COB-RGB

 

 

 

 

 

Council Agenda

 

 

 

22 February 2017

 

 

 

 

 


ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

city@busselton.wa.gov.au

 

 


CITY OF BUSSELTON

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA – 22 February 2017

 

 

 

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, 22 February 2017, commencing at 5.30pm.

 

Your attendance is respectfully requested.

 

 

 

Mike Archer

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

10 February 2017


CITY OF BUSSELTON

Agenda FOR THE Council MEETING TO BE HELD ON 22 February 2017

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 8 February 2017. 5

10..... Planning and Development Services Report. 6

10.1        AMENDMENT 22 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME 21_ TO REZONE LOT 41 (182) GEOGRAPHE BAY ROAD QUINDALUP FROM 12.5 to R20 - APPROVAL. 6

10.2        CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION OF - 1. REZONING LOT 500 BUSSELL HWY, BROADWATER FROM 'TOURIST' TO 'RESIDENTIAL (R40)' AND 'RESERVE FOR RECREATION (HIGHWAY BUFFER RESERVE)' AND LOT 502 BUSSELL HIGHWAY, BROADWATER FROM 'TOURIST' AND 'RESERVE FOR RECREATION' TO 'RESIDENTIAL (R40)' AND 'RESERVE FOR RECREATION (HIGHWAY BUFFER RESERVE)'  2. SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENT TO CITY OF BUSSELTON LOCAL TOURISM PLANNING STRATEGY(2011). 26

11..... Engineering and Works Services Report. 47

12..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 47

13..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 47

14..... Chief Executive Officer's Report. 48

14.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 48

15..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 66

16..... Confidential Reports. 67

16.1        RECOMMENDED ACQUISITION BY CITY OF BUSSELTON OF PT LOT 10 COMMONAGE ROAD, DUNSBOROUGH LAKES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND USE AS A DISTRICT-LEVEL ACTIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA

17..... Questions from Members. 67

18..... Public Question Time. 67

19..... Next Meeting Date. 67

20..... Closure. 67

 


Council                                                                                      4                                                                22 February 2017

 

1.               Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors

2.               Attendance 

Apologies

Approved Leave of Absence

3.               Prayer

The Prayer will be delivered by Captain Jason Dannock of the Salvation Army.

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 8 February 2017

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 8 February 2017 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 


Council                                                                                      5                                                                22 February 2017

10.             Planning and Development Services Report

10.1           AMENDMENT 22 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME 21_ TO REZONE LOT 41 (182) GEOGRAPHE BAY ROAD QUINDALUP FROM 12.5 to R20 - APPROVAL

SUBJECT INDEX:

Town Planning Scheme Amendments

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Services and Policy

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Development Services and Policy

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Development Services and Policy - Anthony Rowe

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Lot 41 Site Plan

Attachment b    Summary of Submissions

Attachment c    Schedule of Modifications

Attachment d   Scheme Map Lot 41 Geographe Bay Road  

  

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is asked to consider, after consultation, a proposal to rezone Lot 41 (182) Geographe Bay Road, Quindalup from R12.5 to R20 for the purpose of accommodating four dwellings.

 

The draft amendment was approved by Council for advertising and was advertised from 12 October 2016 to 23 November 2016.

 

Pursuant to Regulation 50(3), Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Council must now pass a resolution to either: support the amendment; support the amendment with modifications; or not support the amendment.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Council is asked to consider approval of the proposal to rezone land at Lot 41 (182) Geographe Bay Road Quindalup, following its consideration of the submissions received.

 

The subject land is at Lot 41 (182) Geographe Bay Road, Quindalup and is 2,259 m2 in area.  The lot has been vacant since 2010 when a single dwelling was demolished to make way for two dwellings that did not proceed.  The land is mostly cleared of vegetation except for a stand of peppermint trees in the middle of the block that separates the land into two readily developable areas. 

 

The land is zoned ‘Residential’ in Scheme 21 and coded R.12.5, but it is also is located in the Quindalup Special Character Area.  The provision for the Quindalup Special Character Area (Schedule 4 and LPP) prevails where there is conflict with the R Code, which generally applies to residential land throughout Busselton.

 

The Quindalup Special Character Area policy sets the minimum lot size.  The current policy allows a minimum lot size of 800m2 and if the original lot exceeds 2,400m2 three or more dwellings may be developed at the R12.5 density of 800m2 per lot density.

 

The owner is proposing re-code the land to R20 (average lot size 450m2) to enable 4 dwellings to be accommodated.

 

The proposal is also to amend the Quindalup Special Character Area provision, at clause 1 (b) to read (addition proposed in bold) -

 

(b)   The local government may only approve the development of three or more grouped dwellings at a density not exceeding R12.5 on lots with a minimum area of 2,400m2, except for Lot 41 on Diagram 23175, House 182 Geographe Bay Road, Quindalup, where the development of a maximum of four dwellings may be approved.

 

The proposal also involves amending the Scheme map so that the R20 code applies to the lot.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The active statutes affecting this proposal include -

 

·    Planning and Development Act 2005;

·    Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and

·    City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21.

 

Planning and Development Act 2005

 

The Planning and Development Act 2005 (P&D Act) outlines the relevant considerations when preparing and amending local planning schemes. The relevant provisions of the Act have been taken into account in preparing and processing this amendment.

 

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

 

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which came into operational effect on 19 October 2015, identifies three different levels of amendments – basic, standard and complex. The resolution of the local government is to specify the level of the amendment and provide an explanation justifying this choice. This Amendment is deemed to be a ‘standard’ amendment.

 

City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21.

 

The City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 allocates the spatial arrangement of the area by the Scheme Map.  The Scheme text describes land uses, the residential densities (identified on the Map) by reference to the R–Codes or a development standard in certain areas, and it prescribes the development standards for works associated with land uses.

 

The Scheme establishes Special Character Areas which describe special controls that act in conjunction with the Scheme and the R-Codes. The Quindalup Special Character Area is identified in the Scheme (at Schedule 4).

 

The pertinent provision is cl.1b in Schedule 4 which provides:

 

 (b)         council will only permit the construction of grouped housing development of three or more dwellings at a density not exceeding R12.5 on lots with a minimum area of 2,400m2

 

The Scheme also provides at cl. 5.3 (Special Application of Residential Design Codes) some limited circumstances that enable lots to be created less than indicated by the R-Codes classification shown on the Scheme map. These provisions do not apply to the Special Character Areas such as Quindalup.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

·    State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes of Western Australia

·    State Planning Policy 2.6 - Coastal Management

·    City of Busselton Local Planning Strategy (Draft, advertised 2015)

·    City of Busselton Local Planning Policy 3 – Special Character Areas and Visual Management Policy

 

State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes of Western Australia

 

The Residential Design Codes (‘R-Codes’) address development standards as well as assigning density by prescribing the minimum and average lot sizes for the coded categories, ranging from R2 at the lowest through to R80 at the highest (note that there are denser codes, but the permissible density only increases for multiple dwellings – i.e. flats/apartments – but not for single houses or grouped dwellings – i.e. houses, villas, townhouses).

 

In areas coded R12.5 the R-Codes prescribe a minimum site area per dwelling of 700m2 and an average of 800m2. In areas coded R20 it prescribes a minimum site area per dwelling of 350m2 and an average of 450m2. The area taken by internal driveways servicing grouped dwellings are counted in the average of the site area, but not the minimum.

 

In the development of Lot 41 an internal driveway will be required.

 

State Planning Policy 2.6 - Coastal Management

 

The purpose of this Policy (SPP2.6) is to provide guidance for decision-making within the coastal zone including managing development and land use change. The policy in summary requires development to be setback 170m from the ‘horizontal shoreline datum’ if not within an ‘infill’ area.

 

The subject land, whilst in a coastal location and only around 120m from the HSD, is clearly infill development. The proposal is consistent with SPP 2.6.

 

City of Busselton Local Planning Strategy

 

The purpose of the (Draft) Local Planning Strategy (LPS) is to set out the long term form (25 years) of the City and guide progressive amendments to the City’s development control framework; within the next ten years. The LPS identifies the Busselton City Centre and the Dunsborough Town Centre as focal activity centres in the area. The town of Dunsborough is planned to have an ultimate population of 20,000 people, to be accommodated through both consolidation and expansion of its urban area.

 

The Local Planning Strategy identifies urban/residential consolidation at the Dunsborough Town Centre and for an area extending up to Elmore Road; which is specifically identified for Urban Consolidation (medium+ density). 

 

The area to the east of Elmore Road, including the subject land, is identified in the Local Planning Strategy to be retained as low density. The proposal is consistent with the LPS, as R20 retains low density development.

 

City of Busselton Local Planning Policy 3 – Special Character Areas and Visual Management - 3B Quindalup Special Character Area Provisions

 

The Quindalup Special Character Area extends from Caves Road to Geographe Bay Road from east of Elmore Road through to Toby Inlet.

 

The background provided in the policy explains its reason:

 

Increasing pressures for higher density residential and further tourist developments in recent years have prompted the City to act (1993) to preserve the highly valued character of the Quindalup Strip. Concerns with regard to the loss of special character have been particularly evident in the significant level of community reaction received to proposed re-zonings and subsequent developments within the Strip.

 

The subject land is in Precinct 2 within the Quindalup Special Character Area.

 

The description for Precinct 2 is an area “of a mixed blend of old and new housing styles”. In other words there is no homogeneous built form. 

 

The primary character elements therefore are the building setbacks and the street side vegetation. Accordingly, the development controls in Precinct 2 describe a building set back of 10m from the street front and other provisions describe maintaining a heavily vegetated street line.

 

An important development control in the context of this amendment proposal is cl 3.3.2(d) in the Quindalup Special Character Area -

 

(d)       A Residential Development Density of R12.5 will apply to all Group Housing developments involving three or more dwellings (i.e. minimum lot size of 2,100m²).

 

This Development Control suggests that when the policy originated, notwithstanding the ‘policy background’, a higher density in Sector 2 was envisaged to provide 3 dwellings from 2,100m2 instead of that now described in the Scheme - 3 dwellings from 2,400m2 (using present day R-Codes lot sizes at R12.5).  It is understood the Scheme was changed from 2,100m2 to 2,400m2 in response to community concern about the potential for too much redevelopment to occur.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no direct financial implications arising from the recommendations of this report.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Nil

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Officer recommendation is consistent with community objective 5.2 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013, which is: ‘Growth is managed sustainably and our environment is protected and enhanced as we develop’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the Officer Recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment identified ‘downside’ risks only, rather than ‘upside’ risks as well. No significant risks have been identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation was undertaken in accordance with clause 47 Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

The Amendment in a Standard Amendment and was advertised for 42 days between 12 October 2016 and 23 November 2016. 

Five agency submissions were received and three public submissions were received.

 

The Schedule of Submissions is attached at Attachment A.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

There is not a strong basis for either changing or retaining the current arrangement as it now applies to lot 41 (182) Geographe Bay Road Quindalup.

 

The arguments against change are that the Lot is not within the town centre or identified by the recently consulted Local Planning Strategy, which identified the area 200m east of the subject land for Urban Consolidation (medium+ density) and this area extends 1500m to Dunn Bay Road. 

 

The area identified Urban Consolidation (medium+ density) is large, providing considerable scope to increase the density of development in the town of Dunsborough over a 25 year time frame.  There is therefore no pressing need to look beyond the area that has been identified Urban Consolidation (medium+ density).

 

The principal argument in support of the proposal is that the area is intended for low density development.  The proposed Amendment will facilitate four lots with an average size of 500m2 and by contemporary standards 500m2 is a low density.  Provided the front setback is maintained consistent with the policy, it is arguable that lots at 500m2 can still maintain the purpose of a low density environment and therefore are consistent with the State Policy which advocates increasing density at centres – because this proposal is still low density.

 

The above matters were considered by Council at its meeting on 27 July 2016.  These matters are finely balanced and Council resolved to approve the Amendment for community consultation.

 

The City has now received submissions from the community, three of the five adjoining neighbours opposing the amendment on the following grounds.

1.    It is inconsistent with the low density intent of the current Scheme and Local Planning Policy for the Quindalup Special Character Area.  The location is not within the town centre.

2.    No change was proposed in the City’s recent Local Planning Strategy.

3.    The development will cause the loss of peppermint trees and Western Ringtail Possum (WRP) habitat.

4.    The increased intensity (4 dwellings instead of 2) and the internal traffic arrangement will detract from the amenity (noise) to a greater extent than the current policy.

5.    The increased intensity (4 dwellings instead of 2) will contribute to existing parking congestion on Geographe Bay Road.

6.    Existing setbacks should be retained.

In addition to the community concern, DPaW requested an extension of the consultation period to assess the property and as a consequence has requested the retention of the peppermint trees.  This request has now been heightened by the change of status for the Western Ringtail Possum to a critically endangered status. 

 

The other agency (4) comments are classed as procedural and do not affect the content of the proposed amendment.

 

The initial discussions regarding the lot were based upon the fact that two, two storey dwellings had been approved at the site, that four dwellings could be placed within the same arrangement without the additional dwellings being noticeable and thereby not adversely affecting the character of the locality.  The applicant subsequently changed this to four at ground and then sought approval for five dwellings.  This was on the basis that if the ‘R20’, as generally applies to residential land, was applied to lot 41 then the lot size could accommodate four dwellings and a fifth dwelling if using the area discount available for a single bedroom dwelling.  The City indicated it would not support five dwellings.

 

Mixed responses have also been provided by the applicant, first that they were willing to consider an arrangement consistent with the current policy, then additional design controls to protect the character to allow a more flexible arrangement, but finally rejecting any additional design controls.

 

The justification for the additional dwellings, considered as ‘finely balanced’, was not strong.  The proposal has now not been supported by the adjoining landowners, and the ‘fine balance’ has tipped against proceeding with the amendment. 

 

Significantly, and since Council’s consideration on 27 July 2016, the comments received by DPaW have placed an increased importance upon the retention of the peppermint trees located at the subject land.  Under the current Scheme and the Quindalup Special Character Area policy the trees would not be protected if a development for two dwellings was to proceed.  However, there is an opportunity through this amendment to introduce a control, to retain the peppermint trees, in return for supporting the two additional dwellings; to be a total of four dwellings at the site.  It is possible through design controls to satisfy the DPaW and the neighbour’s desire to retain the peppermint trees, and by also requiring space around the buildings, enhance the habitat for the Wester Ring Tail Possum and present a visually low density development consistent with the Quindalup Special Character Area policy.  

 

It is not uncommon to vary requirements in a Scheme, outside of an LPS, if there is a community benefit in doing so.  Compensation for biodiversity enhancement is often used.  If the Amendment can in fact preserve the trees and enhance the WRP habitat, above that which is provided by the current policy, it is reason to tip the ‘fine balance’ in favour of proceeding.

 

Aside from the above issue the land is physically suitable for its intended use, the amendment supports residential development in a residential zone, services are available and the proposal will have a negligible impact upon local traffic and on street carparking.  Other than the matter of local character, and now the retention of the peppermint trees, there are no issues impediments affecting the development of Lot 41 (182), Geographe Bay Road, Quindalup.

 

Possible way forward

 

As mentioned previously the land provides two distinct developable areas.  The lot is comparably deep.  It is dissected in the middle by a substantial stand of peppermint trees but there is a pathway (driveway width) that lies between them.  This is potentially advantageous as it also provides the opportunity to keep any increase in vehicle traffic away from the edges of the property; avoiding the potential for disturbance to neighbours which was an expressed concern.

 

Retaining the peppermint trees also has a number of advantages apart from retaining the WRP habitat.  It would also maintain a sense of low density and also create a site amenity.

 

On this basis it is suggested the amendment be modified to incorporate the following features:

 

·    The retention of the peppermint trees and additional planting locations;

·    Ensuring onsite traffic movement to avoid disturbance to neighbours; and

·    Specifying the dwellings to be arranged as two, two storey buildings to minimise the on-ground footprint, to maintain setbacks consistent with the locality and to enhance the space around buildings; to present as low density.

This has been put to the applicant but rejected; both the two building configuration and additional design considerations. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The justification for the Amendment, considering the LPS, was finely balanced. At consultation the amendment has not been supported by 3 of the adjacent properties, and DPaW request that that peppermint trees on the site be retained, would require additional controls.  The amendment in the form it was advertised is not recommended to proceed.

 

It is however, possible to address the neighbour concerns by careful design to achieve an outcome that maintains space around buildings to reinforce the presentation of low density that importantly can strengthen the retention of the existing peppermint trees and result in an enhanced habitat for the critically endangered Western Ringtail Possum. 

 

An amendment facilitating the additional dwellings as incentive for retaining the peppermint trees and enhancing the habitat for the critically endangered Western Ringtail Possum is supported, subject to design controls that maintain the low density character.

 

OPTIONS

 

1.    Recommend refusal;

2.    Recommend approval without change; or

3.    Recommend approval with further or different changes.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Pursuant to Regulation 50, the Council is required to submit its decision to the WAPC within 60 days from the close of submissions.  Given the DPaW requested an extension for its submission the Councils decision will be forwarded within 60 days of the last submission.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.    Pursuant to Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2005, adopts Amendment No. 22 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 for final approval, as modified in response to the submissions received.

i.      Recoding Lot 41, Geographe Bay Road, Quindalup (Certificate of Title 1226-295) from ‘R12.5’ to ‘R20’;

ii.     Amending the Scheme map accordingly; and

iii.    Replacing clause 1 (b) of Schedule 4 of the Scheme with the following –

(b)    The local government may only approve the development of three or more grouped dwellings at a density not exceeding R12.5 on lots with a minimum area of 2,400m2, except for Lot 41 on Diagram 23175, House 182 Geographe Bay Road, Quindalup (Certificate of Title 1226-295), where the development of a maximum of four dwellings may be approved.

2.    Pursuant to r.53 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, resolves to endorse the Schedule of Submissions at Attachment B prepared in response to the public consultation undertaken in relation to Amendment No. 22.

3.    Pursuant to r.50(3) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme ) Regulations 2015, resolves to support the modifications to Amendment No. 22 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 shown in the Schedule of Modifications at Attachment C, prepared to address issues raised in submissions received during public consultation.

4.    Pursuant to r.52 the City confirms the incorporation of environment conditions has not been required.

5.    Pursuant to r.53 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 resolves to forward Amendment No. 22 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a request for the approval of the Hon. Minister for Planning.

6.    Pursuant to r.56 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, should directions be given that modifications to Amendment No. 22 are required, those modifications being undertaken accordingly on behalf of the Council unless they are considered by Officers to be likely to significantly affect the purpose and intent of the draft Amendment, in which case the matter shall be formally referred back to the Council for assessment and determination.

 


Council

13

22 February 2017

10.1

Attachment a

Lot 41 Site Plan

 

Attachment A – Lot 41 Geographe Bay Road


Council

22

22 February 2017

10.1

Attachment b

Summary of Submissions

 

SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS     

AMENDMENT NO 22 - - FOR ADOPTION

ADVERTISED – 12 October 2016 -23 November 2016

No

Address

Nature of Submission

Comment

Recommendation

1

Environment Protection Authority

The EPA advises that that the proposed scheme is not required to be assessed under Part IV Division 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

The City is free to advertise the Amendment.

No change

2

 

Western Australian Planning Commission

Confirmed the amendment is a Standard amendment and Council is required to undertake the procedures set out in clauses 47 to 53 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes Regulations 2015 (the Regulations).

Noted

No change

3

Department of Indigenous Affairs

There are no sites under the Aboriginal Heritage Act, 1972 (AHA) as currently mapped on the Register of Aboriginal Sites (the Register) within the Lot.

 

Notwithstanding, the applicant is advised to familiarize themselves with the State’s Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines (the Guidelines).

Noted

No change

4

Water Corporation

Confirmed that the property is provided with water and wastewater services by Water Corporation

Noted

No change

5

Western Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPAW)

Lot 41 contains vegetation, which is likely the habitat for the Wester Ringtail Possum (WRP).

 

WRP is a threatened species, major threats are habitat loss and Peppermint Trees as found on Lot 41 are potential habitat for WRP.

 

Any future development should incorporate the retention of the existing peppermint trees to retain a critical habitat.

 

It is also recommended that the proposed Scheme require for the Lot 41 development; a WRP survey be undertaken; a Wildlife Protection Management Plan prepared to the satisfaction of DPAW; and implemented to the satisfaction of DPAW.

 

DPAW identified that Lot 41 had been approved for subdivision into two lots, which has now lapsed. The arrangement retained the Peppermint Trees, in the absence of a detailed concept DPAW are requesting the WPMP be prepared to its satisfaction.

 

 

The site presents clusters of Peppermint Trees, and two relatively cleared areas.

 

It is possible to develop two sites with an access link and still avoid the removal of any trees.

 

Initial consideration of this development was 4 dwellings in two buildings.  But subsequently requested by the applicant to be 4 separate dwellings.  The City rejected consideration of 5 dwellings.

 

It was again put to the applicant to consider 4 dwellings in two buildings, but this was rejected.

 

The applicant was also given the opportunity to identify design controls but this was rejected in favour of the existing development control framework.

 

The existing framework will not guide an effective design out-come, and leaving a matter subject to agency satisfaction is too open (not valid).

 

A clear requirement that the trees are to be retained will force a design solution accordingly.  The retention of the trees has an added benefit of contributing to the neighbours’ amenity, and a sense of a low density environment.

Include an explicit control requiring the retention of the existing peppermint trees, as at 1 January 2017.

6

J M Humphreys

180 Geographe Bay Road

Summary - the proposal is inconsistent with the Quindalup Special Character Area – Local Planning Policy (QSCAP).

 

The Quindalup Special Character Area – Local Planning Policy at its Statement of Intent describes "The principle objective of this policy is to preserve the unique and special character of the Quindalup strip. The character essentially being a relaxed holiday atmosphere. This is attributed to its low density housing which is contained within a bush and sea side setting”

 

1.   Disputes the relevance of SPP3 in context of the subject land.  The SPP3 requirement for orderly planning, affordable housing, concentration on urban development in existing settlements with established infrastructure and services, reducing the spread of urban renewal with its inherent costs and inequities for those living in the outer suburbs applies is not relevant to Quindalup with its small, lightly populated, low density and relaxed holiday atmosphere.

 

SPP 3 and the greater density it advocates also creates greater parking and traffic problems in the absence of public transport.  Parking and traffic flow is already an issue in the summer holiday period with cars unable to park in the parking area opposite 186 Geographe Road spilling out onto both sides of the road and verges from 180 to 186 Geographe Bay Road and using the Property as a parking area.

 

2.   Disputes Recoding the Property for 4 dwellings reflects an orderly process.  It opens the door for future developments in the QSCAP to apply for the same privilege thereby changing the character, density and atmosphere of the area without having a formal review of the QSCAP and allowing all its residents the right and ability to comment and have input into any proposed changes.

 

Given the land is not identified in the LPS it renders its process as useless and the Zoning classification as meaningless if individual applications without a broader community comment and have input into any proposed changes. (As with a methodical process of the LPS?)

 

3.   Disputes the uniqueness of the lot size; many lots are this size with two dwellings, conceivable they could be demolished for four.  The minimum lot size was increased by the City from 2100 m2 in the 1996 QSCAP, to 2400m2 in 2010. Without any overall review of the QSCAP or logical reason the City is now proposing to reduce the minimum lot size to 2259 m2 and increase the density to R20.

 

Moving outside of the LPS creates the impression that it is ad hoc planning or that the future of the QSCAP has already been pre-determined.

 

4.   Disputes the sewer line was installed as a strategic intent for higher density.  The sewerage line was installed from Elmore Street by the previous owner and was installed for 2 dwellings intended to be built on the site. 

 

5.   Disputers the Western Power Green dome signifies development of an integrated grouped dwelling development.  The Western Power connection was connected to the original dwelling on the site, which was demolished in 2010, to make way for two houses.  They are also used in new subdivisions for single houses.

 

6.   Disputes the statement “As the large subject has been vacant for an extended period of time (presumably since creation) it never had opportunity to positively contribute to the built character of Quindalup." A dwelling demolished in 2010 to make way for two dwellings.  (The development did not proceed for unforeseen circumstances affecting the owner)

 

7.   Disputes the Wide verge which is common to all properties in the locality development likely to take a battle­ axe formation, there is significant opportunity to maintain a single residential appearance from the street.  Relatively speaking it will appear discordant with adjoining properties. All the blocks from Elmore Street have wide verges. The front of the development is likely to be dominated by the drive way required to service 4 dwellings on the site and put it at odds with the other dwellings in the area and the QSCAP.

 

8.   Disputes the statement “For the same reasons above, it is also a substantive "blank canvas" opportunity to comply to with the requirements of the 3B Quindalup Special Character Area Provisions and begin to reverse some of the poor building trends that appeared prior to 1996 when the policy came into effect."

 

No examples are given of poor building. Considers the comment is completely unsubstantiated. In addition there is no information provided on the type of dwellings to be built on the site.  Considers it likely is that the 10 mature Peppermint trees on the site will be demolished to enable the 4 dwellings to be constructed.  This is contrary to the tree preservation requirements set out in the QSCAP and will have a significant effect on the native wildlife.  A large battle- axe site with high density coverage will not add to the character or quality of the Quindalup strip.

Comments are noted and generally acknowledged.

 

The City considers the lot is in fact large (deeper) than most lots.

 

 

The City acknowledges that SPP3 is not addressed in its proper context or proportionate to the situation at Dunsborough that warrants supporting higher density at the site particularly when not identified for such in the recent LPS.

 

The City however considers the proposal for four lots to be consistent with the objective of maintaining low density, and that the space that surrounds buildings and the retention of vegetation can by design reinforce it is low density.

 

The City considers it is also possible by design to ensure future development does not affect neighbour amenity by on site vehicle movements or by sense of encroachment into setbacks any more that the current policy provides.

 

The City does not consider the current policy is an impediment to the development of the site, it is a desirable location and its development is simply a function of price.

Amendment to incorporate design detail addressing

 

The retention of the Peppi trees and additional planting locations

 

Onsite traffic movement to avoid disturbance to neighbours

 

Two storey development to minimise the on-ground footprint to maintain setbacks consistent with the locality and enhance the space around buildings, to present as low density.

7

J and G Murphy

184 Geographe Bay Road

Responding to points 1-14.

 

There are ten old growth peppermint trees all over 80 years old and four smaller re-growth peppermint trees providing an important habitat for a colony of ringtail possums and a variety of lizards.

 

1.      Disputes Lot 41 is extraordinary in size. Three Jots immediately east of Lot 41 are a similar size and the owners have kept their developments to two houses.  All other houses along the entire length of Geographe Bay Road including many much larger blocks have single residences with the exception of a handful two group residences.

 

2.      Disputes the sewer line was installed as a strategic intent for higher density.  The sewerage line was installed from Elmore Street by the previous owner and was installed for 2 dwellings intended to be built on the site. 

 

3.      Disputers the Western Power Green dome signifies development of an integrated grouped dwelling development.  The Western Power connection was connected to the original dwelling on the site which was demolished in 2010, to make way for two houses.  They are also used in new subdivisions for single houses.

 

4.      Disputes “many smaller lots to the east have been approved for two group dwellings at a density equivalent of R20.” There are examples of some larger blocks having two group dwellings but generally along the extent of "The Quindalup Strip" all development are single residences – there is nothing in excess of two dwellings.

 

5.      Disputes “there is a precedence in the western parts of the Quindalup locality serviced by reticulated sewerage to have densities of R15, R25 and R30, particularly those about Wilson Avenue and Spindrift Cove.

 

6.      Advises the subdivision at Wilson Avenue caused a high degree of controversy at the time and was the reason why the "Quindalup Special Character Area Provisions" were adopted to maintain the integrity of the strip.

 

7.      Disputes “the policy is almost 20 years old and has not been subject to any form of review” to imply it is no longer relevant.  Supports a review by council to reaffirm it is still relevant.

 

8.      Disputes the statement that housing at this western end of Geographe Bay Road, Quindalup has not cumulatively achieved what the special character area policy set out to achieve.

 

The QSCAP sets out to maintain the low density housing, increased setbacks, leafy green nature, and holiday atmosphere with a variety of styles in dwelling construction. This is being achieved.

 

9.      Disputes the vacancy of the land reflects a justification for re-coding.  It was demolished by the previous owner in 2010.

 

10.    Disputes the wide verge and lot width provides an exception for Lot 41. Ten blocks from Elmore to Lot 62 on Geographe Bay Road have the same wide verge as Lot 41. Lot 550 next door has a frontage of 38.2m compared with 28.5m for Lot 41.

 

11.    Disputes the statement “For the same reasons above, it is also a substantive "blank canvas" opportunity to comply to with the requirements of the 3B Quindalup Special Character Area Provisions and begin to reverse some of the poor building trends that appeared prior to 1996 when the policy came into effect."

 

12.    Disputes the recoding is consistent with SPP3 or the LPS (which does not change the density) – that advocates consolidation in town centres.

 

The Quindalup Strip is 3 - 8 km from Dunsborough's town centre and doesn't need the consolidation (actually 1.6km-5.6km).

 

Additional comments:

 

Parking is already a problem in the street during the summer months.  The additional intensity by recoding Lot 41 would exacerbate the problem.

 

4 houses on Lot 41 and driveways would mean bull dozing the old growth peppermint and the destruction of WRP habitat.  They have been active contributors to restoring WRP habitats as members of the Dunsborough Coast and Landcare Group.

Comments are noted and generally acknowledged.

 

The City considers the lot is in fact large (deeper) than most lots.

 

The City acknowledges that SPP3 is not addressed in its proper context or proportionate to the situation at Dunsborough that warrants supporting higher density at the site particularly when not identified for such in the recent LPS.

 

The City however considers the proposal for four lots to be consistent with the objective of maintaining low density, and that the space that surrounds the buildings, and the retention of vegetation, can by design reinforce it is low density.

 

The City considers it is also possible by design to ensure future development does not affect neighbour amenity by on site vehicle movements or by sense of encroachment into setbacks any more that the current policy provides.

 

The City considers that through careful design the Peppi trees can be retained and the value of the property for its contribution to WRC habitat enhanced as an offset for the additional dwelling.  Two additional dwellings is a reasonable offset for the space require to preserve and enhance the WRP habitat and the requirement for development to be two storey and adequately set back, which otherwise has a cost.

 

The City considers the proposal; because of the modest number of additional dwellings will have no noticeable effect on on-street carparking.  Off street parking is a design requirement and parking difficulty is due to the popularity of the locality to the general public.

 

 

Amendment to incorporate design detail addressing

 

The retention of the Peppi trees and additional planting locations

 

Onsite traffic movement to avoid disturbance to neighbours

 

Two storey development to minimise the on-ground footprint to maintain setbacks consistent with the locality and enhance the space around buildings, to present as low density.

8

B&E Fullarton

23 Wilson Avenue Quindalup

1.    The recoding to allow 4 dwellings instead of 2 on the lot is substantial.  It is not necessary or consistent with the area and lifestyle.

 

2.    During holiday season there is traffic congestion an parking problems that increasing the housing density will make worse.

 

3.    Requests that no development should be able to occur within 6m of the southern boundary (adjoining his property).  Enclosure of balconies within 3m as has been allowed elsewhere threatens privacy and harmonious living conditions.

 

 

 

The city considers the proposed lots are low density and that through careful design, space around the buildings and the retention of vegetation and enhanced planting the low density purpose of the existing policy can be retained.

 

The City considers that through careful design the Peppi trees can be retained and the value of the property, for its contribution to WRC habitat can be enhanced, as an offset for the additional dwellings. 

 

Two additional dwellings is a reasonable offset for the space require to preserve and enhance the WRP habitat and the requirement for development to be two storey and adequately set back, which otherwise has a cost.

 

The City considers the proposal; because of the modest number of additional dwellings will have no noticeable effect on on-street carparking.  Off street parking is a design requirement and parking difficulty is due to the popularity of the locality to the general public.

 

Amendment to incorporate design detail addressing

 

The retention of the Peppi trees and additional planting locations

 

Onsite traffic movement to avoid disturbance to neighbours

 

Two storey development to minimise the on-ground footprint to maintain setbacks consistent with the locality and enhance the space around buildings, to present as low density.

 


Council

23

22 February 2017

10.1

Attachment c

Schedule of Modifications

 

ATTACHMENT C:              APPLICATION: AMD21/0022:

 

SCHEDULE OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT

1.

The advertised amendment is modified by adding after the words “development of a maximum of four dwellings may be approved” the following

 

“subject to the following arrangement:

 

i.       The four dwellings to be arranged in two groups of two storey dwellings;

ii.      The internal vehicle access is positioned to avoid disturbance to neighbours and avoid harm to the central stand of Peppi Trees;

iii.     The central stand of Peppi trees is to be retained; and

iv.     The Front setback is 10m, the rear setback is no less than 6m, and open space as a percentage of the site is no less than 55%, and is to exclude any roofed area.”

 

 

This modification will augment the advertised amendment by adding design detail:

 

1.    Ensuring the retention of the Peppi trees and space for additional planting locations

 

2.    Ensuring onsite traffic movement to avoid disturbance to neighbours

 

3.    Utilising two storey buildings to minimise the on-ground footprint to maintain setbacks consistent with the locality and enhance the space around buildings in order to present low density.

 

 

 

 


Council

24

22 February 2017

10.1

Attachment d

Scheme Map Lot 41 Geographe Bay Road

 


Council                                                                                      31                                                             22 February 2017

10.2           CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION OF - 1. REZONING LOT 500 BUSSELL HWY, BROADWATER FROM 'TOURIST' TO 'RESIDENTIAL (R40)' AND 'RESERVE FOR RECREATION (HIGHWAY BUFFER RESERVE)' AND LOT 502 BUSSELL HIGHWAY, BROADWATER FROM 'TOURIST' AND 'RESERVE FOR RECREATION' TO 'RESIDENTIAL (R40)' AND 'RESERVE FOR RECREATION (HIGHWAY BUFFER RESERVE)'  2. SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENT TO CITY OF BUSSELTON LOCAL TOURISM PLANNING STRATEGY(2011)

SUBJECT INDEX:

Scheme Amendment and Amendment to City of Busselton Local Tourism Planning (2011) 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

REPORTING OFFICER:

Strategic Planner - Nick Edwards

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Location Plans (Aerials)

Attachment b    Local Planning Scheme Map (Existing and Proposed Zoning)

Attachment c    Proposed Special Provision 62

Attachment d   Broadwater Structure Plan  

  

PRÉCIS

 

Council is requested to consider initiating Amendment 20 to the Local Planning Scheme 21 (LPS21) which proposes rezoning;

 

·    Lot 500 Bussell Highway, Broadwater (Attachment A) from ‘Tourist’ zone to ‘Residential (R40)’ zone and  ‘Reserve for Recreation’ (Highway Buffer); and,

·    Lot 502 Bussell Highway, Broadwater from ‘Tourist’ Zone and ‘Reserve for Recreation’ to ‘Residential (R40)’ Zone, ‘Reserve for Recreation (Highway Buffer Reserve)’ and ‘Unzoned Land (Road Reserve)’ (Attachment B).

 

It is further proposed that these lots will be subject to a new Special Provision Area (#62) to be added to the Local Planning Scheme 21 (LPS21), at Schedule 3, requiring a Structure Plan to be prepared, and adopted by Council, prior to any future subdivision (Attachment C). Following discussion with the Department of Planning (DOP) it was agreed that the Special Provision, as proposed, would remove any prior requirement for the overall ‘Broadwater Structure Plan – Precinct 1’ (BSP) (Attachment D) being amended.

 

Lots 500 and 502 Bussell Highway, Broadwater (subject land) are identified as a non-strategic site in the ‘Local Tourism Planning Strategy 2011’ (LTPS). A site-specific amendment for the subject land within the LTPS is required in order to provide a rational planning basis for, and justification of, the Scheme amendment proposal. This site-specific amendment would not extend to any policy or site beyond the subject land within the LTPS and would be prepared and coordinated by the City to run concurrently with Amendment 20.

 

Officers recommend that Council initiates Amendment 20 (which will include reference to the site-specific amendment of the LTPS) for public consultation and referral to the EPA. Amendment 20 is considered to be a ‘standard’ amendment, consistent with Part 5 of the ‘Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015’ (The Regulations).

 

BACKGROUND

 

The subject land is approximately 2.18ha in area. Lot 500 is 0.20ha and located in the north east corner of the site and Lot 502 is 1.98ha. The subject land is located 5km west of the Busselton CBD and shares a boundary with Bussell Highway to the north, developed residential (R30 and R20) land to the west, ‘nature’ public open space (POS) to the south and developed residential (R20) land to the east.

 

The subject land was rezoned in 1986 from ‘General Farming’ to ‘Short Stay Residential and Recreation’ zone following a request from the (still current) landowner who intended to develop short stay cottages. At the time, Council supported this rezoning request partly to encourage active land use and development in the predominantly farming area of Broadwater.

 

Since the zone changed to ‘Short Stay Residential and Recreation’, several tourism initiatives have been proposed by the landowner, some of which were explored in depth by the City and included:

 

·    The provision of 12 Bavarian-styled cottages in 1986;

·    A caravan park in 2001;

·    A ‘Park Home Village’ in 2005; and

·    A caravan park in 2005.

 

When the LTPS was being drafted ahead of Council adoption in 2011, the subject land was identified as suitable for tourism development as a result of it being zoned ‘Tourist’. It was identified as “Non-strategic Tourism Site 42 - Lot 502 (394-398), Bussell Highway, Broadwater”. This classification identifies that the land is zoned for tourism but also allows capacity for an unrestricted length of stay component (subject to Council approval).

 

It should be noted that, although the LTPS does not specifically mention Lot 500, it does include the corresponding street number of ‘398’. As lots 500 and 502 form a regularly shaped land parcel when considered together, for the purposes of the site-specific LTPS amendment it may be assumed that Lot 500 was overlooked in the original table entry and the ‘Site 42’ designation within the LTPS includes both Lot 500 and 502 Bussell Hwy, Broadwater.

 

It is further noted that the current ‘Reserve for Recreation’ at the southern end of Lot 502 does not reflect the land classification (public open space) depicted in the BSP. This is a mapping anomaly that has been incorrectly maintained on Scheme Maps following adoption of the BSP. The current Amendment proposal would rectify this situation.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

·    Planning and Development Act 2005

·    Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The relevant plans and policies that directly affect the proposed Amendment are:

 

·    Local Tourism Planning Strategy 2011

·    Draft Local Planning Strategy 2016

·    Broadwater Structure Plan 2005

 

Local Tourism Planning Strategy

 

The LTPS was adopted by Council on 8 December 2010 and was noted by the WAPC in 2013. It provides a planning policy framework for decisions that affect the tourism industry in the City and recognises the importance of preserving, protecting and growing strategic tourism opportunities. The LTPS identifies the subject land as one of 19 non-strategic tourism sites.

 

As the LTPS is, in essence, a guiding policy document, it has been ‘noted’ but not formally endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). The DOP has agreed that a ‘site-specific’ amendment for the subject land within the LTPS may be conducted, rather than undertaking a wholesale review of the entire document. The relevant processes required by the City are to:

 

·    Advertise the proposed amendment to the LTPS in conjunction with Amendment 20;

·    Report on the proposed amendment to the LTPS, and any public submissions received, for the consideration of the Council; and,

·    If adopted by the Council, refer the ‘site-specific’ amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), with a request for their consideration.

 

Draft Local Planning Strategy 2016

 

The Draft Local Planning Strategy was adopted by Council on 14 September 2016 and recommends increasing residential development densities on sites close to Busselton City Centre as an identified theme for City growth. This proposal conforms to this objective through proposing urban consolidation through appropriate rezoning of unrequired and unsuitable ‘Tourist’ zoned land and introducing higher densities (e.g. R40) in existing urban areas.

 

Broadwater Structure Plan

 

Amendment 20 will not necessitate a prior review or modification of the BSP as the proposed land use changes are relatively minor and generally consistent with already existing residential development in the vicinity. In discussions with the DOP however, it was agreed that a Special Provision Area (Special Provision 62) be added to Schedule 3 of LPS21 as a requirement of the proposed Amendment. This Special Provision will necessitate a Structure Plan being prepared and approved  prior to any subsequent subdivision of the subject land. This requirement will allow land use to be determined once the landowner has decided whether to develop aged care facilities on the subject land, develop it as a residential estate, or a combination of both.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no significant financial implications arising from the recommendations of this report.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

There are no significant Long-term Financial Plan implications.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendations of this report are consistent with the Strategic Community Plan 2013, Community Objective 2.2 – “A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections.”

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

A risk assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendations has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. Given the implementation of the officer recommendations involves adopting the Amendment for advertising, there were no significant risks identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

There is no requirement under the Planning and Development Act 2005 to advertise a proposed Scheme amendment prior to it being initiated by Council and accordingly, no advertising has occurred to date.

 

Preliminary discussions with the DOP indicate that the Amendment proposal and site-specific amendment of the LTPS (to provide planning justification and context to the Scheme amendment) along with no prior requirement to modify the BSP, are supported by the Regulations. The DOP has indicated informal support for the current approach to this Amendment 20 proposal.

 

If the Council resolves to initiate Amendment 20, the related documentation will be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to consider the need for formal review under Part 4 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. If the EPA determines that formal review is unnecessary, it will be advertised for a period of 42 days in accordance with the Regulations and include referral to relevant state government agencies. In the event that the EPA determines that the proposal is to be formally reviewed, the City shall cause such review to be undertaken in accordance with s82 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The Replacement of Tourism-Zoned Land for Residential Use

 

Since the time that the subject land has been zoned for tourism purposes, attempts to develop a viable commercial tourism enterprise have been unsuccessful, generally due to the location, lack of attractive local tourism attributes and surrounding residential development. Due to the general lack of suitability for tourism uses and the fact that a related commercial enterprise has been unable to be successfully developed since 1986, alternate land uses should now be considered to allow integrated residential development at Broadwater to be facilitated. Rezoning the subject land for residential (R40) will be more compatible with the existing development pattern and continued growth of the Broadwater area than the prevailing status quo.

 

The original change of zone from ‘General Farming’ to ‘Tourist’ zone was a response to the landowner’s request and as a means to help stimulate growth and development within the Broadwater area. However, viable tourism opportunities on the subject land have proven elusive and have not been realised. This suggests that the subject land is not an appropriate site for this type of development, whereas residential development has continued to occur in the vicinity.

 

The subject land is not in close or direct proximity to features and attractions that would normally be sought by visitors on holiday. Aside from its suburban location, any potential guests at a tourist development there would have to cross the Bussell Highway and walk through Mandalay Resort to access the beach. This is less convenient than nearby established tourism resorts which have direct access to the beach and coastline, making the development of a competitive tourism facility on the subject land more complex and less desirable.

 

The subject land is not large enough to provide facilities that could realistically compete with some of the established tourism uses in the area that can provide a significant range of guest services. The nearby resorts provide these resources (e.g. pool, bouncing pillow, playgrounds) to enhance the natural attractions for their guests. The subject land does not have the space to provide these amenities and so will need to focus on a different section of the tourism market. While these types of smaller, ‘boutique’ tourism businesses can have a specific niche quality, typically they need to be located closer to the town centre or other attractions so guests can readily access activities off site, for example the Busselton Jetty.

 

The proposed ‘Residential (R40)’ zone and density for the subject land is considered appropriate for the site as it would help meet the City’s objectives in providing infill development closer to the City at a higher density. The dwellings that could be built on this site would use the general proximity to the beach and shops as selling points, despite being further away than many of the already established and larger-scale tourism resorts.

 

Local Tourism Planning Strategy

 

The proposed site-specific amendment of the LTPS will be focussed on removing the subject land from the list of non-strategic tourism sites without affecting any other site or policy within the document. This amendment would not create any undesirable precedent due to the particular background context and proven lack of any commercial opportunity to develop that site for tourism purposes over an extended period of time. Therefore, it is apparent that the ‘Tourist’ zone over the subject land remains in place for historic reasons rather than to satisfy or enable any valid strategic intent.

 

It is proposed that the LTPS amendment is processed concurrently with Amendment 20 despite it being a related, but separate, process. The LTPS review and proposed modification to remove the subject land (non-strategic site 42) will follow the Amendment process timeframes and be similarly advertised for 42 days. Only submissions that address the role, function and appropriateness of the subject land’s being listed in the LTPS will be considered and  no other comments that relate to any other aspect of the LTPS would be addressed.

 

Broadwater Structure Plan and Special Provision Area (#62)

 

Should Amendment 20 be initiated by Council, the zones over the subject land as depicted in the BSP will change, which could normally require a review of that overall structure plan. Advice provided by the DOP specifically states that, provided a Structure Plan that addresses future land use and development on the subject land is adopted prior to subdivision, then a prior review of the overall BSP will be unnecessary given the essentially minor nature of the rezoning proposal and the historical context of the site. The proposed Special Provision Area (#62) to be incorporated in Schedule 3 of LPS21 will address this requirement and states:

 

Prior to subdivision, a structure plan shall be approved pursuant to the Scheme.

 

Any Structure Plan for the subject land must provide for critical ‘neighbourhood’ design features, including the 20m buffer running parallel to the Bussell Highway and the required integrated road connections to the south. The Structure Plan must be approved prior to any proposed subdivision of the subject land.

 

The Bussell Highway buffer extends approximately 20m into the property adjacent to the road reserve. This buffer is recognised on the proposed Amendment Maps as ‘Reserve for Recreation’. There is currently one dwelling situated within this buffer area. Should the subject land be subdivided in the future, then this highway buffer must be ceded to the Crown at that time and the dwelling removed.

 

The POS directly south of the subject land was part of an original ‘parent’ lot and already previously ceded to the City following the adoption of the BSP.  The current ‘Reserve for Recreation’ across the southern portion of Lot 502 is actually, therefore, anomalous and does not accord with the BSP. No POS ‘legacy’ or contribution requirement is necessary as part of this rezoning amendment, and the current reserve zoning across the southern end of Lot 502 will, appropriately, be removed and replaced with ‘Residential (R40)’ and ‘Unzoned Land (Road Reserve)’ in Amendment 20.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Amendment seeks to replace the ‘Tourist’ zone over the subject land with a ‘Residential (R40)’ zone as it is a more appropriate use of the site. Following several attempts to development the land for tourism over the past 30 years, the subject land has proven to have had little tourism value or marketable development potential. Considering the location, the surrounding urban development patterns and limited size of the subject land, it is apparent that integrated residential land use and development would be a far more effective and practical outcome.

 

Amendment 20 will necessitate a site-specific review of the LTPS to remove ‘non-strategic site 42’ (the land subject to that Amendment) and justify its proposed conversion to residential. This amendment process for the LTPS will be run concurrently with the Scheme amendment.

 

The proposed Amendment represents a desirable rationalisation of current zoning and will promote the orderly growth and planning of the City of Busselton within the Broadwater area.

 

OPTIONS

 

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

 

1.            To decline the request to initiate Amendment 20 in its entirety (and provide a reason for such a decision). It should be noted that under the relevant legislation there is no right of appeal against a Council decision not to initiate an amendment.

 

2.            To seek further information before making a determination in relation to Amendment 20 (or the separate, but related, site-specific amendment to the LTPS.

 

3.            To initiate Amendment 20 subject to further modification(s) as described.

 

Officer assessment has not revealed any substantive issue or reasonable grounds that would support any of these options. 

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The implementation of the Officer Recommendation would include advising the applicant of the Council resolution and referring the proposal to the Environmental Protection Authority, which will occur within one month of the resolution (prior to advertising the Amendment in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations).

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

1.         That the Council:

 

a)         In pursuance of Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, adopts draft Amendment No. 20 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 for public consultation for the purpose of:

 

i.          Rezoning Lot 500 Bussell Highway, Broadwater from ‘Tourist’ zone to ‘Residential (R40)’ zone and  ‘Reserve for Recreation (Highway Buffer)’;

ii.         Rezoning Lot 502 Bussell Highway, Broadwater from ‘Tourist’ Zone and ‘Reserve for Recreation’ to ‘Residential (R40)’ Zone, ‘Reserve for Recreation (Highway Buffer Reserve)’ and ‘Unzoned Land (Road Reserve)’;

iii.        Introducing Special Provision Area # 62 to Schedule 3 of LPS21, to state:

Prior to subdivision, a structure plan shall be approved pursuant to the Scheme”; and

iv.        Amending the Scheme Maps accordingly.

 

b)        In accordance with regulation 35(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, specifies that it is the opinion of the Council that Amendment 20 is a ‘standard amendment’, given:

i.       It is an amendment relating to a zone or reserve that is consistent with the objectives identified in the scheme for that zone or reserve.

ii.      R.34 (b) does not apply as the WAPC has not yet endorsed the City’s Draft Local Planning Strategy.

iii.     It is an amendment that would have minimal impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment.

iv.     It is an amendment that does not result in significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the scheme area.

 

2.         In accordance with the interests of orderly and proper planning, the City is to prepare and advertise for public consultation a site-specific amendment of the Local Tourism Planning Strategy 2011 to provide justification in planning terms for the removal of Lots 500 and 502 Bussell Highway, Broadwater (being ‘non-strategic tourism site 42’) from that strategy document. Such an amendment to the LTPS is required, in turn, to justify the subsequent rezoning of the subject land through the Amendment 20 process.

 

3.         That, as Amendment 20 is consistent with Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, and Regulations made pursuant to that Act, upon preparation of the necessary documentation Amendment 20 be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Upon receipt of a response from the EPA stating that Amendment 20 is not required to be subject to a formal environmental review, it be advertised for public consultation for a period of 42 days.  In the event that the EPA determines that Amendment 20 is to be subject to formal environmental review, the City shall cause such review to be undertaken, in accordance with s.82 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

 


Council

33

22 February 2017

10.2

Attachment a

Location Plans (Aerials)

 


 


Council

34

22 February 2017

10.2

Attachment b

Local Planning Scheme Map (Existing and Proposed Zoning)

 


Council

35

22 February 2017

10.2

Attachment c

Proposed Special Provision 62

 


Council

36

22 February 2017

10.2

Attachment d

Broadwater Structure Plan

 



 


 


 


 


 



 


 

 


Council                                                                                      46                                                             22 February 2017

11.             Engineering and Works Services Report

Nil

12.             Community and Commercial Services Report

Nil

13.             Finance and Corporate Services Report

Nil


Council                                                                                      48                                                             22 February 2017

14.             Chief Executive Officer's Report

14.1           COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

SUBJECT INDEX:

Councillors' Information

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A Council that engages broadly and proactively with the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Governance Services  

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Executive Assistant to the Chief Executive Officer - Leigh Sly

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Planning Applications Received 1 January - 31 January 2017

Attachment b    Planning Applications Determined 1 January - 31 January 2017

Attachment c    State Administrative Tribunal Appeals as at 31 January 2017

Attachment d   Department of Lands Appreciation

Attachment e    Art in the Park Letter of Appreciation  

  

PRÉCIS

 

This report provides an overview of a range of information that is considered appropriate to be formally presented to the Council for its receipt and noting. The information is provided in order to ensure that each Councillor, and the Council, is being kept fully informed, while also acknowledging that these are matters that will also be of interest to the community.

 

INFORMATION BULLETIN

14.1.1    Planning and Development Statistics

Attachment A is a report detailing all Planning Applications received by the City between 1 January, 2017 and 31 January 2017.  53 formal applications were received during this period.

 

Attachment B is a report detailing all Planning Applications determined by the City between 1 January, 2017 and 31 January 2017.  A total of 77 applications (including subdivision referrals) were determined by the City during this period with 75 approved / supported and 2 refused / not supported.

 

Attachment A Planning Applications Received 1 November - 15 November 2017

Attachment B Planning Applications Determined 1 November - 15 November 2017

14.1.2    State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Appeals

Attachment C is a list showing the current status of State Administrative Tribunal Appeals involving the City of Busselton as at 31 January, 2017.

 

Attachment C State Administrative Appeals as at DD Month 2017

14.1.3    Department of Lands Appreciation

Correspondence has been received from Department of Lands and is available to view in Attachment D.

 14.1.4   Busselton Art Society – Letter of Appreciation

Correspondence has been received from Busselton Art Society is available to view in Attachment E.

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the items from the Councillors’ Information Bulletin be noted:

·    14.1.1              Planning and Development Statistics

·    14.1.2              State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Appeals

·    14.1.3              Department of Lands Appreciation

·    14.1.4              Busselton Art Society – Letter of Appreciation

 

 


Council

51

22 February 2017

14.1

Attachment a

Planning Applications Received 1 January - 31 January 2017

 


 


 


Council

58

22 February 2017

14.1

Attachment b

Planning Applications Determined 1 January - 31 January 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

61

22 February 2017

14.1

Attachment c

State Administrative Tribunal Appeals as at 31 January 2017

 

 (Note:  All applications (excluding WAPC matters) are managed by the legal services section of Finance and Corporate Services in conjunction with the responsible officer below.)

 

As at 18 January 2017

APPEAL (Name, No. and Shire File Reference)

PROPERTY

DATE
COMMENCED

DECISION APPEAL IS AGAINST

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

STAGE COMPLETED

NEXT ACTION AND DATE OF ACTION AS PER SAT ORDERS

DATE COMPLETED / CLOSED

CITY OF BUSSELTON APPEALS

 

Caves Caravan Park vs City of Busselton

 

Lot 5037 No 23 Yallingup Beach Road, Yallingup

 

 

 

March 2016

 

Appeal against Section 34(4) of the Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Act 1995 and Section 214(2) notice for illegal structures and camping

 

Moshe Philips / Tanya Gillett / Paul Needham

 

· Directions hearing to commence proceedings and discuss way forward.

· Mediation hearing on 29 April 2016.  The City prepared a report to Council in line with the Orders from SAT for the reconsideration of S.34 of the Caravan and Camping Grounds Act 1995.

· Directions hearing 10 August 2016 where the applicant under Section 34(4) was withdrawn;

· 7 September the City filed a Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions and Section 24 Bundle and on 3 October the City filed a response to the Issues, Facts and Contentions as submitted by the applicant;

· Mediation took place on 2 November 2016, where the appeal was stayed in order to give the applicant time to progress with a development application

· Directions Hearing on 17 February 2017

 

 

· Directions hearing on 17 February 2017.

 

 

Realview Holdings v City of Busselton

 

Lot 17 No 80 West Street, West Busselton

 

August 2016

 

Appeal against the refusal of a development application for a medical centre and shop.

 

Jo Wilson / Moshe Philips

 

· Directions Hearing on 30 September 2016 where it was decided that a Compulsory conference will take place on 31 October 2016;

· Hearing took place on 7 December 2016;

· The member has three months to reach a decision.

 

 

· Awaiting Final outcome.

 

 

Safe Haven Health Pty Ltd v City of Busselton

 

48 Roy Road, Metricup

 

September 2016

 

Appeal against the refusal of a development application for private hospital.

 

 

Paul Needham / Moshe Philips

 

· Directions Hearing on 11 November 2016 where it was agreed to adjourn until the land tenure issues have been resolved;

· Directions Hearing deferred at the request of the applicant. New Hearing set for 27 January, 2017.

· 27 January hearing also deferred at request of applicant, and new hearing set for 24 February 2017.

· Property is currently expected to be sold by administrators via auction, but auction date has not yet been confirmed.

 

 

· Directions Hearing on 24 February, 2017.

 

JOINT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL APPEALS

 

DCSC vs Southern JDAP

 

Lot 108 No 57 Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough

 

January 2016

 

Appeal against refusal of Development application for Service Station

 

State Solicitors Office / Anthony Rowe / Paul Needham

 

· Parties circulated documents categorising the land use within 14 days.

· Land use has been determined by SAT to be a convenience store;

· Mediation took place on 5 October 2016, where JDAP requested amended plans to be submitted for a revised elevation to Dunn Bay Road and a revised traffic assessment.

· Decision reconsidered by JDAP on 14 November 2016, where the application was refused.

· Final hearings held on 1 and 2 February, 2017.

 

 

· Awaiting Sat decision.

 

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION APPEALS

 

Caves 1676 Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission and City of Busselton

 

Lot 200 No 1676 Caves Road, Dunsborough

 

 

 

April 2016

 

Appeal against the refusal of a survey-strata subdivision

 

State Solicitors Office / Joanna Wilson / Moshe Philips

 

· Mediation Hearing on 27 April 2016 the issue of whether the development approval which has expired had substantially commenced was discussed.  The applicant submitted evidence that the works have substantially commenced and the City and SSO is to form a view if they agree.

· Mediation on 7 June 2016, an agreement on substantial commencement could not be reached; the SSO and Tribunal have suggested that the City submit an intervention application to become a party to the proceedings.

· Intervention application was submitted by the City.

· Directions hearing on 29 July 2016 it was decided that by 23 September 2016 parties must file agreed statement of facts; 7 October 2016 the parties exchange written submissions and 21 October 2016 exchange written submission in response to the other parties’ submission.

· Hearing was set for 30 November, 2016 but is deferred at the request of the applicant to a date after 16 February, 2017. At the time of writing, SAT is expected to agree and set a new date.

 

· Final hearing date to be set for after 16 February, 2017.

 

 

Formas v Western Australian Planning Commission

 

Lot 4082 No 3 Tilly Road, Yallingup

 

 

 

April 2016

 

Appeal against the refusal of a three lot subdivision

 

State Solicitors Office / Joanna Wilson

 

· Mediation on 27 April 2016 to discuss the issue that the existing dwellings on site have existing development approvals and the applicant is arguing that as they have a purple title the subdivision could be approved.

· The parties could not agree in Mediation and the application has requested the matter goes to a Hearing.

· Directions Hearing on 2 June to set dates for a Hearing.

· Directions hearing on 5 August 2016, the applicant requested an extension on the hearing dates in order to organise a Flora Survey and additional bushfire management plans.

· City’s expert witness statement submitted.

· Expert Witness conferral took place on 19 October 2016,

· Hearing took place on 31 October 2016 for a duration of three days.

· The Appeal was dismissed due to the extreme bushfire risk which cannot be appropriately managed, in particular due to the single evacuation route.  Further the Tribunal was unable to make appropriate findings in relation to conservation issues.

 

 

· Appeal was Dismissed

 

January 2017

 


Council

63

22 February 2017

14.1

Attachment d

Department of Lands Appreciation

 


 


Council

64

22 February 2017

14.1

Attachment e

Art in the Park Letter of Appreciation

 

 


Council                                                                                      65                                                             22 February 2017

15.             Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given

Nil  


Council                                                                                      66                                                             22 February 2017

16.             Confidential Reports  

The reports listed below are of a confidential nature, in accordance with section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995. These reports have been provided to Councillors, the Chief Executive Officer and Directors only.

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the meeting is closed to members of the public to discuss the following items which are confidential for the reasons as shown.

16.1           RECOMMENDED ACQUISITION BY CITY OF BUSSELTON OF PT LOT 10 COMMONAGE ROAD, DUNSBOROUGH LAKES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND USE AS A DISTRICT-LEVEL ACTIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA

This report contains information of a confidential nature in accordance with Section 5.23(2(e)(ii) of the Local Government Act 1995, as it contains information relating to a matter that if disclosed, would reveal information that has a commercial value to a person, where the information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government

 

17.             Questions from Members  

18.             Public Question Time

19.             Next Meeting Date

Wednesday, 8 March 2017

20.             Closure