit having regard to land supply, environmental, landscape/visual amenity and biodiversity values, as well as bushfire risk.

 

Refer to comments for submission 20.

That the submission is noted.

23

BSO on behalf of Peter Thompson

PO Box 414

Busselton WA 6280

Lots 6 & 7 Quedjinup Drive, Quedjinup.

Support rural residential infill/consolidation. The subject land is suitable for closer subdivision as it is mostly cleared and would have negligible impact on environmental, landscape/visual amenity and biodiversity values.

 

Refer to comments for submission 20.

That the submission is noted.

24

Tim Koroveshi behalf of John Reid

64 Espinos Road

Busselton  WA  6280

Lots 1 – 14 Quedjinup Drive/Little John Road, Quedjinup.  

"Support and pro-active assistance" in relation to further subdivision /consolidation of land within the Commonage Structure Plan Policy Area is supported by the subject landowners generally, but in particular for their land, for the following reasons:

1. The subject land was one of the earlier rural residential subdivisions within the Commonage Structure Plan Policy Area and is identified under that document as being within an area where minimum 2 ha and average 3 ha lot sizes are recommended. Actual lot sizes range from 2.2 ha up to 4.2 ha. These lot sizes are very large by current standards with some rural residential land being subdivided down to 2,000 m2.

2. The current lots are of a very regular shape and this would enable a quite simple re-subdivision design/process.

3. The land was previously cleared and utilised for grazing for many years. Therefore, any further subdivision of the land can avoid unnecessary clearing of remnant vegetation as may be required in other parts of Commonage which is obviously an excellent environmental outcome.

4. Cleared land is also an advantage in relation to fire prevention/control in regard to safety of residents and also from an environmental perspective as no vegetation needs to be cleared. 5. The subdivision has an excellent existing road access system providing easy, safe and convenient access to all nearby major roads plus power and telecommunication services.

6. The Dunsborough CBD and all the services provided there is within close proximity (approximately a 5 minute drive).

7. The land is part of the Margaret River Wine Region and is therefore within close proximity to a wide range of activities available there both man-made and natural.

8. There will be no further land rezoned for rural residential development.

 

Refer to comments for submission 20.

That the submission is noted.

25

BSO Development Consultants on behalf of Marshall Bennett P/L

PO Box 414

Busselton WA 6280

Lot 37 O’Byrne Road, Quindalup

The potential for this land to be identified in the draft LPS as a site for further investigation/subdivision is raised. Site is 114ha and the north-eastern portion is zoned Rural Residential, with the balance zoned Agriculture. The quality native vegetation in the rural residential zoned portion of the site is worthy of retention. As an alternative, the eastern portion of the site is parkland cleared with mostly non-native species and the option of rationalising the current zoning of the property to allow some closer subdivision whilst providing for the long term protection of the north western vegetated section is proposed.

 

Not supported. The submission is seeking an extension to the Rural Residential zone which is inconsistent with the strategic direction of the WAPC, as set out in the South West Region Planning and Infrastructure Framework 2015, whereby proposals for new Rural Residential areas are not supported. Given the  density of bushland vegetation and the degree of slope to that land within the Rural Residential portion of Lot 37, together with current legislation relating to the clearing of native vegetation and planning for bushfire protection, it is highly unlikely that subdivision and development in the subject location could be implemented in practice. Furthermore, the suggested ‘transfer’ of development potential to the ‘Agriculture’ zoned portion of Lot 37 is inconsistent with the Commonage Consolidated Structure Plan which identifies the subject location for ‘open landscape/rural production’, wherein no further subdivision is supported.

That the submission is not supported.

26

Jen Libby-Jackson

16 Peppermint Way

Vasse WA 6280

Support the direction of the draft LPS to plan for and identify suitable areas for re-subdivision of existing rural residential development in Dunbarton (in particular those 5 acre lots around the Peppermint/Paperbark Way and Rendezous Road intersections) for the following reasons –

·      Current structure plan is approximately 30 years old.

·      Increase the availability of smaller rural residential lots in the immediate area without affecting the general character of the locality or the amenity of surrounding residents as smaller lots already exist.

·      Increase access to facilities in the area – pony club, trotting track, schools, leisure centre and progressive Vasse development.

·      Eliminate the need to create new areas for the purpose of smaller rural residential lots.

·      Assist with infill/consolidation in close proximity to the Busselton City Centre.

·      Adoption of an integrated plan that includes the lots the subject of this submission within 5 years would ensure progressive planning while maintaining the benefits to these and other lots of rural residential living/lifestyle.

 

Support for re-subdivision and consolidation within Dunbarton is noted.

A targeted review of the Dunbarton area for re-subdivision and consolidation opportunities is viewed as having a higher priority for a City-led review than the Commonage for the following reasons –

·      Rural Residential land supply is more acute;

·      Rural Residential zoned land to the east of Vasse) is identified by the draft Strategy as Long Term Urban (Vasse East) – largely because settlement planning principles support the higher and better use of this land for urban purposes and not large lifestyle lots;

·      The land is flat and cleared of remnant vegetation;

·      Lower bush fire risk;

·      Lower landscape character and visual amenity considerations;

·      Reticulated water and potentially sewerage services are close by;

·      Well serviced by the district road network;

·      Close to Busselton City Centre, community facilities and services; and

·      Location is more favourable from a settlement planning perspective.

A targeted review of the Dunbarton structure plan would be a City-led process and not driven on an uncoordinated and ad hoc manner driven by individual landowners.

That the submission is noted.

27

Larry Smith on behalf of P Cook

17 Ufton Street

Gwelup WA 6018

 

Lots 100 & 101 Brash Road, Yallingup.

The land is zoned ‘Viticulture/Tourism with Additional Use (A60) for a major tourist resort including up to 163 accommodation units, hotel and ancillary facilities. Strata subdivision has been an integral and essential component to the development of the resort, subject to a Resort Management Plan as required under the approved structure plan for the land.

Theme and Strategy 2(g) of Section 6.1 proposes, in the case of small scale low key tourism accommodation in rural areas, not to “permit any further strata subdivision of tourist accommodation or unrestricted length of stay component outside of the Busselton - Vasse Urban Area and Dunsborough Urban Area”.

While it is clearly the intention of Theme 2(g) to impose these controls on small scale, rural chalet type development on farms, the current wording “in rural areas” could be mis-interpreted to include major tourist developments in rural areas having a specific tourist zoning, such as in this case.

Accordingly, we seek re-wording of Theme 2(g), Section 6.1 to specifically exclude tourist accommodation developments in rural areas having a specific tourist zoning.

Not supported. The submission clearly misinterpets the intention of the draft Strategy which is not to permit any further strata title subdivision of tourism accommodation in rural areas, irrespective of the scale of development that either exists or is proposed. It should be noted that the site the subject of this submission remains undeveloped, notwithstanding that the structure plan was endorsed in 2004 and as such is out of step with the current planning framework, especially relating to bush fire prone areas.

In the City’s experience, strata schemes as a business model for underpinning tourist accommodation development outside of urban areas are often not successful and lead to pressure to relax length of stay restrictions to permit permanent residency. If that were allowed to occur, it would effectively create isolated settlements scattered throughout the rural area, placing people remote from employment, shops, community services and facilities.

That the submission is not supported.

28

Tony Arias on behalf of Caves Road 1676 P/L

PO Box 1311

Subiaco WA 6904

Lot 200 Caves Road, Dunsborough.

1. Opposes the ‘Rural’ classification of the site because it is inconsistent with the planning framework applicable to the land. The site is zoned ‘Tourist’ and is identified as a non-strategic tourist site in the Local Tourism Planning Strategy and a number of development applications have been approved by the City for tourist development. The immediate area, including the subject land, comprises over 15ha of tourist zoned land.

2. Request the draft LPS be modified to identify Lot 200 for tourist and residential uses.

Not supported.

1. The draft strategy does not specifically identify ‘Tourist’ zoned land within urban areas or land having tourist accommodation in non-urban areas.

 

 

 

2. Not supported. The fundamental planning issues related to intensification of development on these four land parcels include the inability to comply with State Planning Policy 3.7 Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas, and

·      remnant vegetation and steeply sloping topography;

·      area and surrounds are designated as bush fire prone on State Map of Bushfire Prone Areas;

·      no secondary road access;

·      State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge/draft LPS & Local Tourism Planning Strategy do not contemplate tourist accommodation sites in the Rural or other zones outside of town sites as being suitable for a residential component; and

·    to achieve acceptable fire management/protection outcome - significant impact on vegetation and the visual landscape amenity – contrary to LNRSPP/Landscape Value Area/Local Rural Planning Strategy.

 

That the submission is not supported.

29

Calibre Consulting on behalf ARW Nominees

Lot 11 and portion of Lot 803 Chapman Hill Road, Busselton

The land is identified in Table 4: Industrial/Service Commercial Area Framework as being partly zoned and structure planned, with a particular emphasis on accommodating automotive-related development.

The submission requests removal of the reference to automotive-related development as proposed Scheme Amendment 21 (and a revised structure plan) has been lodged with the City that seeks to remove the emphasis on automotive/marine sales in favour of a more general, mixed, light industrial focus.

Support. Lot 11 is currently zoned ‘Special Purpose (Ambergate Automotive Development Area)’ and within Special Provision Areas 47 & 48, both of which set out permissible land uses pursuant to Schedule 4 of Local Planning Scheme 21. SP47 permits land uses that involve, or are directly reliant upon, or directly related to, motor vehicle and marine sales. SP48 is more relaxed and akin to the Busselton LIA in permissible uses. The overall intent of the zoning of the land was to facilitate the creation of a new automotive/marine sales precinct. Since the land was rezoned in 2012, endeavours to attract the relocation of car and marine dealerships to the site have not been successful.

Officers are therefore supportive of proposed Scheme Amendment 21 that seeks to remove SP47, include the whole of Lot 11 within SP48, as well as extending the Special Purpose zoning and SP48 to include a portion of Lot 803 so as to align with the future entry road to Ambergate North (Current Urban Growth Area 7 on the draft LPS map) from Chapman Hill Road.

It should be noted that the proposed scheme amendment application is yet to be put before the Council for consideration to initiate).

 

 

That the submission is supported and the following modifications to the draft LPS text and map are recommended –

 

1. Amend Table 4: Industrial/Service Commercial Area Framework in relation to Chapman Hill Road (1) by deleting the word ‘Automotive’ from the Commercial Area Type column and deleting the words ‘with particular emphasis on accommodating automotive-related development’ from the Key Issues column.

 

2. Amend the draft LPS map to include a portion of Lot 803 within Chapman Hill Road (1) consistent with proposed Scheme Amendment 21 to Local Planning Scheme 21.

30

Cardno on behalf of Lester Ambergate Pty Ltd

PO Box 447

West Perth WA 6005

Lots 4 & 2363 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate.

1. Endorsed Ambergate Structure Plan identifies the abovementioned land for residential development, district open space, multiple use corridor and portion of a future primary school site. The draft LPS identifies the land as being part of the Ambergate North (7) current urban growth area (including both zoned and unzoned portions and this is strongly supported by the landowner. It is the landowner’s intent to develop the subject site in the short term which is consistent with the timeframe set out by the draft LPS within Table 2 Urban Growth Area Framework.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. The housing supply projections provided in the draft LPS explanatory report identifies the unzoned portion of Ambergate North (which the land the subject of this submission is located) as being delivered in the medium – long term (i.e. 5-10yrs and 10yrs +) which is inconsistent with the Urban Growth Area Framework.

1. Not supported. The landowner intent to progress an amendment to Local Planning Scheme 21 to rezone the land to facilitate short term urban development is considered premature for a number of reasons, including:

·      The current area of land zoned ‘Special Purposes (Ambergate North Development Area)’ has been strategically identified as the logical development front within the DGP area and the subject site is not contiguous with this. The proposed amendment represents a premature and piecemeal rezoning and would create an unreasonable expectation that subdivision and development could occur on multiple development fronts, causing significant difficulties in the coordination of infrastructure provision and contrary to the principles of orderly and proper planning.

·      Based on the current supply of land already zoned to provide for residential development, no imperative exists for the rezoning of the subject site to meet demand.

·      The subject site does not demonstrate any reason why it should be preferred to existing zoned land.

·      The proposed amendment would facilitate subdivision and development of the subject land which, based on the availability of servicing infrastructure (particularly electricity and waste water), would compromise the ability to develop land within the existing zoned Ambergate North Development Area.

·      The proposed amendment does not provide sufficient information or assessment addressing the timing and treatment of upgrades to the Queen Elizabeth Avenue/Busselton Bypass intersection, which could potentially be immediately necessary should development commence from the western part of the DGP area without other road connections to the north and east being in place.

·      The proposed amendment does not address how stormwater detention and flows from the subject site can be managed in accordance with the Local Water Management Strategy, which relies on the development of systems across the DGP area including retention areas and outlets at the north/ western extent of the DGP area.

·      The proposed amendment is premature in relation to buffers associated with the adjacent Waste Water Treatment Plant and concrete batching plant and a significant portion of Lots 4 and 2363 is unable to be developed and for an unknown period.

·      The proposed amendment undesirably precedes the finalisation of a Developer Contributions Plan for the Ambergate North Development Area, through which strategic issues relating to community facilities are yet to be resolved (including the district level facilities within the subject site).

 

2. Ambergate North is identified as a Current Growth Area by the Strategy because it is (partly) zoned and structure planned for urban development, similar to the other identified Current Urban Growth Areas (e.g. Provence, Vasse etc.). The land supply/dwelling yield modelling that underpins the Strategy supports the position that there is already sufficient zoned and structure planned land to accommodate anticipated population growth for at least the lifetime of the Strategy (15 years+) without the need for additional land outside of the existing zoned portion of Ambergate North to be rezoned. The assumptions and estimates of residential development in the modelling depend upon a number of factors outside the City’s control and which are subject to change. The modelling, which represents one scenario (in terms of locational supply, choice and diversity of residential estates in the market at any given year in the future), supports the recommendations of the Strategy rather than determining them. The estimated time of delivery considers residential product delivery and represents a desirable scenario in terms of maximising location choice; however during the lifetime of the Strategy, the scenario is likely to be influenced by numerous factors that may see land supply in some areas delayed, while others are advanced. 

 

That the submission is not supported.

31

Planning Solutions on behalf of Primewest Group

PO Box 8701

Perth WA 6000

Lot 300 Strelly Street, Busselton

1. Support for the strategic direction for the Busselton LIA to transition to bulky goods retailing.

2. The continued development of bulky goods retail within the LIA should be given priority over all other areas under the draft LPS and should be recognised as the primary bulky goods retail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Timeframes for the development of Industrial/Service Commercial land requires modification to ensure long term sustainability. A mechanism/trigger (such as population growth, land availability or capacity of existing land supply) for the staged release of Service/Commercial land should be added to the LPS text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. The ‘Bulky Goods Showroom’ definition provided within Schedule 1 of the Regulations should replace the definition for ‘Showroom’ in the City’s town planning scheme to provide greater certainty of permissibility of large format retail uses. The City’s ‘Showroom’ definition does not provide adequate definition for bulky goods showroom and may allow competing and conflicting uses to be established.

 

1. Noted.

 

 

2. Not supported. There is no strategic justification to warrant this proposition nor is there a logical rationale to support the primacy of one industrial/service commercial area for bulky goods retail at the expense of other areas. The Strategy seeks to ensure that there is land available to facilitate economic growth and diversification, not only to provide flexibility and choice in location for businesses and investors for a broad range of industrial and service commercial land uses, including bulky goods retail, but also for consumers throughout the District and the South West Region.

 

3. Industrial/Service Commercial Areas 1 – 5 (Existing/Current) are already zoned and structure planned (but yet to be subdivided i.e. Airport North 1 & Chapman Hill Road 4) or are already subdivided and largely developed (i.e. Strelly St/Busselton LIA 2). Other areas (Airport North Extension 6, Chapman Hill Road 7 and Airport South 8) are designated ‘Medium Term’ (10-15yrs+). The Strategy is clear in its direction that the timely commencement of rezoning and structure planning for medium term areas would consider existing land supply and demand and seek to ensure continuity of supply and diversity.

 

4. This is a matter that relates to detail within Local Planning Scheme 21 and is not for the Strategy to contemplate.

That the submission is noted but points 2, 3 and 4 are not supported.

32

Large Format Retail Association

PO Box 78

Balwyn North

Victoria 3104

1. We support the identification of ten (10) locations for Industrial/Service Commercial (allowing for ‘Bulky Goods Showrooms’ in the draft ‘LPS’. We consider the staged release of these locations requires further investigation by the City to ensure the long term sustainability and viability of Industrial/Service Commercial land supply.

2. The draft ‘LPS’ should include a clearer strategic direction for each Industrial/Service Commercial location. Specifically, the ‘LPS’ needs to provide location specific strategies which describe priority land uses, land use mix, and general development standards. Future statutory/policy measures should be informed by these location specific strategies.

3. Bulky goods retail (BGR) is identified as a ‘key issue’ within ‘table 4’ of the draft ‘LPS’. Including the ‘Bulky Goods Showroom’ model definition from the ‘Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015’ (Regulations) should be incorporated into a new local planning scheme as a priority.

Not supported. Refer to comments for submission 31.

That the submission is not supported.

33

Planning Solutions on behalf of Erceg Management

PO Box 8701

Perth WA 6000

Lot 17 West Street and Lots 2, 3 and 11 Bussell Highway, Busselton.

1. Support the draft LPS insofar as it recognises the potential for expansion and growth of the Busselton city centre.

2. The LPS objective for the continued growth of the Busselton city centre is supported.

3. The LPS should explicitly identify that the “further detailed planning” required for Busselton city centre is to be in the format of an activity centre plan. All references to the LPS identifying an indicative boundary for the Busselton city centre should be deleted. The activity centre plan will define the boundary of the Busselton city centre based on the relevant considerations, which will include land within an 800m walkable catchment to major public transport stops.

4. Having regard to the previous analysis undertaken for the City and the subject site being located within the 800m walkable catchment of the city centre, the subject site should be described throughout the LPS as being ‘in’ the city centre, not ‘on the fringe of’ or ‘outside’ the city centre.

 

 

 

5. Reference in the draft LPS to retail development on West Street reducing potential growth of the Busselton city centre by 10-15 years is misleading, and should be deleted. There is no reference to an economic or strategic study to support this statement. Retail development on the subject site is supported by the planning framework, and is consistent with the objective of the draft LPS for continued growth of the Busselton city centre.

 

 

 

1. & 2. Noted.

 

 

 

3. Not supported. The City is likely to prepare an Activity Centre Plan for part of the Busselton City Centre but that will not include Lot 17 West Street. That site already has an adopted Land Use Concept Plan that is a quasi-structure plan.

 

4. Not supported. At best the location of the proposed West Street development could be described as being on the fringe of the Busselton City Centre. It is not designed along the principle of a walkable catchment; rather its dominant customer transport mode will be the private motor vehicle.

 

5. Not supported. The reference is not within the draft LPS text, but is part of the background explanatory report.

That the submission is noted but points 3 - 5 are not supported.

34

Planning Solutions on behalf of DCSC P/L

PO Box 8701

Perth WA 6000

1. Support the identification of the Dunsborough Town Centre (DTC) as the principal activity centre for the western half of the District.

2. There is sufficient capacity within the DTC to provide for the future increase in demand for shopping and services created by population growth and tourism.

3. Do not support the physical expansion of the DTC footprint growing to the southern side of Caves Road into the Dunsborough Playing Fields site for the following reasons –

·      There is sufficient zoned land (or land proposed to be rezoned) within the DTC, including undeveloped or under-developed land.

·      The Dunsborough Playing Fields should be maintained in its current location, as it is centrally located and provides a highly accessible community focal point for people, services, employment and leisure. 

·      Expansion of retail floorspace is not supported or informed by a retail needs assessment to provide justification for any expansion. 

·      There is no integrated land use/transport strategy to guide the mixed use redevelopment of the DTC. Consolidating the DTC will prevent commercial land uses from spreading outside of the centre's core and in doing so ensure the primacy of the DTC within the City's activity centre hierarchy is maintained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Recommend a Shop/Retail floorspace cap of 300m2 on any future local centre within Dunsborough Lakes to provide for the day-to-day convenience shopping needs of the local community, but which still maintains the primacy of the DTC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Request the inclusion of the Rural Residential zoned lots abutting the western side of Dunsborough Lakes (Ridgeway Drive) be considered for future urban expansion and included in any investigations relating to the preparation of the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy for the following reasons –

·      These lots are currently zoned Rural Residential, approximately 3ha-4ha in size, relatively cleared and unconstrained.

·      The lots are in close proximity (approximately 1km-2km) to the DTC and will enhance the vitality and viability of the DTC retail area. 

·      The lots are not large enough to support viable agricultural production. 

·      The lots provide opportunities for housing variety and density, not already provided within Dunsborough. 

·      Further investigations are likely to demonstrate the land is free of environmental constraints and will provide opportunities to provide a consolidated and sustainable urban form. 

·      Enable the utilisation and upgrade of existing and limit the amount of new infrastructure required to support urban expansion.

 1. Noted.

 

 

2. No evidence or justification is provided in support of this statement.

 

3. Not supported. The draft strategy suggests the possible consideration of the Town Centre footprint growing to the southern side of Caves Road into the Dunsborough Playing Fields site. This would be need to be subject to, amongst other things, the identification and development of replacement playing fields, the treatment of Caves Road itself to enable safe pedestrian movement and traffic circulation, and justification through retail needs assessment.

There are no proposals to rezone land within the town centre to accommodate significant new shop retail and commercial floorspace (i.e. another supermarket) and the rezoning of the Clarke Street land as part of Omnibus 1 to Local Planning Scheme 21 provides only limited opportunities for assembly of the kind of sites that could accommodate major, new retail and commercial developments that would be needed to provide local access to services and employment for a projected population of 15,000+ and shop retail floorspace of 20,000sqm.

A retail sustainability assessment prepared by an economics consultancy that the submitter has partnered with regularly completed in 2012 found that an additional 16,000sqm of shop retail floorspace could be sustained in Dunsborough Lakes by 2031. What is clear is that Dunsborough will be able to sustain an increase in shop retail and commercial floorspace and to accommodate that, town centre redevelopment and/or physical expansion of the town centre footprint and/or the development of a secondary centre (i.e. investigated as part of the planning for ‘Dunsborough South 14’) will be required. The case for physical expansion of the Dunsborough Town centre footprint is much stronger than in the case for Busselton – and so this submission appears inconsistent with another submission lodged by the same firm.

The resolution of the Council in relation to final approval of Omnibus Amendment 1 to Local Planning Scheme 21 included reference to the preparation and/or review of a broad-based urban design policy for the Busselton City Centre and Dunsborough Town Centre which would give consideration to, amongst other matters, integrated land use/traffic/pedestrian strategies.

4. Not supported. No explanation or justification is provided on how this shop retail floorspace figure has been derived for Dunsborough Lakes. Whilst the current planning framework for Dunsborough Lakes provides for the consideration of a ‘local convenience centre’, the scale of commercial/shop retail development will be determined via structure planning and retail needs assessment.

5. Supported. See comments for submission 17.

That the submission is partially supported (point 5) but points 2, 3 and 4 are not supported.

35

Roberts Day on behalf of the Perron Group & Stawell P/L

424 Murray Street

Perth WA 6000

Lots 9542 & 9545 Napoleon Promenade, Vasse and Lots 9001, S19 & S20 Bussell Highway, Abbey.

The submission requests the identification of these lots for future development and is accompanied by five supporting technical assessments: environmental assessment; drainage, water quality and nutrient management; traffic and access; and servicing considerations. The following modifications to the draft LPS are requested -

1. Extend the ‘settlement boundary’ north of Vasse to include Lots 9545 & 9542 Napoleon Promenade and Lot 9001 Bussell Highway and their identification as Medium Term Urban Growth Area ‘Vasse North’ on the draft LPS Map and Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework for the following reasons –

·      Consolidate the Vasse Settlement footprint.

·      Close proximity to the village centre and a range of retail, services and amenities.

·      Leverage existing investment in utility and community infrastructure.

·      Successful and well-funded developer contribution plan in place.

·      Land owned by same developer.

·      Advanced planning for Vasse means that planning for the Vasse North medium growth area could commence immediately.

·      Land should be zoned to reflect its development potential.

·      Lots S19 & S20 could be reserved and added to the Locke Nature Reserve and define the limit to further urban development and maintain separation of settlements.

·      Land is constrained for productive agricultural use.

·      Improve wetland values by improving the quality of water entering Buayanyup Drain.

·      No constraints to development from environmental, drainage, traffic or servicing perspectives.

·     

2. Increase the retail floorspace allocation for the Vasse Neighbourhood Centre on Table 3: Activity Centres Framework to 8,500sqm NLA for the following reasons –

·      A Market Analysis prepared by Urbis (2014) concludes that the Vasse Village Centre has potential at capacity for a core retail centre of 6,000sqm, plus 2,500 sqm of specialty shops. This analysis is based on resident population of 12,000 (primary and secondary residential catchments) and additional workers and students employed in the town centre and in the Vasse LIA.

·      The Urbis Report anticipates population growth within the primary and secondary retail catchments of Vasse of 9,500 people (2021), 11,500 people (2026) and 12,000 people at capacity.

·      Whilst the Urbis Report uses a slightly higher population growth rate than the Draft LPS (i.e. for the period 2026+ a figure of 2.6% pa compared to 2.4% pa) the growth conclusions are not substantially affected, and support the conclusion that the Vasse Village Centre will need to accommodate further retail capacity.

·      This analysis does not consider additional population if Parcels 1 and 2 (or in fact, other landholdings identified for future development in the Draft LSP such as ‘Vasse East’) are made available for residential development, which would contribute to further retail demand.

·      The predicted population growth falls within the time horizon of the Draft LPS and is a relevant basis for amendment of the Activity Centre Framework target for Vasse.

 

3. Remove the ‘Planned/Potential Strategic Local Road Access’ identified through the future Armstrong residential village for the following reasons –

 

·      Concerned it will direct district traffic from the planned future BOB via a major district road through a residential village.

·      Current planning for the future Armstrong residential village proposes the re-alignment and downgrading of Bussell Hwy to local road status consistent with the objectives of the Vasse DGP whereas the draft LPS presupposes a continuation of its current role.

·      The anticipated volume of external traffic that will utilise the proposed route will likely require the upgrading of the two bridges over the Buayanyup Drain (at Florence/Rendezvous Road and Bussell Highway) and that cost will fall to the developer.

·      District traffic travelling north from the BOB on the extension of Kaloorup Road should instead continue along the current alignment of Kaloorup Road, and the road upgraded as required to accommodate additional traffic.

·      Consideration could be given to extending Rendezvous Road along the southern boundary of the Vasse Estate, connecting to the Busselton Bypass at the southwestern corner of the Vasse estate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Not supported. The expansion of the Vasse footprint north of the Vasse Bypass is not contemplated by State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge. If this land had been contemplated for inclusion as part of Vasse the alignment of the Vasse Bypass would have been planned further northwards, to avoid significant road severance issues that would result. Potentially, however, part of the land could be considered for the location of institutional uses, such as such as medical or educational uses, with a District-wide or regional catchment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Not supported. An increase in shop retail floorspace cap to 8,500m2 is not contemplated by State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge and would result in an activity centre significantly larger than the ’neighbourhood centre’ classification in SPP6.1 and the retail cap established by the endorsed structure plan. Such a significant increase in shop retail floorspace would undermine/delay the delivery of discount department store & additional supermarket development within the Busselton City Centre, the Dunsborough Town Centre and the future Ambergate North district centre.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

`

3. Not supported. The submission assumes that Kaloorup Road will carry regional and district traffic to and from the BOB but this is not the case. The BOB is planned as an overpass at Kaloorup Road, with no opportunity for exit or entry. Hence the extension of Rendezvous Road depicted as ‘Planned/Potential Strategic Local Road’.

Conceptual design drawings for the future Armstrong Village (bound by the Buayanup Drain, Bussell Highway and Florence Road) include several options for strategic north/south road connectivity (as alternatives to Kaloorup Road which will not be capable of accommodating any significant increase in future traffic generation) to Florence Road/Rendezvous Road and potentially to ‘Vasse South’ (included as a recommended modification to the advertised version of the draft Strategy and reflective of the version of the draft Strategy adopted by the Council in 2013).

 

 

That the submission is not supported.

36

Board of the Vasse Primary School

Kaloorup Road, Vasse WA 6280

1. Safety aspects affecting traffic flow on Kaloorup Road passing the Vasse Primary School - request that Kaloorup Road at the intersection with the presently named Bussell Highway; in front of the primary school, the Vasse Hall, the Vasse Tennis courts and the Newtown Oval, become a one way street. Kaloorup Road to carry one way traffic for about 100m until it reaches the roundabout at Heritage Drive. Our reason for this request is that student numbers have grown exponentially over the past 4 years and traffic is constant with a large primary school.

 

 

2. No access to Kaloorup Road from the Busselton Outer Bypass (BOB) - supported as this will reduce potential traffic past the school site.

3. The intersection of Kaloorup Road and Rendezvous Road to encourage traffic away from the primary school - traffic travelling north up Kaloorup Road from Jindong etc. should be encouraged to turn left, westwards along Rendezvous Road (presently Florence Road) or right eastwards along Rendezvous Road towards Busselton.

4.  Rendezvous Road as a major carrier of internal Vasse traffic - endorse Rendezvous Road carrying all traffic off present and future subdivisions south of the wetlands of the old Buayanyup River system.

1. Detailed matters that are more appropriately dealt with via ongoing updates of the Vasse Structure Plan and detailed planning for the future Armstrong Village (refer to comments in response to submission 35). The draft LPS identifies a Planned/Potential Strategic Local Road linking Rendezvous Road to Bussell Highway (which could potentially divert non-school traffic away from the northern section of Kaloorup Road and the primary school).

2. The BOB is planned as an overpass at Kaloorup Road with no opportunity for exit or entry.

3. Noted and see comments for submission 35.

 

 

 

 

4. Noted.

That the submission is noted.

37

Halsall & Assoc – Andrew Blee

The draft LPS should identify the Vasse town site as a ‘Local Centre’ and establish a maximum shop retail floorspace allocation of 1,500m2.

Not supported. The Vasse town site structure plan caps the shop retail floorspace allocation at 1,150sqm. No justification or compelling rationale is provided in the submission to support an increase in the allocation to 1,500m2.

At its meeting of 27 May 2015 the Council adopted for final approval a structure plan for the Vasse town site that established a shop retail floor space cap of 1,150m2 and did not support a submission received in response to advertising the draft proposal seeking an increase in the shop retail floorspace to 1,300m2.

 

That the submission is not supported.

38

Planning Solutions on behalf of Masonic Care WA

PO Box 8701

Perth WA 6000

Lots S29 & S30 William Drive, Broadwater

1. Support the draft LPS insofar as it recognises the need to facilitate a mix of housing types and lot sizes to provide for housing choice, diversity and ageing in place. Recommend a greater emphasis on the need for aged persons accommodation be incorporated into the draft LPS.  Generally support the draft LPS as it encourages the expansion and improvement of community facilities to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly diverse population. The draft LPS recognises the City must plan for and allow its population to age in place.

2. Request the subject site identified for future aged persons’ accommodation, along with other appropriate sites and areas within the City.

 

3. Recommend the draft LPS provide further information and certainty in relation to the provision of aged persons’ accommodation within the City. Aged persons accommodation should be encouraged within the City through the introduction of measures such as development guidelines and incentives for this form of development.

 

 

1. Noted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Not supported. The submission requests the inclusion of information that is too detailed for a high level, strategic planning document.

3. Not supported. Local Planning Scheme 21 provides flexibility in terms of locating aged persons accommodation in the ‘Residential’ and ‘Agriculture’ zones. Additionally sites for retirement and aged persons’ accommodation have been identified on structure plans for Ambergate North and Dunsborough Lakes. The Residential Planning Codes of WA also provide for dependant and aged persons accommodation within residential areas and offer variations to standard requirements to encourage this form of development.

That the submission is not supported.

39

Halsall & Associates on behalf of M Craigie & E Gregory

PO Box 29

Margaret River WA 6285

Request that the draft LPS map be modified in relation to the boundary of Current Urban Growth Area 6 – South Broadwater to reflect the rezoning of 11ha of land forming part of ‘Nilgup Park’ to Conservation zone and the revised Broadwater Structure Plan.

 

 

Support. Scheme Amendment 13 to Local Planning Scheme 21 has been supported Minister for Planning for final approval along with corresponding changes to the Broadwater Structure Plan – Western Precinct.

 

That the submission is supported and the draft LPS map be modified by adjusting the boundary of Current Urban Growth Area 6 – South Broadwater to reflect Amendment No. 13 to Local Planning Scheme 21 and revised Broadwater Structure Plan – Western Precinct.

40

Halsall & Assoc on behalf of Jay and Rowley Hart

PO Box 29

Margaret River WA

6285

Numerous lots owned by the Hart family conceptually identified for hamlet development at Metricup by the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy. Submission does not support the identification of Metricup as a long term urban growth area and seeks to amend the draft LPS to allow for a short/medium term timeframe for development for the following reasons –

·      The Metricup Hamlet should be retained as an important part of the settlement planning for the Capes region and as an opportunity to provide lifestyle choice and service / showcase the Wilyabrup wine region.

·      The Hart land should be clearly identified by lot description as the preferred location for Hamlet development at Metricup, subject to more detailed planning being undertaken. This will provide further level of clarity required for the owners to proceed to the next stage of the planning process. This would support the fact that the plan appears to be specific in its allocation of the hamlet on the Hart's land. Further investigations would include a sustainability assessment and townsite strategy preparation.

·      The so - called "constraint" of mineral resource on the land should be removed on the grounds that developing any mineral resource is not economically viable (as documented in a feasibility report provided as part of this submission) and the potential environmental and adverse land use conflicts are unacceptable within the locality. 

·      The notation of "long term" should be removed from the relevant tables of the LPS and replaced with "short - medium" on the grounds that these terms more accurately reflect development intentions of the LNRSPP which has objectives set on a 30 year horizon and the LNRSPP has already been operating for 18 years. The progression of strategic planning for all but two small settlements within the LNRSPP shows that planning for Metricup is ready for implementation within the next 12 years and is therefore a short to medium term objective consistent with the LNRSPP. It is also an objective of the affected owners to progress planning for the land demonstrated by the detailed investigation of the mineralisation issue.

 

Not supported. Carbunup and Metricup are identified as medium and long term growth areas respectively because the draft LPS must have due regard to State Planning Policies, and in particular, the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy (LNRSPP). The LNRSPP settlement hierarchy identifies both Carbunup and Metricup as hamlets. In relation to settlement expansion at Carbunup and Metricup, the Council resolved (at its meeting on 10 February 2016), inter alia to recommend that the WAPC includes the reassessment and review of potential settlement expansion areas (as currently set out in Table 5 Settlement Hierarchy of State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge) for Carbunup River and Metricup as an integral part of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

That the submission is not supported and the following modification made to the draft LPS text –

 

Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework 

·      Key Issues column – ‘The appropriateness of settlement expansion at Metricup is to be considered via a comprehensive evaluation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy’s settlement hierarchy through the proposed Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy’. Should settlement expansion be appropriate consideration to be given to the following –

 

Exact location of settlement expansion subject of further detailed planning.

Servicing (water and effluent disposal).

Planning and development constrained currently by presence of mineral sands resources.

 

 

 

 

41

MPM Development Consultants on behalf of Fraloc P/L

PO Box 2035

Bunbury WA 6231

Lot 50 Eagle Bay Road Eagle Bay

Submission seeks the identification of this site as ‘Medium Term Urban Growth’ as opposed to its current proposed designation as ‘Rural Areas’ within the draft Strategy for the following reasons:

·      the land is situated within the existing Eagle Bay ‘locality’ and adjoins to the south of the existing Eagle Bay urban area. The land is also considered to lie within relatively close proximity to the other settlements of Dunsborough (approximately 8km) and Bunkers Bay (8.5km) together with the range of services and infrastructure available within each;

·      the property is predominantly cleared of vegetation;

·      the site is located within an area with low to no risk of actual and potential acid sulphate soils;

·      the proposed inclusion of the land as ‘Medium Term Urban Growth’ under the proposed Local Planning Strategy is considered to provide a logical “rounding off” of the Eagle Bay locality;

·      that due to existing topography and vegetation the land, together with any future development, is and would be well screened thereby minimising visual impacts;

·      the land is considered to be capable of being serviced with water, power and telecommunications. Waste disposal would be by way of appropriate ATU systems.

·      the subject land is not considered ‘prime’ agricultural land;

·      the subject land is not considered to comprise a viable rural holding.

·      the subject land is considered capable of providing for additional lifestyle and housing choice within Eagle Bay;

·      the lands’ predominantly cleared nature and gentle topography;

·      the limitations to expansion opportunities at Eagle Bay in alternative directions;

·      the dated nature of almost all strategic planning documents relevant to the subject land including but not limited to the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Planning Policy No 6.1 (September 1998) and the Busselton Urban Growth Strategy (June 2006). These documents typically provide the Regional and District level context for preparation of a Local Planning Strategy and the lack of any review and updating of these has provided for limited consideration of such opportunities for logical townsite/settlement expansion opportunities;

·      the use of the land for rural pursuits commensurate with its current ‘Agriculture’ zoning under the City of Busselton Town Planning Scheme No 21 as well as its designation under the Draft Local Planning Strategy as ‘Rural Areas’, ignores the land’s poor potential for alternative rural uses. This limited rural land use potential relates primarily to the limited size of Lot 50, the prevailing soil conditions and the lack of a reliable water supply for irrigation purposes; and,

·      the subject land is capable of being subdivided into a range of lot sizes to achieve an attractive, functional layout.

 

Not supported.

The current planning framework (i.e. the endorsed Eagle Bay Structure Plan, draft Local Planning Strategy and the Land Use Strategy Plan within the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy do not support or contemplate the subdivision of Lot 50, or the expansion of the Eagle Bay town site beyond currently identified boundaries.

 

 

That the submission is not supported.

 


Council

325

14 September 2016

11.1

Attachment f

Schedule of Modifications

 

 

No.

Advertised As

Recommended Modification(s)

Reason(s)

1.

Busselton Outer Bypass (BOB) connection with Bussell Highway south of Carbunup River illustrated as a ‘Planned Busselton Outer Bypass Interchange’ on draft LPS map.

 

Amend the draft LPS map by illustrating the connection between the BOB and Bussell Highway as ‘Planned Busselton Outer Bypass Interchange/Intersection’ south of Carbunup River.

Detailed design planning on the type of intersection has not been finalised.

2.

Carbunup River - ‘Medium Term Urban Growth Area 16’.

 

 

 

(i) Table 1: Settlement Framework – approximate maximum population/development potential – ‘500’

 

 

(ii) Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework –

·    Timeframe column -  ‘Medium Term’

·    Approximate Potential Population column -  ‘500’

·    Key Issues column – Exact location of settlement expansion subject of further detailed planning. Buffers to environmentally sensitive areas required. Servicing (water and effluent disposal)’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(iii) Table 3: Activity Centre Framework -

·    Approximate maximum potential size – ‘To be determined by more detailed planning processes and following retail sustainability analysis. Expansion may be as part of urban growth area, rather than as expansion of existing store.’

Amend the draft LPS map by designating Carbunup River as ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area 16’.

 

Amend the draft LPS text as follows -

 

(i) Table 1: Settlement Framework: Approximate maximum population/development potential -

“To be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy”

 

(ii) Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework 

·    Timeframe column – ‘Long Term’

·    Approximate Potential Population column – ‘To be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy’

·    Key Issues column – ‘The appropriateness of settlement expansion at Carbunup River is to be considered via a comprehensive evaluation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy’s settlement hierarchy through the proposed Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy’. Should settlement expansion be appropriate consideration to be given to the following –

 

Exact location of settlement expansion subject of further detailed planning.

Buffers to environmentally sensitive areas required. Servicing (water and effluent disposal).

Significant values of threatened flora, ecological communities and fauna habitat.’

Access to groundwater from domestic bores may not be supported due to the risks to existing licensed commercial operators.

 

(iii) Table 3: Activity Centre Framework –

·    Approximate maximum potential size – ‘To be determined by more detailed planning processes and following retail sustainability analysis. Expansion may be as part of long term urban growth area (to be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy), rather than as expansion of existing store.’

 

 

 

Responds to concerns raised in submissions received from the Department of Agriculture and Food WA, the Department of Parks & Wildlife and the Department of Water.

 

In considering settlement expansion at Carbunup River, the Council resolved (at its meeting on 10 February 2016), to recommend that the WAPC (inter alia):

1. Does not support the progression of the Carbunup River settlement expansion proposal to the scheme amendment and structure planning stages for the following reasons –

·    The proposal does not reflect contemporary planning and sustainability principles that support compact urban form with an emphasis on redevelopment and consolidation within, and expansion focused on, existing urban areas to best utilise infrastructure, services and community facilities.

·    The proposal is inconsistent with State Planning Policy 1: State Planning Framework and State Planning Policy 3 Urban Growth and Settlements as it would facilitate the development of a small, isolated and ‘off-grid’ settlement remote from existing infrastructure such as reticulated sewer and water services, community and commercial services, employment and schools, with very few services and facilities and with an almost total reliance on private cars for transport.

·    Population growth and land supply projections that underpin the City of Busselton Draft Local Planning Strategy demonstrate that there is sufficient zoned and structure planned urban land to accommodate projected growth for at least the next 15 years (without any substantiated need for a new settlement at Carbunup River).

·    Advertising of the proposal did not elicit a strong view or consensus from the local community that settlement expansion at Carbunup River is either warranted or supported.

·    Whilst a number of matters raised as grounds of objection/concern would need to be comprehensively addressed and resolved through subsequent rezoning and structure planning phases (should the current proposal be supported), a new settlement at the proposed location would place residents in an established agricultural area surrounded by, and in close proximity to, intensive agricultural operations and subject to chemical spray, fumigant drift, noise and dust. There would be a strong potential for land use conflicts. This would be inconsistent with State Planning Policy 1 State Planning Framework, State Planning Policy 2.5 Rural Land Use Planning, State Planning Policy 3 Urban Growth and Settlement and the South West Planning and Infrastructure Framework.

2. Includes the reassessment and review of potential settlement expansion areas (as currently set out in Table 5 Settlement Hierarchy of State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge) for Carbunup River and Metricup as an integral part of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.

 

3.

Theme 4: Environment and landscape

 

9.2(a) Protect and enhance the habitat of native fauna, native vegetation and wetlands as part of the planning and development of the District.

 

9.2(e) Support and implement initiatives to maintain and improve water quality in Geographe Bay, the Vasse-Wonnerup Estuary, Toby Inlet, Lower Vasse River, Vasse Diversion Drain and other waterways in the District.

 

9.2(f) Develop a comprehensive, long term approach to address issues related to coastal erosion and coastal flooding.

 

9.2(g) Ensure that new and existing urban areas and other development infrastructure are adequately protected from inland flooding risks.

 

 9.2(h) Ensure that management of bush fire risk is a central consideration in planning and development decisions and that it is undertaken at the same time as development of any landscape or vegetation management planning to avoid unintended consequences.

 

 

Amend the draft LPS text to read as follows –

 

9.2(a) Protect and enhance the habitat of native fauna, native vegetation, waterways and wetlands as part of the planning and development of the District.

 

9.2(e) Support and implement initiatives to maintain and improve water quality in Geographe Bay, the Vasse-Wonnerup Estuary, Toby Inlet, Lower Vasse River, Vasse Diversion Drain and other waterways and wetlands in the District.

 

9.2(f) Develop a comprehensive, long term approach to address issues related to coastal erosion, coastal flooding and inland flooding risk.’

 

9.2(g) Ensure that new and existing urban areas and other development infrastructure are adequately protected from inland and coastal flooding risks.

 

 

‘9.2(h) Ensure that management of bush fire risk is a central consideration in planning and development decisions and that it is undertaken at the same time as development of any landscape or vegetation management planning.

 

Amend Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework by adding: ‘Limited groundwater allocation for irrigation of public open space. in the key issues column for Vasse, Yalyellup, Port Geographe, Ambergate, Old Broadwater Farm, Bovell, Yalyalup East, Dunsborough Lakes and Cape Rise/Naturaliste Heights.

 

Amend Table 4: Industrial/Service Commercial Area Framework by adding: Water quality issues critical given proximity of Vasse and New River.’ in the key issues column for Strelly Street/Busselton LIA.

 

Minor text amendments recommended by the Department of Water.

4.

Ford Road forms the eastern boundary of the Busselton ‘urban consolidation’ area.

Amend the draft LPS Map by extending the eastern boundary of the Busselton ‘urban consolidation’ area to Guerin Street.

Mapping amendment in response to the Department of Housing submission.

5.

9.0   Theme 4: Environment and landscape

Amend the draft LPS text as follows –

 

‘9.0   Theme 4: Environment, landscape and heritage’

 

Add the following additional objective under section 9.1 Theme 4 objectives –

 

‘d) Preserve Aboriginal and European historical and cultural heritage.’

Minor text amendments in response to the State Heritage Office submission.

6.

Theme 1: Community and settlement

Theme 1 Objectives

 

c) The creation of compact, liveable and sustainable settlements that provide their residents with housing and lifestyle choice and affordability, a high quality of life and convenient access to high quality employment and services.

 

Amend the draft LPS text as follows –

Theme 1 Objectives

 

‘c) The creation of compact, liveable and sustainable settlements that provide their residents with housing and lifestyle choice and affordability, a high quality of life, health and wellbeing, and convenient access to high quality employment and services.’

Minor text amendment in response to the Department of Heath submission

7.

Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework – Key Issues column -

Bovell (9)

Water quality and foreshore issues due to proximity of Vasse River. Need to provide for east-west road linking existing Yalyalup and Ambergate North urban growth areas. Need to consider potential need/ opportunity for expansion of Bovell Park sporting facilities to the north and potential passenger rail station site and associated long-term opportunities for denser development. Very Important heritage assets in north-western part of this area (Cattlechosen). Consists of larger portion between Vasse River and Vasse Highway, and smaller portion between Vasse River and Chapman Hill Road.

Yalyalup East (11)

Land currently zoned Tourism, but consideration of alternatives supported by Local Tourism Planning Strategy. Visual management, airport noise and design of Busselton Outer Bypass are critical issues for more detailed planning.

Amend Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework by adding the following to the key issues column:

·    Bovell (9) – ‘Vasse-Wonnerup Ramsar wetlands.’

·    Yalyalup East (11) – ‘Yate Priority Ecological Community in proximity to the Sabina River and future Busselton Outer Bypass interchange area.

Text amendments recommended by the Department of Parks and Wildlife.

8.

‘Abbey South’ – not included in the advertised version of the draft LPS.

 

1. Amend Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework by inserting the following –

·    Settlement column – ‘Busselton-Vasse Urban Area’

·    Urban growth area column – ‘Abbey South’

·    Map ref. column – ‘18’

·    Timeframe column – ‘Medium term’

·    Approximate potential population column - ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.’ 

·    Key issues column – ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy. Other than Port Geographe, this is the last undeveloped coastal or near-coastal land with significant development potential In Busselton-Vasse Urban Area. Important this land accommodates housing choice and some non-residential land-uses.’

 

2. Amend the draft Strategy Map to include Abbey South as ‘Medium Growth Area 18’.

Identified as ‘Medium Term Urban Growth Area 10 (Abbey South) on the version of the draft LPS adopted for advertising by the Council on 25 September 2013.

 

Aligns with the decision of the Council (27 July 2012) to adopt Amendment 176 for final approval, the intent of which was to allow for further investigations to be undertaken to facilitate the development of the land for urban purposes.

 

Officers have considered two key questions in relation to the focus of the submissions concerning ‘Abbey South’ -

·    Is there a need to identify new urban growth areas in addition to those already identified in the draft Strategy?

·    If so, where is the best location for that to occur?

 

In terms of need, the land supply/dwelling yield projections that underpin the draft Strategy suggest that there is sufficient zoned and structure planned land to accommodate projected population growth, but that is dependent upon planned/proposed urban growth areas (such as Bovell) commencing development in the medium term. Should that not occur, supply will diminish, with choice and diversity in the market becoming more constrained.

 

In terms of location, officers are of the view that ‘Abbey South’ has considerable merit for identification for urban development for a number of reasons, including -

·    The area is the last undeveloped coastal or near-coastal land with significant development potential in the Busselton-Vasse Urban Area;

·    Further residential expansion to the west is constrained by land in public ownership (Locke Conservation Estate);

·    It will round off existing residential development/settlement consolidation;

·    There will not be any affect in terms of separateness of settlements;

·    The area is close to neighbourhood shopping, schools, community infrastructure, public transport and servicing infrastructure; and

·    No visual impact or significant environmental constraints.

Given that the WAPC, in granting consent to advertise the Strategy, required the exclusion of Abbey South 10 (largely due to inconsistency with the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy), it is recommended that the WAPC be requested to consider the identification of the land as a ‘Medium Term Urban Growth Area’ (consistent with the version of the draft Strategy adopted by the Council in September 2013) as part of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.

 

Supported for the reasons set out in submissions 10, 11 and 12 of the Schedule of Submissions.

 

9.

‘Ridgeway Drive precinct’ – not included in the advertised version of the draft LPS.

1. Amend Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework by inserting the following –

·    Settlement column – ‘Dunsborough Urban Area’

·    Urban growth area column – ‘Ridgeway’

·    Map ref. column – ‘19’

·    Timeframe column - ‘Medium Term’

·    Approximate potential population column – ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.’

·    Key issues column - ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy. Should urban development be appropriate consideration to be given to the following –

There are two public access ways linking Ridgeway Drive with Dunsborough Lakes Drive and structure planning would need to identify one or both to be constructed as a public road.

Visual/ landscape assessment and fire management.

 

2. Amend the draft Strategy Map to include ‘Ridgeway’ as ‘Medium Urban Growth Area 19’.

The Ridgeway Drive precinct was identified on the version of the draft Strategy adopted by the Council in 2013 as ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area 19’. The land was identified for a number of reasons, including –

·    Large lot sizes; 

·    Gentle topography and mostly cleared;

·    Close to the Dunsborough Town Centre, community and recreational facilities;

·    Close proximity to reticulated water and sewerage infrastructure;

·    Opportunity for pedestrian and vehicle connectivity to Dunsborough Lakes Drive; and

·    Logical extension to existing urban development.

 

Officers have considered two key questions in relation to the focus of the submissions relating to the Ridgeway Drive precinct -

·    Is there a need to identify new urban growth areas in addition to those already identified in the draft Strategy?

·    If so, where is the best location for that to occur?

 

In terms of need, the land supply/dwelling yield projections that underpin the draft Strategy indicate that there is insufficient zoned and structure planned land in Dunsborough to accommodate anticipated population growth. 

 

In terms of location, the Ridgeway Drive precinct is generally environmentally unconstrained, and in terms of settlement planning principles, represents a logical extension of urban development at Dunsborough Lakes (for the reasons as set out above). Other than generally in a south/south east direction from Dunsborough and immediately west of Dunsborough Lakes in the Ridgeway Drive precinct, the physical expansion of Dunsborough is highly constrained.

 

The WAPC did not support the retention of Ridgeway (19) in the advertised version of the draft Strategy due to inconsistency with State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge. It is recommended that the WAPC be requested to consider the Ridgeway Drive precinct for medium term urban growth through the preparation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.

 

Supported for the reasons set out in submissions 17, 18 and 34 of the Schedule of Submissions.

10.

Chapman Hill Road – ‘Industrial/Service Commercial Area 7’

 

1. Amend Table 4: Industrial/Service Commercial Area Framework in relation to Chapman Hill Road (1) by deleting the word ‘Automotive’ from the Commercial Area Type column and deleting the words ‘with particular emphasis on accommodating automotive-related development’ from the Key Issues column.

 

2. Amend the draft LPS map to include a portion of Lot 803 within Chapman Hill Road (1) consistent with proposed Scheme Amendment 21 to Local Planning Scheme 21.

 

 

The City is supportive of progressing proposed Scheme Amendment 21 that seeks to remove SP47, include the whole of Lot 11 within SP48, as well as extending the Special Purpose zoning and SP48 to include a portion of Lot 803 so as to align with the future entry road to Ambergate North (Current Urban Growth Area 7 on the draft LPS map) from Chapman Hill Road.

 

11.

South  Broadwater ‘Current Urban Growth Area 6’

Amend the draft LPS map by adjusting the boundary of Urban Growth Area 6 – South Broadwater to reflect Amendment No. 13 to Local Planning Scheme 21 and the revised Broadwater Structure Plan – Western Cell (Precinct 2)

 

Ministerial decision to approve Amendment 13 and revised Broadwater Structure Plan in accordance with the decision of the Council 24 February 2016.

12.

Metricup – ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area 17’ 

 

Amend the draft LPS text as follows -

 

(i) Table 1: Settlement Framework: Approximate maximum population/development potential -

“To be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy”

 

(ii) Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework 

·    Key Issues column – ‘The appropriateness of settlement expansion at Metricup is to be considered via a comprehensive evaluation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy’s settlement hierarchy through the proposed Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy’. Should settlement expansion be appropriate consideration to be given to the following –

 

Exact location of settlement expansion subject of further detailed planning.

Servicing (water and effluent disposal).

Planning and development constrained currently by presence of mineral sands resources.

 

In considering settlement expansion at Carbunup River, the Council resolved (at its meeting on 10 February 2016) to recommend that the WAPC (inter alia) includes the reassessment and review of potential settlement expansion areas (as currently set out in Table 5 - Settlement Hierarchy of State Planning Policy 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge) for Carbunup River and Metricup as an integral part of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.

 

13.

Vasse Bypass illustrated as a ‘Planned Regional Road’.

Modify the draft LPS Map by illustrating the Vasse Bypass as ‘Existing Regional Road’ reflecting the road’s constructed alignment around the Vasse Light Industrial Area.

The road has been constructed.

14.

Smiths Beach

 

Table 1: Settlement Framework

 

Approximate maximum population/development potential column – ‘As per endorsed DGP’

Amend the draft LPS text to read – ‘As per endorsed structure plan’.

Align with terminology required by the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

15.

‘Vasse South’ – not included in the advertised version of the draft Strategy.

Amend Table 2: Urban Growth Areas Framework by inserting the following –

·    Settlement – ‘Busselton- Vasse Urban Area’

·    Urban Growth Area column – ‘Vasse South’

·    Map Ref column – ‘20’

·    Timeframe - ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.’

·    Approximate potential population – To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.’

·    Key issues column - ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy. Should urban development be appropriate the upgrading/ expansion of services in Vasse may be required.’

 

2. Amend the draft Strategy Map to include ‘Vasse South’ as ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area 20’.

 

Identified as ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area 12’ on the version of the draft Strategy adopted by the Council on 25 September 2013.

Has considerable merit for identification for future urban development. The land is relatively unconstrained, would consolidate settlement around Vasse (commercial, retail, education and other community infrastructure, service infrastructure) and would not have road severance issues.

Strategically, the option of Vasse South becomes more significant for consideration of the extension of Vasse, particularly given that ‘Vasse East 11’ is already zoned ‘Rural Residential’ (structure planning to guide subdivision is yet to commence, however, officers have recently been made aware that the owner of the largest land parcel is potentially contemplating pursuing this). Notwithstanding the identification of this land in the draft Strategy for long term urban, there is no certainty that it will not be prejudiced by the current zoning.

16.

Lots 50 and 203 Bunker Bay Road and Location 683 Cape Naturaliste Road, Naturaliste (‘Farmbreak’ site) adjacent to the existing tourist resort at Bunker Bay – not included in Table 1 – Settlement Hierarchy in the advertised version of the draft Strategy.

 

 

Amend Table 1: Settlement Framework by inserting the following  –

·    Settlement type column – ‘Tourism Node’

·    Settlement column – ‘Bunker Bay’

·    Approximate current population column – ‘Minimal’

·    Approximate maximum population/ development potential column‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy. Should this be considered appropriate key consideration is to be given to –

Potential expansion into ‘Farmbreak’ site to be relatively low-key/small-scale expansion, but more than what is currently contemplated in LNRSPP;

Scale and nature of expansion to be subject of more detailed planning and visual/landscape planning issues;

Providing for both affordable, family oriented accommodation and upscale/high-end accommodation;

Improving public access to the beach;

o Unrestricted length of stay component considered as part of tourism development only.’

 

Identified in the version of the draft Strategy adopted by the Council on 25 September 2013 to enable further consideration of the potential for tourism accommodation development within Lots 50 and 203 Bunker Bay Road and Location 683 Cape Naturaliste Road, Naturaliste (‘Farmbreak’ site).

 

The strategic rationale for including the Bunker Bay tourism node was essentially that very high end accommodation needed to attract certain kinds of tourists will require iconic development in iconic sites, and there are very limited opportunities for that. The other key strategic issue was that development at ‘Farmbreak’ would facilitate improved access to Bunker Bay, which is important for the community and tourism. The plans for the expansion/upgrading of the Busselton-Margaret River Airport will also support tourism and provide the impetus for further investment in new tourism accommodation product.

 

Inclusion of the Bunker Bay tourism node in the Council adopted version of the draft Strategy highlighted the need for further, more detailed planning that might provide for development at the Farmbreak site, subject to the resolution of visual/landscape planning issues and a range of other relevant planning matters.

 

17.

‘Eastern Link’ – not included in the advertised version of the draft Strategy.

Amend the draft Strategy Map to include the ‘Eastern Link’ as a ‘Planned Potential Strategic Local Road’.

An outcome of the Busselton Traffic Study, endorsed by the Council.


Council

329

14 September 2016

11.1

Attachment g

Matters to be Considered in the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy

 

 

No.

Reference

Modification(s) to be Considered in Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy

1.

Settlement expansion at Carbunup River

Amend the draft LPS map by designating Carbunup River as ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area 16’.

 

Amend the draft LPS text as follows -

 

(i) Table 1: Settlement Framework: Approximate maximum population/development potential -

“To be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy”

 

(ii) Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework 

·    Timeframe column – ‘Long Term’

·    Approximate Potential Population column – ‘To be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy’

·    Key Issues column – ‘The appropriateness of settlement expansion at Carbunup River is to be considered via a comprehensive evaluation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy’s settlement hierarchy through the proposed Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy’. Should settlement expansion be appropriate consideration to be given to the following –

 

Exact location of settlement expansion subject of further detailed planning.

Buffers to environmentally sensitive areas required. Servicing (water and effluent disposal).

Significant values of threatened flora, ecological communities and fauna habitat.’

Access to groundwater from domestic bores may not be supported due to the risks to existing licensed commercial operators.

 

(iii) Table 3: Activity Centre Framework –

Approximate maximum potential size – ‘To be determined by more detailed planning processes and following retail sustainability analysis. Expansion may be as part of long term urban growth area (to be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy), rather than as expansion of existing store.’

 

2.

Settlement expansion at Metricup

Amend the draft LPS text as follows -

 

(i) Table 1: Settlement Framework: Approximate maximum population/development potential -

“To be investigated through the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy”

 

(ii) Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework 

·    Key Issues column – ‘The appropriateness of settlement expansion at Metricup is to be considered via a comprehensive evaluation of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy’s settlement hierarchy through the proposed Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy’. Should settlement expansion be appropriate consideration to be given to the following –

 

Exact location of settlement expansion subject of further detailed planning.

Servicing (water and effluent disposal).

Planning and development constrained currently by presence of mineral sands resources.

 

3.

Abbey South

Amend Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework by inserting the following –

·    Settlement column – ‘Busselton-Vasse Urban Area’

·    Urban growth area column – ‘Abbey South’

·    Map ref. column – ‘18’

·    Timeframe column – ‘Medium term’

·    Approximate potential population column - ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.’ 

·    Key issues column – ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy. Other than Port Geographe, this is the last undeveloped coastal or near-coastal land with significant development potential In Busselton-Vasse Urban Area. Important this land accommodates housing choice and some non-residential land-uses.’

 

2. Amend the draft Strategy Map to include Abbey South as ‘Medium Growth Area 18’.

 

4.

Ridgeway

1. Amend Table 2: Urban Growth Area Framework by inserting the following –

·    Settlement column – ‘Dunsborough Urban Area’

·    Urban growth area column – ‘Ridgeway’

·    Map ref. column – ‘19’

·    Timeframe column - ‘Medium Term’

·    Approximate potential population column – ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.’

·    Key issues column - ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy. Should urban development be appropriate consideration to be given to the following –

·    There are two public access ways linking Ridgeway Drive with Dunsborough Lakes Drive and structure planning would need to identify one or both to be constructed as a public road.

·    Visual/ landscape assessment and fire management.

 

2. Amend the draft Strategy Map to include ‘Ridgeway’ as ‘Medium Urban Growth Area 19’.

 

5.

Vasse South

Amend Table 2: Urban Growth Areas Framework by inserting the following –

·    Settlement – ‘Busselton- Vasse Urban Area’

·    Urban Growth Area column – ‘Vasse South’

·    Map Ref column – ‘20’

·    Timeframe - ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.’

·    Approximate potential population – To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.’

·    Key issues column - ‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy. Should urban development be appropriate the upgrading/ expansion of services in Vasse may be required.’

 

2. Amend the draft Strategy Map to include ‘Vasse South’ as ‘Long Term Urban Growth Area 20’.

 

6.

Lots 50 and 203 Bunker Bay Road and Location 683 Cape Naturaliste Road, Naturaliste (‘Farmbreak’ site) adjacent to the existing tourist resort at Bunker Bay.

 

Amend Table 1: Settlement Framework by inserting the following  –

·    Settlement type column – ‘Tourism Node’

·    Settlement column – ‘Bunker Bay’

·    Approximate current population column – ‘Minimal’

·    Approximate maximum population/ development potential column‘To be investigated via the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy. Should this be considered appropriate key consideration is to be given to –

Potential expansion into ‘Farmbreak’ site to be relatively low-key/small-scale expansion, but more than what is currently contemplated in LNRSPP;

Scale and nature of expansion to be subject of more detailed planning and visual/landscape planning issues;

Providing for both affordable, family oriented accommodation and upscale/high-end accommodation;

Improving public access to the beach; and

Unrestricted length of stay component considered as part of tourism development only.’

 

 


Council                                                                                      333                                                      14 September 2016

11.2           MEELUP REGIONAL PARK APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER

SUBJECT INDEX:

Environmental Managment Plans, Impact Studies and Reports

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Environmental Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Meelup Regional Park

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Environmental Services  - Greg Simpson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Meelup Regional Park Management Committee Terms of Reference  

  

PRÉCIS

 

This report recommends the appointment of a new member to fill a community member vacancy and two additional deputy members with the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee.  The report also recommends the amendment of the Committee’s terms of reference to increase the number of deputy Committee member appointments from the current two deputy members to four deputy members.

 

BACKGROUND

 

At its ordinary meeting in October 2015, the Council resolved (resolution C1510/296) to adopt revised governance arrangements and terms of reference for the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee (MRPMC). The revised terms of reference establish the membership of the Committee which includes six community members and two deputy community members to be appointed by the Council.  The MRPMC terms of reference are included with this report as Attachment A.

 

In March 2016, Council appointed Ms Tracee Pickersgill as a member of the MRPMC. Ms Pickersgill unfortunately has resigned from the position as Committee member.

 

The Committee’s terms of reference set out the criteria and selection process for filling community member vacancies as follows:

 

1. The Mayor, Presiding Member of the Committee and Chief Executive Officer or Chief Executive Officer’s nominee, shall meet to discuss and agree the aims/objectives in terms of skills, background or interests, or mix of skills, background and interests, of the person(s) that it would be most appropriate and desirable to include on the Committee at that time, and the agreed direction in that regard shall be reflected in the process associated with the attraction and assessment of potential community members;

 

2. City Officers shall arrange to publicly advertise community member vacancies, seeking expressions-of-interest from suitable members of the community;

 

3. Interested members of the community shall be required to submit an expression-of interest (1-2 pages long only) setting out what value they believe they would bring to the Committee and why they are interested in becoming a member;

 

4. The Mayor and the Presiding Member of the Committee shall meet again to assess the expression-of-interest that have been received, identify and agree the preferred candidates to fill one or more of the positions that are vacant at that time, (priority consideration will be given to existing members) following which City officers will present report to the Council reflecting the assessment of the Mayor and Presiding Member; and

5. If there are still vacant positions following the completion of the process set out above, the process will recommence.

 

Public advertising seeking expressions of interest from members of the community to fill the vacancy closed on 24 June 2016.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The Meelup Regional Park Management Committee is created pursuant to the Local Government Act 1995 (‘the Act’), by resolution of the Council pursuant to sections 5.8, 5.9(2)(c) and 17(1)(c) of the Act.

 

The membership and deputy membership of Committees of Council must be determined by the Council in accordance with Section 5.10 and 5.11A of the Local Government Act 1995. In this regard, an Absolute Majority decision of the Council is required to appoint a person as a member or deputy

member of a Committee.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The following is a list of key guiding documents, relevant to governance and operations of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee:

 

1. Meelup Regional Park Management Order;

2. Meelup Regional Park Management Plan;

3. City of Busselton Standing Orders Local Law;

4. City of Busselton Code of Conduct;

5. City of Busselton Community Strategic Plan;

6. City of Busselton Long Term Financial Plan;

7. City of Busselton Adopted Annual Budget; and

8. City of Busselton Local Laws, Determinations and Council Policies.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no financial implications relating to the appointment of community members to fill MRPMC vacancies. Public advertising expenditure for the purpose of seeking community submission to fill Committee vacancies is incorporated within the City’s Budget.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Nil

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter is considered relevant to Key Goal Area 6- Open and collaborative leadership and Strategic Objective 6.1 – A Council that engages broadly and proactively with its community. A Council that engages with its community through Committees with specific areas of interest that assist the Council to undertake its role.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

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

CONSULTATION

 

The Committee member vacancy was advertised in June 2016, in accordance with the Council adopted (resolution C1510/296) governance agreements and terms of reference, for the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee.

 

Nominations to fill the MRPMC member vacancy were received from Mr Tony Smurthwaite, Ms Arlene Maidment and Ms Lisa Archer.

 

Mr Tony Smurthwaite has experience in environmental geology, natural resource planning and land use planning and has a commitment to contribute to the sustainability of the natural resources of Meelup Regional Park.

 

Ms Arlene Maidment has a background in the services industry, is a current volunteer with the Meelup Regional Park and hopes to contribute ideas and values to help sustain the Meelup Regional Park.

 

Ms Lisa Archer has a background in landscape architecture and experience in visual landscape assessments and trail development including Cape to Cape walk trail upgrade.

 

The Mayor and Presiding Member of the MRPMC considered the expressions of interest that were received and recommend the appointment of Mr Tony Smurthwaite as a member on the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The terms of reference adopted by the Council in October 2015 for the MRPMC provide for the appointment of six community (voting) members and two deputy community (non-voting, unless voting members are not present) members as appointed by the Council.  The two deputy community members may be present at all Committee meetings as non-voting members, including when matters are being considered ‘behind closed doors’.

 

While there is only one MRPMC community member vacancy that needs to be filled, this report recommends that Council increase the number of deputy member appointments, which will result in an increase from two deputy members to four deputy members. Increasing the number of deputy members will increase the pool of future candidates and provide an opportunity for future Committee vacancies to be filled by deputy members that have previous involvement and experience with the Committee function.

 

This report also includes a recommendation for Ms Arlene Maidment and Ms Lisa Archer to be appointed as deputy members to the MRPMC.

 

CONCLUSION

 

In order to continue the valuable contribution to the City made by the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee, it is considered that the Committee should be returned to its full capacity

of members.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may choose to review the expressions of interests or re-advertise the positions. Council also decide not to increase the number of deputy members.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Any decision of the Council in relation to this matter would be effective immediately.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

 

1.    Adopts changes to the terms of reference for the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee to increase the number of deputy member appointments from two deputy members to four deputy members.

 

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

2.    Appoints the following persons as member and deputy members to the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee:                                                       

i.      Mr. Smurthwaite as a member of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee for a term ceasing on the day of the next ordinary Council election.

ii.     Ms Arlene Maidment and Ms Lisa Archer as deputy members of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee for a term ceasing on the day of the next ordinary Council election.

 


Council

337

14 September 2016

11.2

Attachment a

Meelup Regional Park Management Committee Terms of Reference

 


 


 


 

 


Council                                                                                      343                                                      14 September 2016

12.             Engineering and Works Services Report

12.1           PROPOSAL TO RENAME PARTS OF BUSSELL HIGHWAY AND VASSE-YALLINGUP SIDING ROAD IN VASSE

SUBJECT INDEX:

Naming (Nomenclature)

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Engineering and Facilities Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Land Matters

REPORTING OFFICER:

Land and Infrastructure Officer - Andrew Scott

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Map of Roads to be Renamed

Attachment b    Vasse Newtown Development Guide Plan

Attachment c    Road Naming Proposal Brochure

Attachment d   Suggested Road Names from Public Consultation

Attachment e    Suggest Road Names Based on Nyungar Language

Attachment f    'Petition' for 'Northerly'  

  

PRÉCIS

 

This report seeks the support of the Council to rename two sections of roads in Vasse:

 

·    an approximate 2km section of ‘Old’ Bussell Highway south of the Busselton Bypass and through the Vasse village; and

 

·    an approximate 1.5km section of Vasse-Yallingup Siding Road from ‘Old’ Bussell Highway to Commerce Road.

 

The proposal has ensued from the opening of the new section of highway around the Vasse development, proposed to be named Bussell Highway.

 

Referring to Attachment A, four names are proposed for the two sections of road to be renamed.

 

BACKGROUND

 

At a Council meeting held 11 May 2016, the Council considered a proposal to rename roads due to the impact of the a new highway being constructed around the Vasse development. At that meeting, the Council resolved (C1605/113):

 

That the Council:

 

1)    Endorses the name ‘Bussell Highway’ for the new section of highway constructed approximately 2.1km west of the Busselton Bypass / Bussell Highway roundabout in Vasse, then approximately 1.8km south to where the new highway meets Bussell Highway (south of Council 78 11 May 2016 the Vasse village), subject to the renaming of a section of Bussell Highway referred to in 2a) below.

 

2)    Invites public submissions, notifies affected persons and consults with the local Aboriginal community relating to the naming of the following roads for a period of not less than 21 days. Submissions are invited on ideas for potential names for the roads including Windelup, Trade and Education.

 

a)    The renaming of an approximate 2.4km section of Bussell Highway where the section of highway starts at the Busselton Bypass / Bussell Highway roundabout in Vasse, southwesterly through the Vasse village and terminates at a T-Junction with the new section of highway.

 

b)    The renaming of a section of Vasse-Yallingup Siding Road between Commerce Road and Lynwood Street.

 

c)    The renaming of a section of Vasse-Yallingup Siding Road between Lynwood Street and Bussell Highway.

 

d)    The renaming of an approximate 300m section of Bussell Highway south of Florence Road that is now a cul de sac.

 

The City advertised the proposal to rename sections of Bussell Highway (through the Vasse village), and Vasse-Yallingup Siding Road (from Commerce Road to Bussell Highway) and notified affected persons via letters and via email.

 

The City engaged an anthropologist to recommend a list of names based on Nyungar language.

 

This report considers the submissions received to the proposal and recommends that the roads are renamed.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

·    Land Administration Act 1997, sections 26 and 26A apply to the naming of roads.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

·    Landgate ‘Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia’ version 1, 2015, as endorsed by the Minister for Lands

·    Council Policy 237 ‘Naming of Parks, Gardens, Reserves, Memorials, Sports Grounds and Buildings

·    Vasse Newtown Overall Development Guide Plan, as endorsed by the City 2 July 2014 (Attachment B)

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Renaming the roads will require street name signs to be replaced. These costs should be covered under existing budget for City managed roads.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications