COB-RGB

 

 

 

 

 

Council Agenda

 

 

 

27 June 2018

 

 

 

 

 


ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

city@busselton.wa.gov.au

 

 


CITY OF BUSSELTON

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA – 27 June 2018

 

 

 

TO:                  THE MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

 

 

NOTICE is given that a meeting of the Council will be held in the Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton on Wednesday, 27 June 2018, commencing at 5.30pm.

 

Your attendance is respectfully requested.

 

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer

Statements or decisions made at Council meetings or briefings should not be relied on (or acted upon) by an applicant or any other person or entity until subsequent written notification has been given by or received from the City of Busselton. Without derogating from the generality of the above, approval of planning applications and building permits and acceptance of tenders and quotations will only become effective once written notice to that effect has been given to relevant parties. The City of Busselton expressly disclaims any liability for any loss arising from any person or body relying on any statement or decision made during a Council meeting or briefing.

 

 

 

Mike Archer

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

15 June 2018


CITY OF BUSSELTON

Agenda FOR THE Council MEETING TO BE HELD ON 27 June 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... DECLARATION OF OPENING/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF VISITORS/DISCLAIMER. 5

2....... Attendance. 5

3....... Prayer. 5

4....... Application for Leave of Absence. 5

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

6....... ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER. 5

7....... Question Time For Public. 5

8....... Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes. 5

Previous Council Meetings. 5

8.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 13 June 2018. 5

9....... RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS. 6

9.1.... Petitions. 6

9.2.... Presentations. 6

9.3.... Deputations. 6

10..... QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION). 6

11..... Items brought forward for the convenience of those in the public gallery. 6

12..... Reports of Committee Meetings. 6

13..... Planning and Development Services Report. 7

13.1        APPLICATION FOR A RECREATION FACILITY AND PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING ROOMS - LOT 175 (HSE NO 53) PRINCE REGENT DRIVE WEST BUSSELTON.. 7

13.2        RE-VESTING AND MANAGEMENT ORDER RESERVE 31005, COMMONAGE ROAD, YALLINGUP SIDING.. 14

13.3        PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FUEL SALES AND CONVENIENCE RETAIL OUTLET ON LAND AT THE CORNER OF DUNN BAY ROAD AND CYRILLEAN WAY, DUNSBOROUGH - REPORT ADDRESSING COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF 9 MAY 2018. 26

14..... Engineering and Works Services Report. 40

14.1        CHIEFTAIN CRESCENT/CHESTER WAY INTERSECTION.. 40

15..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 51

15.1        PROPOSED DUNSBOROUGH FORESHORE CAFE/KIOSK (A CLASS RESERVE R22965): LEASE OF LAND TO MARGARET RIVER HOSPITALITY GROUP FOR THE PURPOSES OF A CAFÉ DEVELOPMENT. 51

16..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 74

17..... Chief Executive Officer's Report. 75

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 75

18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 89

19..... URGENT BUSINESS. 89

20..... Confidential Matters. 89

21..... Closure. 89

 


Council                                                                                      4                                                                        27 June 2018

 

1.               DECLARATION OF OPENING/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF VISITORS/DISCLAIMER

2.               Attendance 

Apologies

Approved Leave of Absence

3.               Prayer

4.               Application for Leave of Absence

5.               Disclosure Of Interests

6.               ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER

7.               Question Time For Public

Previous Questions Taken on Notice 

 

7.1             Mr Ian Stubbs

 

                   The following questions were asked of Council at the 13 June 2018 Ordinary Council Meeting and were taken on notice.

                                Question 1

                                Are you aware that the 2002 conditional approval of the Environmental Appeal                  Committee on Ford Road was binding on the Minister?

             Question 2

 

                   When the City was promoting the Eastern Link proposal, its website and all the                      printed material clearly showed the roundabout at the intersection of Peel Terrace                           and Brown Street was part of the project. I later heard that the roundabout was not                   part of the Eastern Link. When asked about this, the CEO confirmed it was not part of                       the Eastern Link. Obviously, the website and all the printed material was very                                  misleading. Two questions:

 

1.            Why was this roundabout clearly shown as part of the Eastern Link and why was it later removed?

                                                2.            Does the City plan to construct the roundabout at the intersection                                         of Peel Terrace and Brown Street? If so, when and how much will it                                          cost and how will it be funded?

                Question 3

                Can I just follow up, is the construction of this roundabout listed on next year’s   budget? 


 

                Question 4

 

                You mentioned the relocation of services, there has been a lot of activity in that area                       in the northern end of the Eastern Link. Has any of that work been the relocation of                       services for the Eastern Link? And can you advise how much this has cost the rate                              payers? If the services haven’t been relocated how much has been listed for this on                        next year’s budget? 

             Question 5

             Has the Council considered a left in-left out intersection at Strelly Street and the                duplicated Causeway Road, saving the enormous cost of a roundabout?

             Question 6

              Mr Mayor, can I ask why that intersection is a higher priority than any    other     demand for road works within the City? And are you aware that I’ve driven past that        intersection or used it every day for the last 28 years and I don’t think that I’ve seen              more than one vehicle waiting on Brown Street to enter Peel terrace?

Public Question Time For Public

8.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes 

Previous Council Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 13 June 2018

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 13 June 2018 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

9.               RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS

                   Petitions

                   Presentations

                   Deputations

10.             QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION)

11.             Items brought forward for the convenience of those in the public gallery

12.             Reports of Committee Meetings

Nil


Council                                                                                      13                                                                      27 June 2018

13.             Planning and Development Services Report

13.1           APPLICATION FOR A RECREATION FACILITY AND PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING ROOMS - LOT 175 (HSE NO 53) PRINCE REGENT DRIVE WEST BUSSELTON

SUBJECT INDEX:

Development/Planning Applications

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Planning strategies that foster the development of healthy neighbourhoods that meet our needs as we grow.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Services and Policy

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Statutory Planning

REPORTING OFFICER:

Statutory Planning Coordinator - Joanna Wilson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachments included under separate cover

  

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is asked to consider a development (planning) application seeking approval for a Recreation Facility and Professional Consulting Rooms (Gym and Physiotherapy) at 53 Prince Regent Drive, West Busselton.  The proposal is located within the ‘West Street Development’ along the boundary with the residential properties accessed from Seymour Street.

 

The proposal is placed before the Council due to the nature of the issues requiring consideration and the level of community interest.

 

As originally submitted the proposed building comprised of a parapet wall, five metres in height along the boundary with the adjoining residential properties.  Officers have been liaising with the applicant to achieve changes to the design of the building and the submission of an acoustic assessment, which also resulted in further design changes.

 

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

 

BACKGROUND

 

Lot 175 (Hse No 53) Prince Regent Drive is located within the ‘West Street Development’.  The lot is located on the western side of the development and is bound by properties mostly accessed from Seymour Street to the west, a vacant lot with approval for a Childcare Centre to the south, internal access road to the east and another lot yet to be developed to the northern boundary.  A location plan is provided in Attachment A.

 

The site is zoned “Restricted Business” under Local Planning Scheme No.21.  A Recreation Facility is a ‘D’ (i.e. discretionary) use and Professional Consulting Rooms is a ‘P’ (permitted) use in the Restricted Business zone.

 

The original development plans are provided at Attachment B

 

The development would comprise of a single storey building measuring 26m in width and 25.8m in length.  The building comprises of 645m2 in floor area, 195m2 for the Physiotherapy and 450m2 for the Gym.  The building would be sited between 1.5-2m to the western boundary and at its lowest point would be 3.5m raising up to 5.75m in height.  A bin store would be located between the building and the rear boundary; this would be enclosed and would not extend above the existing fence.  The amended development plans are provided in Attachment C.  

 

This unit has 6 car parking spaces in front of the building, however there are easements in place across the development for reciprocal parking for the entire car parking areas within the West Street Development. As such, parking supply and demand does not need to be addressed on a site by site basis.

 

An acoustic assessment has been submitted, which has resulted in some design changes both internal and external to the building as reflected in the amended plans.  A copy of the report is at Attachment D

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key elements of the statutory environment that relate to the proposal are set out in Local Planning Scheme No.21 (‘The Scheme’).

 

The site is zoned ‘Restricted Business’, the Objectives of the Restricted Business zone are:

 

“To make adequate provision for other commercial needs and opportunities not ideally located in the town centres of Busselton and Dunsborough whilst having regard to the strategic importance and need to maintain the commercial primacy of the town centres”.

 

The Policies of the Restricted Business Zone are:

 

(a)       To provide for development having relatively low traffic-generating characteristics, but not high turnover shops and offices that might more properly be located in the Business zone.

(b)       To provide for relatively low intensity commercial and retail uses with extensive floor space requirements which, by the nature of the activity conducted, require relatively direct and easy access to motor vehicle parking areas for loading purposes.

(c)       To provide for development which will not result in a detrimental impact on surrounding commercial centres or an overall adverse impact on commercial centres.

(d)       To restrict development which is likely to contribute to ribbon development, the spread of town centres, or otherwise detrimentally impact the efficiency of main or arterial roads.

 

In considering the application, the Council needs to consider the ‘Matters to be considered’ set out in clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, particularly relevant considerations in relation to this application are the following –

 

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

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

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

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

             (i)    environmental impacts of the development;

             (ii)   the character of the locality;

             (iii) social impacts of the development;                  

(p)       whether adequate provision has been made for the landscaping of the land to which the application relates and whether any trees or other vegetation on the land should be preserved;

 

 (x)      the impact of the development on the community as a whole notwithstanding the impact of the development on particular individuals;

(y)       any submissions received on the application;

(zb)     any other planning consideration the local government considers appropriate.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Land-use Concept Plan

 

The Land-use Concept Plan (LUCP) guides subdivision and development within the site. The relevant provisions that apply to this application are:

 

7          Development adjacent to residential zoned land shall be:

 

·        Restricted to single storey,

·        Incorporate measures to avoid light spill into the adjacent residential area, and

·        Provide service areas that are enclosed and located to minimise noise and disturbance to the adjacent residential area.

 

                         to ensure an appropriate level of amenity and privacy to residential properties.

 

8.         Building envelopes and car parks shall be constructed in the location as generally shown on the Land-use Concept Plan to maintain sightlines to buildings.

 

A copy of the LUCP is at Attachment E

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

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

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Nil.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendations in this report reflect Community Objective 2.1 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2017 – ‘Planning strategies that foster the development of healthy neighbourhoods that meet our needs as we grow’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

CONSULTATION

 

The proposal was referred to all landowners within the strata complex to the west of the proposed development site for a period of 21 days.  As a result of the advertising a letter from the Strata Manager and one further submission has been received, raising the following concerns/contentions:

 

·        Insufficient consultation on applications;

·        No regard to the LUCP, in particular the site was identified as Bulky Goods/Showroom and the proposal does not fit with the definition and furthermore a ‘X’ in the Scheme;

·        Detrimental impact on the adjoining properties from the height of the building and does not have an interface that is sensitive to residential development; and

·        The LUCP shows car parking to the rear of the building to act as a buffer zone, how can this be ignored?

 

A copy of the Schedule of Submissions is at Attachment F.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The main items which need to be considered as part of this proposal are the provisions of the LUCP, acoustic assessment and the amenity of neighbouring residents, and the scale of the building.

 

Acoustic Assessment and Amenity of Neighbouring Properties

 

There are two properties accessed from Seymour Street that would be adjacent to the proposed development. The neighbouring properties are orientated so that their garden areas are adjacent to the eastern boundary and their main habitable room windows are located on the eastern elevation of the dwellings, 4m from the rear boundary. 

 

The application was originally submitted without an acoustic assessment. Officers raised concerns that the proposed design/use could result in noise and disturbance to the closest noise sensitive premises, in particular from music.  The acoustic assessment that has been submitted has resulted in some design changes both internally and externally, including reducing the amount of glass on the northern elevation.  The acoustic assessment has been considered by the City’s Environmental Health Officers who are of the opinion that the report still lacks sufficient information in terms of the management of the building, in particular the extent to which music will be audible from the adjoining noise sensitive premises.

 

It is, however, considered that music can be controlled by an appropriate noise management plan, which would apply measures to limit the times that music can be played, in addition to the volume of the music and classes etc.  Officers are recommending that a condition be imposed for the submission of a noise management plan prior to the commencement of development; the recommendations of the plan should then be met throughout the life of the development.

 

Scale of the building

 

As discussed above, there are two properties that would be the most affected by the proposed development, as their main habitable room windows would only be approximately 4m from the rear boundary.  As originally submitted the proposed building was unacceptable and comprised of a parapet wall, five metres in height. It was considered by officers that the bulk and scale of the building would have resulted in a detrimental impact on the adjoining residents.

 


 

Revised plans have been submitted reducing the height of the building adjacent the rear boundary to 3.5 metres and increasing the separation to the boundary from 1.5m to 2m.  In order to consider the impact from the built form on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties, it was considered appropriate to use the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) as a guide.   On the basis of the proposed length and height of the wall, the boundary setback required by the R-codes would be 1.5m; as a result it is considered that an appropriate level of amenity would be retained for the residential properties (as the built form would be similar to what would be permissible if it was residential development).

 

Land-use Concept Plan

 

The LUCP is a guide for development and subdivision at the West Street site, the relevant provisions which shall be given due regard are that development adjacent to residential zoned land shall be:

 

·        Restricted to single storey;

·        Incorporate measures to avoid light spill into the adjacent residential area; and

·        Provide service areas that are enclosed and located to minimise noise and disturbance to the adjacent residential area.

 

As discussed above, the building design has now been amended and the section of the building adjacent to the neighbouring properties has been reduced in height to single storey.  There will be no vehicular service areas to the rear of the building, only an enclosed bin store and a condition can be imposed to ensure that light spill is contained within the site.  It is considered that even though the buildings are not sited within the indicative building envelopes as shown on the concept plan; the proposal would comply with the intent of the provisions to ensure that residential amenity of neighbouring properties is maintained.  It is considered that the built form now proposed is in fact in some respects less likely to impact on neighbouring properties than the form shown on the concept plan, which results in parking, loading and storage areas adjacent to the boundary of the adjoining residential properties.

 

Concerns have been raised that the proposal does not strictly comply with the landuse concept plan; the plan is a guide to development and applicants have the opportunity to submit development applications that vary from the plan, these proposals are required to be assessed on their merits taking into account the Scheme and the plan.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is recommended that the Council grant approval to the development subject to conditions.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could:

 

1.    Determine that the application is inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the zone in which development is proposed, and refuse the proposal subject to reasons; or

 

2.    Apply additional or different conditions.

 

If any Councillor is minded to support either of the above options, officers can assist in the drafting of a suitable alternative motion.

 


 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The applicant will be notified of the Council’s decision within two weeks of a decision consistent with the officer recommendation.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council resolve:

 

That application DA17/0971 submitted for a Recreation Facility and Professional Consulting Room at Lot 175 (HSE 53) Prince Regent Drive, West Busselton, is considered by the Council to be consistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives and policies of the zone within which it is located.

 

That Development Approval is issued for the proposal referred to above subject to the following conditions:

 

General conditions

 

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

 

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

 

PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS CONDITIONS:

 

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

 

3.1          Details of stormwater and surface water drainage (Stormwater to be retained for                              use and/or infiltration within the lot at a rate of 1m³ per 65m² of impervious area);

 

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

 

3.3          Noise Management Plan, which is to incorporate measures including structural                                   mitigation options and management practices to ensure that noise is contained                                  within the built form and does not result in an unacceptable impact on residential                  amenity;

 

      3.4          Details of the bicycle parking facilities, including the design and materials;

 

3.5          Details of external materials, incorporating design features on the rear elevation and                       hard surfaced areas; and

 

3.6          Details of lighting of external areas to avoid unacceptable light spill to adjoining residences.

 

 

 

 

 

PRIOR TO THE OCCUPATION/USE OF THE DEVELOPMENT:

 

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

 

ONGOING CONDITIONS:

 

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

 

                5.1          The approved Noise Management Plan shall be implemented and carried out in                                  accordance with the approval details, including any notes placed thereon in red by                            the City.

               

 


Council                                                                                      19                                                                      27 June 2018

13.2           RE-VESTING AND MANAGEMENT ORDER RESERVE 31005, COMMONAGE ROAD, YALLINGUP SIDING

SUBJECT INDEX:

Crown Land Administration

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Natural areas and habitats are cared for and enhanced for the enjoyment of current and future generations.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Senior Strategic Planner - Helen Foulds

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Location Plan

Attachment b    Aerial Photo

Attachment c    Site Inspection Photos  

  

PRÉCIS

 

Reserve 31005 is currently set aside for the purpose of ‘Quarry and Drainage’ with a Management Order issued in favour of the Water Corporation.  The Water Corporation has identified that this Reserve is no longer required for operational purposes and has approached the City as part of investigations regarding the future use and management of this land.

 

In response to a request from the Water Corporation, the City advised that the land is not considered suitable for rezoning to Rural Residential, for a number of reasons.  Alternatively, the inclusion of this reservation into a contiguous conservation/recreation corridor with nearby reservations already under the City’s management control would appear to be a more rational and desirable outcome.

 

The re-vesting of Reserve 31005 with the City would be a desirable outcome, enabling the City to better meet community expectations for the management and protection of landscape values in the area and creating a contiguous conservation/recreation corridor with the adjacent Reserves.  Also, it is unlikely that another authority would take on the management of Reserve 31005.

 

Officers recommend that the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage be advised that the Council supports the re-vesting/re-issuing of the Management Order for Reserve 31005 from the Water Corporation to the City of Busselton for the purposes of ‘Landscape Protection and Quarry’.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Reserve 31005 Commonage Road, Yallingup Siding, being Lot 4531 on Deposited Plan 211719, is currently set aside for the purpose of ‘Quarry and Drainage’ under management by the Water Corporation.  The parcel is a 4.1 hectare ‘C’ class reserve, which is largely vegetated with a well-constructed fire break within the boundary.  Fencing around the boundary is largely intact and a gate is in place, although broken, along the frontage to Commonage Road.

 

Located to the north is Reserve 25889 for ‘Quarry Shire and Public Use’ and to the south is Reserve 29522 for ‘Quarry Sand Grit’ both under management of the City.  Located directly east and surrounding Reserves 31005, 25889 and 29522 are private freehold properties zoned ‘Rural Residential’.  A location plan and aerial photo is provided at Attachments A and B, respectively.

 

The Water Corporation has identified that this Reserve is no longer required for operational purposes and has been investigating the future of this land.

 

In November 2017, the City was approached by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage – Land Asset Management Unit (DPLH) investigating divestment options on behalf of the Water Corporation.

 

Whilst initially the DPLH was considering divestment of the Reserve and possible rezoning of the land to Rural Residential, the City advised that this would not be supported for a number of reasons, but partly due to the significant environmental values, bushfire risk and expectation of the local community.  The City advised its preference would be for the Management Order for the Reserve to be re-issued to the City and the Reserve designated for ‘Landscape Protection and Quarry’, provided confirmation is given in writing by the Water Corporation that there are no site contamination issues it is currently aware of, or that might otherwise be likely, or feasibly possible.

 

The Water Corporation responded that no evidence of contamination was found following a site inspection and that the site “appears to be remarkably intact and free from fly-tipping” (‘fly-tipping’ being the act of illegally dumping rubbish by the public).  Further, the DPLH relinquishment process requires the Water Corporation to make a statutory declaration that should the site be found to be contaminated, it will be required to fulfil its obligations under the Contaminated Sites Act including full remediation of the subject site.  This should provide another level of security for the City.

 

Officers are now formally seeking support from the Council to submit to the DPLH a request to proceed with the re-vesting of Reserve 31005 to the City of Busselton, for use as “Landscape Protection & Quarry”, and with a subsequent Management Order issued in favour of the City for that Reserve.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The following legislation is relevant with respect to this matter:

 

·    The Land Administration Act 1997 – provides for the creation and administration of reserves in Crown land.

 

·    The Local Government Act 1995 – provides at section 3.54 that “the local government may do anything for the purpose of controlling and managing that land that it could do under section 5 of the Parks and Reserves Act 1895 if it were a Board appointed under that Act”.

 

The City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 identifies the parcel as ‘Recreation Reserve’ and located within the ‘Landscape Value Area’.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The key policy implications with respect to the proposal are set out as follows:

 

·    State Planning Policy 2.5: Rural Planning, State Planning Policy 6.1: Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge and the Draft Leeuwin-Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy – in that the policies seek the preservation of landscape values.

 

·    Commonage Policy Area Consolidated Structure Plan – identifies the land as “Public Open Space”.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Costs to the City for the vesting and acceptance of a Management Order over this parcel would be limited to managing bushfire risk.  There is no City infrastructure currently located within the parcel, nor is there a proposal for this to take place.  Minimal maintenance of the land parcel is anticipated. 

The parcel is located within the Toby Inlet Catchment area and as such there is potential for the Toby Inlet Catchment Group to assist in revegetation programs.  Opportunity for a ‘Friends Group’ also exists for residents in the area who might seek to contribute to the management and enhancement of the Reserves.

 

It is conceivable that, in the future, changes imposed by the State (such as changes that increase land managers’ obligations to manage bush fire risk) may have financial implications for the City.  Overall, though, it is considered that the financial implications of the recommendation will be minimal, and are more than outweighed by the benefits arising from the obtaining of a Management Order over the land in question (such as the protection of landscape values and management of the site in line with community expectations).

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Nil.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Officer Recommendation is consistent with Key Goal Area 3 of the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan 2017 and specifically the following community objective:

 

3.2      “Natural areas and habitats are cared for and enhanced for the enjoyment of current and future generations.”

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The only risks that have been identified are the financial risk that has already been described above, or the increased additional public liability risk should the land not be managed adequately and that results in an injury or loss that the City could reasonably be determined in having some responsibility for.  Within the broader context of the City’s operations, those risks are not considered to be significant.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Initial correspondence in relation to this property from the Land Asset Management Unit of the DPLH, sought comments from the City in relation to the divestment of Reserve 31005, particularly regarding the possible rezoning of the land to support Rural Residential use.

 

The City advised that it did not support the proposed disposal of Reserve 31005 for the development for rural residential purposes and instead requested that the DPLH progresses changes to the vesting, management and purpose of Reserve 31005 in order that management is assigned to the City of Busselton and the Reserve newly vested for ‘Landscape Protection & Quarry’.

 

The DPLH then requested the Water Corporation to liaise directly with the City to consider the alternative management arrangement moving forward.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Reserve 31005 was historically used as a ‘quarry for water filter medium’ and the remnant vegetation appears to be in reasonably good condition and relatively intact.  Photos from a site inspection undertaken in May 2018 are provided at Attachment C.

 


 

A Reserve Ecological Assessment conducted in 2008 identified much of the vegetation on the site to be in ‘Very Good’ or ‘Excellent’ condition, with two areas near the road that were ‘Degraded’, being the previously mined sand and gravel pits where natural regeneration is occurring.  The ‘Common Bunny Orchid’ was in flower on site during the site inspection (May 2018). 

 

The site inspection indicated the presence of dieback, evidenced by signage, poor vegetation health and tree deaths, predominately within the western portion of the site.  The City’s mapping software also confirms the presence of “Fire Break Dieback Infestation” over Reserve 31005 and Reserve 29522 to the south.

 

A well maintained firebreak exists around the site boundary and a prescribed burn was undertaken in winter 2017.

 

Very little rubbish was present, likely due to the fencing around the boundary, providing limited access to the site other than on foot.

 

Rezoning of the land, as initially considered by DPLH, was considered to be fundamentally at odds with the established strategic direction for the Commonage area, generally summarised (but not exhaustively outlined) as follows:

 

1.         The identification of additional land for rural residential development is not supported.

 

This is a position of the WAPC expressed variously through the State Planning Framework, including the recently advertised Draft Leeuwin-Naturaliste Sub-Regional Planning Strategy. One of the key principles of this document outlined at Part 1.6 is:

 

“Confirmation there will be no further rezoning of land to rural residential or special rural type lifestyle lots, other than those already identified in local planning strategies.”

 

The Commonage Policy Area Consolidated Structure Plan (CPACSP) identifies this reserve (and those adjoining) as ‘Public Open Space’ and the City does not generally support ad-hoc and unplanned departures from the Structure Plan.

 

While the City’s Draft Local Planning Strategy identifies that some consolidation of rural residential land may be desirable, it is generally expected that this will only occur on existing zoned and predominantly cleared land, where there is a demonstrable community benefit, and where bushfire risk can be adequately mitigated.

 

2.         The retention of this and adjoining reserves for the purpose of ‘Landscape Protection’ is warranted.

 

These reserves exist at a high point in the landscape and the retention of this remnant vegetation preserves views of the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge. This includes both Commonage Road (immediately west) and Vasse-Yallingup Siding Road (2-2.5km east) that are identified as ‘Travel Route Corridors with Rural Landscape Significance’ in State Planning Policy 6.1 – Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge. Existing rural residential land to the east is downslope and will also be sensitive to the loss of views that are maintained on this site at present.

 

The preservation of landscape values is also supported by relevant principles and policies within the Draft Leeuwin-Naturaliste Sub Regional Planning Strategy, State Planning Policy 2.5 – Rural Planning, and the designation of a Landscape Value Area within the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 21.

 

3.         The site may have significant environmental values and/or purpose with ecological linkages through the area.

 

Given that the Reserve is heavily vegetated, the City cannot indicate support for a proposed change in land use without a detailed assessment of the environmental attributes of the site. This assessment should further consider the function of this vegetation as part of an extended ecological linkage with adjoining reserves and bushland areas.

 

Development and consolidation should generally be targeted to cleared (and secondarily degraded) areas – a position reflected in the Draft Leeuwin-Naturaliste Sub Regional Planning Strategy (Part 7.1.2 – 3a), where it states that the WAPC will:

               

“adopt a primary position for no further clearing of native vegetation within the sub-region, and a strong preference for development to occur on cleared land”

 

Further, the drainage function of the site needs to be identified, and managed appropriately.

 

4.         Any development of the site would be essentially incompatible with planning requirements for bushfire protection.

 

With the vegetation, slope and broader fire risk evident within the adjoining and surrounding areas, any proposal to develop this reserve for rural residential purposes would have the potential to introduce vulnerable uses into a designated bushfire prone area and would need to go to significant lengths in order to mitigate the bushfire risks to future built assets and residents (as per State Planning Policy 3.7 – Planning for Bushfire Protection, and the Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines). City officers are very doubtful that this could in fact be achieved without severely compromising other planning framework objectives relating to biodiversity, landscape values, proper and orderly planning etc.

 

5.         The City expects that the disposal and development of Reserve 31005 would not be supported by surrounding landowners.

 

When considering the setbacks to development that are required in the CPACSP (ie. 70 - 100m from Commonage Road), development and cleared asset protection zones would have to be located in such a way that it is likely that neighbours would feel adversely affected. It is noted that already existing building envelopes have been established towards the rear of adjoining lots to the east, closest to the subject land.

 

There may also be a level of expectation that this reserve will remain as ‘public open space’ on account of it being identified for this purpose in the CPACSP and zoned accordingly in the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 21. This designation in the CPACSP reflects the retention of reserves to provide low key public recreational opportunities (where appropriate), preserve remnant vegetation and ecological linkages, and protect significant landscape views.  It is clear that the Reserve is currently in use for recreational purposes given the presence of footprints (human, dog and horse) during the site inspection.

 

It is recommended the City seek to preserve the opportunity to extract sand from Reserve 31005 if this resource was required at some point in future. In other forums the City has highlighted with the DPLH its concerns about the availability of basic raw materials within the district. For this reason, the City considers that the retention of ‘Quarry’ within the vested reserve purpose is necessary to allow for the availability of sand resources in the western portion of Reserve 31005 to be further investigated. If a viable resource is ultimately located, the licensed extraction of same would be considered a ‘temporary use’ of the site and subsequent rehabilitation would be required in order to restore the broader purpose and function of ‘Landscape Protection’.

Having a Management Order over the land in question will better enable the City to meet community expectations in relation to the management of the land. For example, some or all of the powers that the City is able to exercise under the Property Local Law and Dog Act only apply where the land is City managed or owned.  The inclusion of this reservation into an effectively contiguous conservation/recreation corridor together with those nearby reservations already under the City’s management control would appear to be a rational and desirable outcome. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Officers recommend that the DPLH be advised that the Council supports the re-vesting of Reserve 31005 for the purposes of ‘Landscape Protection and Quarry’ with a Management Order issued in favour of the City of Busselton over that reserve.

 

OPTIONS

 

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

 

1.         To seek the land to be re-vested, and issued with a Management Order in favour of the City of Busselton for an alternative purpose; or

 

2.         To not support the re-vesting and re-issuing of the Management Order for Reserve 31005 to the City of Busselton, requiring the DPLH to seek an alternative authority to manage the land, although it would be unlikely that another authority would be prepared to take on management of the Reserve.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve providing advice of the Council resolution to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage and the Water Corporation.  This will occur within one month of the resolution made by the Council.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council advise the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage and the Water Corporation that the City of Busselton supports the re-vesting of Reserve 31005 for the purposes of ‘Landscape Protection and Quarry’ with a Management Order issued in favour of the City of Busselton over that reserve.

 

 


Council

20

27 June 2018

13.2

Attachment a

Location Plan

 


Council

21

27 June 2018

13.2

Attachment b

Aerial Photo

 


Council

25

27 June 2018

13.2

Attachment c

Site Inspection Photos

 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      26                                                                      27 June 2018

13.3           PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FUEL SALES AND CONVENIENCE RETAIL OUTLET ON LAND AT THE CORNER OF DUNN BAY ROAD AND CYRILLEAN WAY, DUNSBOROUGH - REPORT ADDRESSING COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF 9 MAY 2018

SUBJECT INDEX:

Development / Planning Applications

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Council engages broadly and proactively with the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Planning and Development Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Planning & Development Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   SAT approval and related plans  

  

PRÉCIS

 

At its 9 May 2018 meeting, Council resolved to request that some further investigation and communication be undertaken in relation to the proposed development of a fuel sales and convenience retail outlet on land at the corner of Dunn Bay Road and Cyrillean Way, Dunsborough, and that a report be presented to the Council setting out the work undertaken and the outcomes, for the Council’s further consideration. The tasks required by the resolution have now been completed, as set out in the report. It is recommended that the Council note the report.

 

BACKGROUND

 

At its ordinary meeting of 9 May 2018, the Council resolved as follows –

With respect to the proposed development of a fuel sales and convenience retail outlet on land at the corner of Dunn Bay Road and Cyrillean Way Dunsborough -

1.         The Council requests that the CEO bring a report to Council, as a matter of priority, enumerating the actions and outcomes undertaken to date in relation to the following:

(i)        negotiating with the developers and other landowners in Dunsborough to find an alternative site for the proposed convenience store or service station;

(ii)       discussions with the landowner of the subject land possible alternative uses of the land; and

(iii)      persuading the developers that the development will be contrary to the good planning of the Dunsborough town centre.

2.         The Council requests that the CEO explores further options (including the obtaining of external legal advice) to facilitate the community wishes including:

(i)        the enforcement of the ‘Convenience Store’ definition applied by the SAT which limits fuel sales to petrol only, thereby excluding the sale of diesel at convenience stores;

(ii)       at a State Government level, prohibiting a fuel retailer at the proposed location based on health and environmental concerns;

(iii)      further investigations of possible alternative locations for the Puma service station/convenience store and alternative uses and/or the rezoning of the land at the corner of Dunn Bay Rd and Cyrillean Way Dunsborough; and

(iv)      The Council requests that the CEO presents a report for Council consideration as soon as practicable, but no later than three months from resolution, on the outcomes arising from 2(i), (ii) and (iii) above.

 

This report is presented to the Council in pursuance of the above resolution.

 

At the time the above resolution was made, the City was awaiting the outcome of a Southern Joint Development Assessment Panel (DAP) appeal in the Supreme Court. That appeal related to a State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) decision to grant planning approval to the proposed development. The Supreme Court in fact handed down their decision, which was to dismiss the appeal, on 10 May 2018. The DAP essentially had 21 days in which to lodge a further appeal, and have not done so. Given that, unless some other regulatory impediment can be identified, or the proponents make a decision not to proceed with the proposed development, it can be assumed that the proposed development will proceed.

 

The following are key events and dates related to the proposed development –

1.         Various pre-application enquiries related to the proposed development between late 2014 and September 2015, with the City consistently advising that the development was not considered appropriate in the context of the relevant planning framework (note there has been a suggestion of earlier pre-application advice which was different, but no evidence of that has been found within City records).

2.         Application received by the City on 8 September 2015, with the applicants electing to have the application determined by the DAP, rather than by the City (the estimated cost of development was within the range in which applications can either be determined by the local government or relevant DAP, at the discretion of the applicant).

3.         Application considered by the DAP on 14 December 2015, with the DAP refusing to approve the proposed development, consistent with the City’s recommendation. The agenda and minutes of the DAP meeting, which include the City’s report and recommendation to the DAP, can be viewed at –

Agenda  

Minutes

4.         Application for SAT review lodged by the applicant on 4 January 2016.

5.         First SAT hearing held 26 May 2016, which at the agreement of the parties (i.e. applicant and DAP), dealt with a preliminary issue only, namely what the correct land-use classification was.

6.         First SAT decision delivered 25 August 2016; which found that the correct classification was ‘Convenience Store’, which was a ‘P’ (or ‘permitted’) use in the Zone in which development was proposed. The SAT decision can viewed at –

First SAT Decision

7.         SAT Mediation in October 2016, which involved discussion of potential design changes (the City was not a party to the mediation, but was represented, at the invitation of the DAP).

8.         Application reconsidered by the DAP on 14 November 2016, with the DAP refusing to approve the proposed development, consistent with the City’s recommendation. The agenda and minutes of the DAP meeting, which include the City’s report and recommendation to the DAP, can be viewed at - 

Agenda

Minutes

9.         Second SAT hearing held 1 and 2 February 2017, which assumed the land-use classification as per the first SAT decision, and otherwise addressed the full range of relevant planning issues (as identified by the DAP, SAT and the applicants). The author of this report acted as one of two planning witnesses, on behalf of and at the invitation of the DAP.

10.       Second SAT decision delivered 23 August 2017, which found that the development was appropriate and resulted in approval for the development (the SAT decision can be viewed at –

Second SAT Decision

11.       Supreme Court appeal lodged by DAP against the SAT decision In September 2017.

12.       Supreme Court hearings held 12 February 2018.

13.       Supreme Court decision delivered 10 May 2018, which was to dismiss the appeal. The Supreme Court decision can be found at –

Supreme Court Decision

 

A copy of the SAT approval and related plans is included as Attachment A.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key statutory environment with respect to this matter is set out in the Planning and Development Act 2005 and subsidiary legislation, especially the City’s town planning scheme, and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which are incorporated into the City’s town planning scheme. That statutory environment has been considered in the drafting of this report, and has also been considered more broadly in implementing Council’s 9 May 2018 resolution. In the Officer Comment section of this report, where an additional understanding of the relevant statutory environment is necessary to understand the issue and the officer advice, the relevant statutory environment is also briefly explained.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The outcome of the processes associated with this proposal, in that there is an approval for the proposed development, will need to be considered in the planned development of an Activity Centre Plan for the Dunsborough Town Centre, noting that work on that project has commenced.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no financial implications of the recommendations of this report. The cost associated with obtaining independent legal advice in pursuance of Part 2 (i) of the Council resolution was $2,500.

 

Long-Term Financial Plan Implications

 

There are no Long-Term Financial Plan Implications of the recommendations of this report.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendations of this report reflect Objective 6.2 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan, that is ‘Council engages broadly and proactively with the community’.

 


 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the risks associated with implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. No significant risks have been identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The City has not undertaken community consultation specifically relating to implementation of the Council’s 9 May 2018 resolution. It should be noted that the original application was the subject of consultation, and there were a number of submissions received that raised concerns about the proposed development. Whilst there will be a diversity of opinion in most communities on most issues, and there is a diversity of opinion on the proposed development, there is clearly a significant level of community concern about the proposed development.

 

In preparing this report, the City has sought advice from the State Departments of Water & Environmental Regulation (DWER) and Mines, Industry Regulation & Safety (DMIRS).

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Action undertaken and the resultant outcomes, with respect to the implementation of the Council’s 9 May 2018 resolution, is outlined and discussed below under appropriate sub-headings.

 

Part 1 of the Council resolution

This part of the resolution required that -

The Council requests that the CEO bring a report to Council, as a matter of priority, enumerating the actions and outcomes undertaken to date in relation to the following:

(i)        negotiating with the developers and other landowners in Dunsborough to find an alternative site for the proposed convenience store or service station;

(ii)       discussions with the landowner of the subject land possible alternative uses of the land; and

(iii)      persuading the developers that the development will be contrary to the good planning of the Dunsborough town centre;

 

Noting that this relates to actions undertaken prior to the Council’s resolution, the City had sent numerous letters to both the landowners and the proposed operators with respect to these matters. There had also been several attempts to discuss the matter with the proposed operators over the telephone. Further, discussions of this kind had occurred with the landowners prior to the lodging of the application. It is also known that members of the community have had multiple conversations with the landowners to the same end. The City had also, on several occasions, assisted interested community members in identifying potential alternative sites. Since the lodging of the application, neither the landowners nor the proposed operators have indicated any interest to the City in actually considering alternative forms of development and/or alternative sites.

 

Since the Council’s 9 May resolution, the City has advised the community, through media, social media and the Bay-to-Bay newsletter, with respect to the seeking and considering of the legal advice that has been obtained. The City has also provided advice, through the same channels, of communication with the landowners and proposed operators with respect to identifying alternative uses for the site and alternative sites for the proposed development.

 


 

The City has spent a considerable amount of time liaising with community members and seeking to communicate with the landowners and proposed operators in relation to the proposed development, as well as in relation to alternative forms of development on the site and alternative locations for the proposed development.

 

Part 2 (i) of the Council resolution

This part of the resolution required that the City consider –

The enforcement of the ‘Convenience Store’ definition applied by the SAT which limits fuel sales to petrol only, thereby excluding the sale of diesel at convenience stores.

 

The background to this part of the resolution was that the SAT had determined, through their first decision, that the land use classification was ‘Convenience Store’, as defined in the City’s town planning scheme at the time the decision was made. That definition made specific reference to the sale of petrol, but made no mention of the sale of diesel, LPG or any more generic reference, such as ‘fuel’ or ‘petroleum products’, and was as follows –

Convenience store means any land and buildings used for the retail sale of convenience goods being those goods commonly sold in supermarkets, delicatessens and newsagents, but including the sale of petrol and operated during hours which include, but which may extend beyond, normal trading hours and providing associated parking. The buildings associated with a convenience store shall not exceed 300m2 net lettable area.

 

The City has obtained independent legal advice with respect to this matter. That advice has been provided to Councillors separately and confidentially. The City has given extensive consideration to its legal position following the receipt of that advice and is satisfied that it is not in a position to require that the proposed development sells petrol fuel only.

 

Part 2 (ii) of the Council resolution

This part of the resolution required that the City investigate -

At a State Government level, prohibiting a fuel retailer at the proposed location based on health and environmental concerns.

 

The background to this part of the resolution is thought to be that the location of the proposed development, relative to potential, future residential development on adjoining lots (noting that the zoning of those adjoining lots would allow residential development up to the lot boundary) may not comply with environmental guidance or standards, and that some in the community may contend that the proposed development may be prevented from proceeding on that basis. Similar contentions have been made with respect to the location of the proposed development relative to Dugalup Brook, and that required environmental ‘buffer’ or ‘setback’ distances would not be met.

 

It is understood that the contentions may relate, at least in part, to guidance statements issued by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). The proposed development, though, in terms of potential impact, is well below the threshold that might require formal assessment by the EPA. As such, those EPA guidance statements could only be considered if some other necessary administrative process allowed and/or required them to be considered. Potentially, that can occur as part of the development application process, but as there is now a development approval in place, that issue cannot be further considered as part of the development application process, unless the proponents lodge an application to amend the approval. It should also be noted that the DAP and State Solicitor’s Office (SSO), which acted on behalf of the DAP in both SAT and the Supreme Court, were aware of these contentions in developing their case for the second SAT hearings.

 


 

The City has sought advice from DWER and DMIRS with respect to this matter. DWER have advised that the proposed development does not require an approval under any legislation implemented by that agency. The Dangerous Goods branch of DMIRS have confirmed that the proposed development does require their approval, pursuant the Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004. They have also advised that they would not seek advice of DWER in assessing the application (which, at the time the advice was provided, had not been lodged with DMIRS), and would assess the application against AS1940: The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids.

 

Given the above, there is not considered to be any trigger or basis for the assessment of the proposed development against any guidance statements issued by the Environmental Protection Authority, and nor has any power been identified that might allow the State Government to prohibit or prevent the development on the basis of health or environmental concerns.

 

Part 2 (iii) of the Council resolution

This part of the resolution required that the City undertake -

Further investigations of possible alternative locations for the Puma service station/convenience store and alternative uses and/or the rezoning of the land at the corner of Dunn Bay Rd and Cyrillean Way, Dunsborough.

 

At the time the Council made the resolution, the Supreme Court decision had not been delivered, and there was also no clear timeframe as to when a decision may be delivered, and/or whether the decision may be appealed (and therefore whether there may be a further period of uncertainty). As set out with respect to Part 1 of the resolution, however, the City had already undertaken comprehensive investigations identifying alternative uses for the site and alternative sites for the proposed development. The City had also made a number of attempts to engage with the landowners and proposed operators with respect to those options, without success. Communication from the proponents since that time, whilst limited, indicates there remains no interest in engaging with the City. As such, there is not seen to be any benefit in undertaking further investigations.

 

Part 2 (iv) of the Council resolution

This part of the resolution requires that a report be brought to the Council within three months setting out actions and outcomes with respect to the resolution – this part of the resolution is therefore implemented through the presentation of this report to the Council.

 

CONCLUSION

 

At this stage, unless the proponents make a commercial decision to not proceed with the proposed development, there does not appear to be any means to prevent the development occurring. A major contributor to that situation is the wording of the ‘Convenience Store’ definition in the City’s town planning scheme at the time the first SAT decision was made, the SAT’s interpretation of that definition, and the fact that the land use was a ‘P’ (or ‘permitted’) use at the time. The Council has progressed subsequent changes to the City’s town planning scheme that should prevent the same or similar issues arising again in future. Those changes, though, would not change the outcome retrospectively.

 

As noted in the ‘Consultation’ section of this report, whilst there is a diversity of opinion on the proposed development, there is clearly a significant level of community concern about the proposed development. City officers share many of those concerns, as has been consistently reflected in City advice to the proponents and recommendations to the DAP. Given the situation that now exists, however, it is considered best to accept that the development is likely to proceed, and to then consider and address the implications in terms of future planning and development of the Dunsborough Town Centre. The Activity Centre Plan process, that has already commenced, is an appropriate means of doing that.

 

There may be some in the community who would like the City to do more to prevent the development, or to provide more detail to describe what has already been done, especially in terms of identifying alternatives and communicating with the proponents. There is not, however, seen to be anything more that the City can reasonably do, and it is not appropriate for the City to provide a detailed summary of communication with the proponents, or potential alternative sites. To do so would involve the identification of sites owned by third parties, who may well have no interest in making their sites available for development.

 

Finally, it is perhaps worth specifically addressing what seems to be an expectation of some in the community that the City should actively participate in what has become a quite significant public campaign opposed to the proposed development, under the banner ‘Puma2Go’. Whilst the City can provide information to the community, as it can to the proponents, the City, especially the senior officers in the planning team and Councillors that may need to make decisions about the matter, cannot involve itself in a public campaign in relation to a matter where it has a role in statutory decision-making.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could require further work to be undertaken with respect to this matter.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The officer recommendation would not require any implementation.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council note the report with respect to the proposed development of a fuel sales and convenience retail outlet on land at the corner of Dunn Bay Road and Cyrillean Way, Dunsborough.

 

 


Council

35

27 June 2018

13.3

Attachment a

SAT approval and related plans

 


 


 



 


 


 

 


Council                                                                                      44                                                                      27 June 2018

14.             Engineering and Works Services Report

14.1           CHIEFTAIN CRESCENT/CHESTER WAY INTERSECTION

SUBJECT INDEX:

Roads

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Road networks that provide for a growing population and the safe movement of all users through the District.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Engineering and Facilities Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Design and Survey

REPORTING OFFICER:

Design and Survey Coordinator - Justin Smith

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Properties Received Consultation Letter

Attachment b    Properties Received Consultation Letter

Attachment c    Townscape - Option 1

Attachment d   Townscape - Option 2

Attachment e    Dunsborough Townscape Conceptual Plan  

  

PRÉCIS

 

The purpose of this report is to seek resolution from Council for the retention of the road to remain open at the Chieftain Crescent and Chester Way intersection, Dunsborough.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plan (Attachment E) and streetscape improvement program was developed over a number of years as a holistic approach to achieve the following within the Dunsborough Central Business District:

 

·    upgrade the road network;

·    improve pedestrian flow;

·    provide additional greenspace and improve aesthetics; and

·    increase the overall parking supply for both timed bays and all-day users.

 

Comprehensive public consultation was undertaken between 2013 and 2015 as part of developing the Conceptual Plan and streetscape program.

 

The plan first advertised included, as part of the reconfiguration of Seymour Boulevard and Chieftain Crescent, the opening of Chieftain Crescent to allow access to the town centre from residential areas to the east. This reflected the preferred outcome of City planning officers, as it allowed for the expansion of low-key commercial land uses (facilitated by rezoning) and improved vehicle access and permeability in the local street network.

 

After receiving feedback and submissions from residents in Chieftain Crescent and Chester Way in opposition, the Conceptual Plan adopted by the Council included cul-de-sac heads to allow limited access to Chieftain Crescent from the town centre and removed through-access to surrounding streets.

 

The Seymour Boulevard/Chieftain Crescent realignment works were part of Stage 3 of the Dunsborough Town Centre upgrade, delivered during the 2016/17 period. The roadway realignment was completed prior to Leavers in 2016 however due to the duration of the works the road closure components were only partially implemented through use of traffic control devices. As a result, through-access from Chieftain Crescent to Chester Way and Lorna Street was available for approximately six weeks during the 2016/17 peak summer visitation period.

As a further result, residents / landowners to the east of the town centre presented a petition to Council seeking retention of the through-access. In response, the Council agreed to undertake a trial to assess the impacts of traffic flow and community response over a minimum six month period.

 

The purpose of this report is to gain a final Council decision on whether through-access from Chieftain Crescent to Chester Way is retained or closed as adopted in the Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plan with the construction of a ‘hammer-head’ cul-de-sac.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The managing of the roads by the City is undertaken through:

 

·    Land Administration Act 1997:

Section 55 states “(2) Subject to the Main Roads Act 1930 and the Public Works Act 1902, the local government within the district of which a road is situated has the care, control and management of the road.”

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plan is of relevance, as outlined in this report.  There are no other applicable plans or policies.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

On the basis that the Council endorses the Officers recommendation and resolves not to close Chieftain Crescent, there are no immediate financial implications to keep the road open. The current intersections work appropriately. Officers would however budget in the future for minor improvements as noted in the attached drawing (Attachment D – Townscape Option 2). These works are estimated at approximately $8,000.

 

Should the Council resolve to close Chieftain Crescent the cost to construct the turnaround would be approximately $20,000, see the attached drawing (Attachment C – Townscape Option 1). This would need to be included in the 18/19 budget as part of its adoption.

 

Concerns have been raised as to how pedestrians and cyclists are to safely access the Central Business District as there is no shared path along Chester Way. The construction of a footpath along Chester Way will cost in the region of $90,000 and will be considered as part of the forward capital works plan to be prioritised in conjunction with other projects in the bike plan.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Nil.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Officer’s recommendation aligns with the following Key goal areas and community Objective of the Strategic Community Plan 2017.

 

Key Goal Area 2 –Places and Spaces: vibrant, attractive, affordable

2.3: Creative urban design that produces vibrant, mixed-use town centres and public spaces.

 


 

Key Goal Area 5 – Transport; smart, connective, accessible

5.2: Road networks that provide for a growing population and the safe movement of all users through the District.

 

5.3: Cycleways that connect our communities and provide alternative transport choices.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

There are no identified risks associated with the officer’s recommendation of a medium or greater level.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plan and streetscape improvement program was developed over several years and involved comprehensive consultation with town centre landowners and the broader Dunsborough community. This included several public events, multiple mail-outs to landowners and residents, presentations to business and residents groups, and newspaper and internet posts.

 

Throughout there has been both support for and objections against the reconfiguration of Seymour Boulevard and Chieftain Crescent and/or the opening of access via Chieftain Crescent. 

 

In 2015 Councillors were briefed on this matter following an individual landowner submission to move the proposed northern cul-de-sac to adjoin Seymour Boulevard. Officers did not recommend making this change as it did not accord with adopted rezoning, and Councillors supported no changes to the proposed streetscape designs.

 

In January 2017, prior to the completion of works to close the remaining partial access, a petition by 98 residents was presented to the Council in support of retaining Chieftain Crescent (north) open to through-access. In February a trial was commenced, with temporary improvements made to support the retention of through-access.

 

In follow-up to the trial the City undertook consultation with all affected property owners, being all localised properties within the western area of the estate bounded by Chieftain Crescent/Peron Avenue/Chester Way. This bisect of the estate was considered the point at which all previous traffic vented through Chester Way onto Geographe Bay Road. Traffic to the east of this bisect and the broader Dunsborough community generally only access the western area to attend medical appointments or to utilise the informal parking on the edge of the Central Business District.

 

The City also engaged with all residents that had previously expressed an interest either through the petition or individual correspondence. Written submissions were sought to determine the level of interest in the proposal to retain the intersection of Chieftain Crescent and Chester Way open to through traffic.

 

The submissions were completed over two periods, as follows:

 

Consultation of 14th February 2017. A total of 48 letters were issued to residents as shown on Attachment A. Of the 48 letters issued the City received 11 responses, see details below:

 

Total Submissions 11

Open

Closed

10

1

Consultation of 6th September 2017. A total of 160 letters were issued to residents as shown on Attachment “B”. Of the 160 letters issued the City received 130 responses, see details below:

 

Total Submissions 130

Open

Closed

114

16

 

The outcomes of the consultation indicate support to retain the road link through the Chieftain Crescent and Chester Way intersection. There was strong feedback however from owners in the immediate area wanting the road closed, as per the adopted town centre conceptual plan.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

There are two options available - to open or close the through-access.  The retention of the road open received significantly more support during the subsequent post trial submission.

 

The opportunity for a compromise, being for example, retaining the road open in one direction is not considered achievable. For a period immediately after the main section of the streetscape was completed, the road was retained open in a one-way easterly direction.  During this period however the City received numerous reports of non-compliance with vehicles travelling contra-flow or removing the physical barriers to gain additional access.

 

The main change to the expected traffic flow (as compared to the adopted town centre conceptual plan) would be the impact on a section of Chieftain Crescent and a section of Chester Way which are fronted by 21 properties.  Additional traffic flow could also be expected on Lorna Street. The residents in these road sections, although mostly aggrieved by the potential permanent change, have been patient in their approach by allowing the City to complete the trial period and undertake further traffic counts.

 

The City does not have pre-works traffic data for either Chieftain Crescent (Seymour Boulevard to Chester) or Chester Way (Peron Avenue to Chieftain Crescent) however traffic counts have been taken in these 2 locations during April 2017 and April 2018. These counts were taken outside of school holiday periods to minimise the potential distortion caused by holiday makers, therefore reflecting a base line traffic volume.

 

The data below is a summary of the traffic flow changes during this period however we do not have the ability to compare with pre-works traffic flows.

 


Chieftain Crescent

Vehicles per Day

% Heavy

85th % speed (km/h)

April 2017

215.3**

1.7

37.8

April 2018

864.4

4.1

41.8

Change

+ 649.1

(301.4%)

+ 2.4

+ 4.0

 

 

 

 

Chester Way

 

 

 

April 2017

476.1

4.0

49.7

April 2018

685.1

4.3

47.9

Change

+ 209

(43.9%)

+ 0.3

- 1.8

 

**           There is no evidence that this data was corrupted however it does appear ‘low’ when compared to Chester Way.


 

The following works proposals are considered to be appropriate for the permanent treatment, dependant on the option resolved by Council:

 

Option 1 - Closure

·    Construct a suitable cul-de-sac head at the Chieftain Crescent/Chester Way intersection;

·    Provide signage and line marking delineation at the Chester Way/Peron Avenue/Chester Way intersection;

·    Include the provision of a Shared Path in the Forward Capital Works Plan.

 

Option 2 - Open

·    Construct a median island and deflector island Chieftain Crescent/Chester Way intersection to reinforce the give way controls and reduce the potential for vehicle speed and/or corner cutting;

·    Provide signage and line marking delineation at the Chester Way/Peron Avenue/Chester Way intersection;

·    Include the provision of a Shared Path in the Forward Capital Works Plan.

 

During the consultation, concerns were raised by both sides that the change of traffic flow would impact on how pedestrians and cyclists are to safely access the Central Business District as there is no shared path along Chester Way.  Additionally the intersection of Chester Way/Peron Avenue/Chester Way is unclear as to the priority legs; this uncertainty has been exacerbated further with the change in traffic flow patterns. City staff have assessed this intersection and believe that the provision of line marking and signage would greatly assist in reducing confusion.  A final determination of this however this should be made post deliberation of this report as it will need to be developed to be consistent with the final traffic movements.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The majority of submissions received from the broader community through the consultation sought to retain the Chieftain Crescent and Chester Way open to traffic. Several property owners that front both Chieftain Crescent and Chester Way and who sought its closure through their submissions have expressed strong disappointment in the potential variation to the original Conceptual Plan.

 

With either recommendation there is likely to be a level of disappointment from the community and/or residents. Retaining Chieftain Crescent open to traffic flow is considered however to have broad community benefit and as such it is recommended by officers.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may elect not to support the Officer’s recommendation and instead close Chieftain Crescent to traffic.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The officer recommendation requires no immediate physical works to enable the retention of the road open.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council endorses the retention of the road open at the Chieftain Crescent and Chester Way junction, Dunsborough.

 


Council

45

27 June 2018

14.1

Attachment a

Properties Received Consultation Letter

 

 

 



Council

46

27 June 2018

14.1

Attachment b

Properties Received Consultation Letter

 


Council

47

27 June 2018

14.1

Attachment c

Townscape - Option 1

 


Council

48

27 June 2018

14.1

Attachment d

Townscape - Option 2

 


Council

49

27 June 2018

14.1

Attachment e

Dunsborough Townscape Conceptual Plan

 

 


Council                                                                                      56                                                                      27 June 2018

15.             COMMUNITY AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES REPORT

15.1           PROPOSED DUNSBOROUGH FORESHORE CAFE/KIOSK (A CLASS RESERVE R22965): LEASE OF LAND TO MARGARET RIVER HOSPITALITY GROUP FOR THE PURPOSES OF A CAFÉ DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT INDEX:

Tourism Development

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Attractive parks and open spaces that create opportunities for people to come together, socialise and enjoy a range of activities.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Property and Business Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Commercial Services - Jennifer May

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Cliff Frewing

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Council report & Attachments - Item15.1 May 201

Attachment b    Proposed Plan of Site  

  

PRÉCIS

 

This report presents an update on the Council resolution adopted at the meeting held on 9 May 2018. At that meeting Council considered report item 15.1 (Attachment A) and resolved as follows:

 

That the Council defers for a month so councillors can have a fully briefed onsite inspection.

 

The deferral was also to allow further information in relation to the proposed site (and its impact on the vegetation), operational issues (opening hours and number of afterhours events) and the extent of the contributions by the City and proponent towards public infrastructure costs.

 

The site inspection referred to in the resolution was held as part of the pre-budget tour of the district on Tuesday 22 May 2018. The general consensus of opinion of Councillors present was that the location of the proposed café development was satisfactory but could be the subject of minor adjustment.

 

Following the site inspection, a further on site visit was held with the proponent of the café development proposal when the following issues were discussed:

 

•     The location of the proposed café as designated by the area that had been pegged; and

•     The desire to retain as much of the vegetation on site as possible.

 

At this meeting it was agreed that a ‘Feature Plan’ would be provided which would show the location of the proposed building on the site. This plan has now been received and is shown at Attachment B.

 

This report addresses the issues identified above in relation to the deferral decision.  Having regard for the information provided in this and previous reports, it is recommended that Council approve the development ‘in principle’ and authorise the CEO to take the necessary steps to proceed to finalise all legal requirements.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The proposal to develop a café on the Dunsborough foreshore has been the subject of numerous Council reports and briefings over a long period of time as follows:

 

2008 - The need for a waterfront café / restaurant was identified as part of master planning for redevelopment of the Dunsborough foreshore.

2010 - Master plan for the Dunsborough Foreshore Concept Plan was endorsed by Council.

 

2012 (June) - Council supported calling for expressions of Interest for two sites on the Dunsborough foreshore and adopted Design Guidelines for the development of a beach café.

 

2014 (March) - Council resolved, following extensive consultation to conduct further community consultation on a specific proposal  for the development of a café and/or kiosk on the Dunsborough foreshore ‘A Class’ Reserve Number R22965 (the Reserve).

 

2014 (June) - Council resolved to acknowledge public submissions received on the proposed café/kiosk and to write to the Minister for Lands requesting an amendment to the management order to provide the City with the power to lease. Council also resolved to seek preliminary Registrations of Interest (RoI) from the private sector to lease a portion of the Reserve.

 

2014 (September) – RoI’s closed and the three applicants were invited to submit a more detailed proposal by 20 February 2015.

 

2015 (April) - Council resolved to nominate the Margaret River Hospitality Group (MRHG) as the potential future lessee of a portion of the Reserve for the development of a café and kiosk and for staff to negotiate a non-binding Heads of Agreement.

 

2015 (October) - Officers wrote to the Department of Lands (DoL) advising that MRHG was the preferred proponent and requested the Management Order over the Reserve be amended to reflect a change in purpose from ‘Camping and Recreation’ to 'Recreation and Foreshore Management' and sought power to lease/licence a portion of the Reserve for a period of up to 30 years to facilitate the preferred proponent's proposal. 

 

DoL advised that due to policy changes, the land would be required to be excised from the Reserve for a head lease between the State of WA and the City, and a sub-lease agreement prepared between the City and the proponent.

 

2016 (June) - DoL advertised its intention to amend the purpose of the Reserve and excise out the land for the café/kiosk and invited public comment.   DoL received objections from several of the landowners on Geographe Bay Road and in the vicinity of the proposed site.  DoL subsequently advised the City the advertising process it had conducted did not adequately address the statutory requirements, in that Ministerial approval to advertise had not been sought.  Accordingly, DoL indicated they would need to readvertise.

 

2017 - MRHG advised the City it would be interested in reviewing the concept and functionality design as previously approved to try and resolve some of the community concerns, in particular visibility of the building from Geographe Bay Road, parking issues and the environmental sustainability of the building.

 

The revised design concept integrated a commercial development area with new public/community facilities and, while the new design resulted in a larger total building area of 400m2, a commercial area of 200m2 (as originally supported by Council) had been retained. 

 

2017 (August) - Council endorsed inviting of community comment on the revised design concept.

 

2017 (November) - Results of the community consultation (undertaken in September and October) were presented to a Council briefing where Council requested Officers to work with MRHG regarding functions (weddings) as a key component of their business operations, as well as concerns regarding parking and removal of vegetation. 

 

2018 (March) – Revised proposal submitted to Council briefing on 21 March 2018 which involved:

 

·    Lease area (200m2) consisting of:

•     commercial space - kitchen/kiosk (50m2), dining space (80m2) and al-fresco (70m2)

·    Licensed public deck area 100m2;

·    Public amenity area to (123m2) consisting of:

•     community circle area (67m2), outdoor showers (20m2) and ablutions (36m2)

·    Toilet facilities to be a shared responsibility

·    Additional car parking area to be determined with no clearing of vegetation (formalisation of existing car park line marking to be addressed)

·    Realignment / relocation of the cycle/footpath – up to 100m in length

·    Existing public toilet block to be converted to store and leased to proponent

·    Café/kiosk offering including breakfast, lunch & afternoon tea

·    Other details

•     Opening hours reduced to day trade only (ie something like 7am – 3pm)

•     12 ‘Business type’ Functions each year

•     No weddings, 21st or 18th birthday parties

 

At this briefing Councillors were of the general view that the hours of use should be increased up to 8pm and that the number of ‘’business type” events be increased to 24 per year.

 

2018 May – As a result of a Council report being contained on the Council Agenda for the meeting to be held on 9 May, which reflected the revised conditions as referred to above, a further Council briefing was called for.  This was held on 2 May.

 

At the meeting held on 9 May, the matter was deferred pending a site inspection (which was held on 22 May 2018).

 

In addition to those meetings listed above there have also been many other Councillor briefings over the life of this project.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The statutory requirements were detailed in the report item 15.1 (9 May Council meeting) as shown in Attachment A to this report.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The relevant Plans and Policies were detailed in the report item 15.1 (9 May Council meeting) as shown in Attachment A to this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Given the lengthy statutory processes related to this proposal, which involve State government advertising and Parliamentary approval followed by local City advertising in accordance with S3.58 of the Local government Act, it is unlikely that, apart from minor costs such as surveying etc there will be any impact on the City’s 2018/19 budget.

 

The Officer recommendation includes authorising the CEO to enter into a Heads of Agreement (HoA) with the proponent for the café/kiosk. It is expected that a lease arrangement will be executed with MRHG in the future which will have positive financial result in that future revenue will be generated from this agreement.

 

Financial implications are therefore unlikely to be realised before the 2019/20 financial year and as a result are considered in the Long term Financial Plan section below.

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

The proposal includes expenditure on new public facilities (public toilets), relocation of existing infrastructure (footpath / cycleway) and upgrading of existing infrastructure (parking area).

 

Public toilets

The proponent requires the use of the existing public ablution block as a storage area. New public toilets will be built as part of this proposal within the new building. While the specific details have not been agreed, a major refurbishment of the public ablution block is scheduled for 2022/23 at a value of $200,000; an amount up to this allocation could be included as the City’s contribution to the project. This is considered a reasonable contribution and is consistent with other contributions the City has made in the past such as to Busselton foreshore businesses toilet facilities and the proposed contribution to the microbrewery toilet facilities.

 

Footpath / Cycleway

The plan proposes the construction of re-aligned footpath / cycleway at an estimated length of 220 metres. The existing footpath / cycleway conflicts with the driveway to the existing car park and this would be an opportune time to resolve this conflict. The proposed plan shows the footpath / cycleway relocated closer to the beach to provide a safer environment and also easier access to the café / kiosk.

 

The cost of a new footpath / cycleway is estimated at $57,000. The City’s contribution will need to be budgeted in the 2019/20 financial year when the café / kiosk is expected to be completed. The proponent is willing to contribute towards the cost of relocation of the footpath / cycleway when final costs are known following design and location issues being finalised.

 

Parking areas

The proponent has agreed to provide additional car bays necessary to comply with the planning assessment to support a net lettable area of 150m2 (dining room and alfresco area). The bays would need to be provided at a location to be determined by the City.

 

The existing car park has a capacity of 15 bays but needs to be re-surfaced and re-marked. The estimated cost of this work is $18,000. There are no funds for this work identified in the Long term Financial Plan but in the ordinary course of business, the City would normally bear the cost of this work. 

 

It should be noted that the above cost estimates have been provided from a desk top analysis and will need to be verified as the proposal is progressed. The figures should therefore be viewed as indicative and not actual. The details of the proposed financial contribution towards car park provision would also be negotiated whist the statutory processes were being progressed.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This report aligns with the following City of Busselton Key Goal Areas identified in the City’s 2017 Strategic Community Plan:

 

Key Goal Area 2: Places and Spaces

 

2.2          Attractive parks and open spaces that create opportunities for people to come together, socialise and enjoy a range of activities.  

 

 

Key Goal Area 4: Economy

 

4.1          An innovative and diversified economy that provides a variety of business and employment opportunities as well as consumer choice.

4.2          A community where local business is supported and in turn drives our economy.

4.3          Events and unique tourism experiences that attract visitors and investment.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The Risk Assessment was detailed in the report item 15.1 (9 May Council meeting) as shown in Attachment A to this report.

 

CONSULTATION

 

A detailed schedule of consultation conducted was detailed in the report item 15.1 (9 May Council meeting) as shown in Attachment A to this report.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Following the decision of Council to defer consideration of the recommendation to progress the development of the café on the Reserve, a site inspection was conducted on 22 May 2018. Subsequent to this inspection, a further meeting was held on site with the proponent and it was agreed that a ‘Feature Plan’ would be prepared.  This Plan is shown on Attachment B.

 

The Plan shows that the location of the proposed development has changed slightly from the information provided in the 9 May 2018 report to reflect Councils concerns in relation to the vegetation on the site. The impact of the development as shown on the Plan on mature growth is minimal.

 

The environmentally sustainable design of the building is sympathetic to the environment and its curved shape takes advantage of Geographe Bay to allow maximum exposure.

 

Coastal issues

The City has previously commissioned a Coastal Engineering Assessment of the Dunsborough foreshore for an earlier version of this proposal. The assessment report considered the location proposed for the cafe/kiosk is unlikely to be affected by erosion over the 30 year lease term, however may be subject to inundation in a severe weather event. Risk from such an event is proposed to be mitigated by the proponent by elevating the building 1m above ground level using dry screw piles.

 

A new report has been commissioned and if the assessment is different, the report will be made available when received.

 

Use and operating hours

As mentioned in the 9 May 2018 report, community concerns were raised over the original proposed uses of the building which included wedding functions as a core component of the proponents business. The proponent has since agreed to exclude weddings, 18th and 21st birthday functions with a small number of business related functions to be held during the year. The opening hours were also reduced from the initial proposal.

 

The hours of use (open to 8pm) and the number of ‘business type’ events were increased (to 24) by Councillors at the briefing session in March (from what was contained in the proponents submission) to reflect expected popularity of a café on the Dunsborough foreshore.

 

 

Infrastructure / financial issues

Financial arrangements relating to the provision and/or upgrading of infrastructure have been included in the Long Term Financial Plan section of this report. The arrangements identified are considered equitable and in line with other contributions made by developers on the Busselton foreshore.

 

Should Council adopt the Officer recommendation, Officers will commence the lengthy statutory process to excise the land from the Reserve and negotiate a draft Heads of Agreement that is mutually acceptable to both Council and the proponent.

 

The revised concept potentially provides the following benefits to the local area:

 

•             Community:  Improved facilities and amenity; upgraded public ablutions; strengthens the sense of place; enjoyment of the beach year round; positive local economic/tourism benefits and the development of community pride in sustainability;

•             Environment:  Touches the earth lightly (uses screw piles with no concrete pads) and is elevated off the ground to protect vegetation and prevent inundation in a major storm event; 100% sustainable energy production is proposed with a 200 panel solar array on the roof; renewable construction materials; pre-fabricated modular construction to reduce on-site impact; simple decommissioning of structure at the end of the life; all existing trees to remain with reintroduction of native vegetation;

•             Public facility upgrades:  Relocation of public ablutions within the proposed development; re-direction of existing bicycle path to improve cyclists, car and pedestrian flow;

•             Eliminates car / pedestrian / cyclist clash points on-site; car-park redesign to improve traffic flow onto Geographe Bay Road.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Council is requested to consider the revised concept and operating terms for the Dunsborough foreshore Café/kiosk proposal submitted by MRHG following further community consultation in late 2017. The concept and building plan for a commercial café/kiosk combined with community facilities (community seating; outdoor showers; new public ablutions; public viewing deck) on the Dunsborough foreshore has been recently revised in an effort to improve social, economic and environmental outcomes and incorporate both community and Council concerns.

 

Two separate areas will be required to be excised from the Reserve at Dunsborough foreshore:

 

·    The proposed new building; and

·    The existing toilet block which will be renovated to become a storeroom for the commercial space.

 

A Lease will be required to be entered into for that part of the building that contains the Café / kiosk, kitchen, dining room and alfresco areas totalling 200m2 and the existing toilet block. A Licence will be required to be entered into for the common area which occupies an area of 100m2.

 

It will be desirable to excise an area from Reserve greater than the building footprint to allow some flexibility from a lease definition point of view. This does not alter the leased area footprint of the commercial area of 200m2.

 

 

 

 

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may elect to:

 

•             Not support the revised design concept (Attachments A - D contained in the 9 May 2018 report attached) as modified by the Feature Plan (Attachment B);

•             Modify any of the proposed terms or funding arrangements; or

•             Discontinue facilitating the development of a café/kiosk on the Dunsborough foreshore.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Following Council adoption of the Officer Recommendation, Officers will finalise negotiations with MRHG for a mutually acceptable draft Heads of Agreement, which will inform the development of a future sub-lease (including funding of community facilities).  The Heads of Agreement will address matters relating to lease term, ground rent and private/public contributions to infrastructure improvements such as parking, public toilets and other public facilities.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

That the Council:

 

1.    Endorses the draft concept designs (as shown in Attachments  A - D to the 9 May 2018 report as modified by the Feature Plan shown at Attachment B) as the guide for further design development of the proposed commercial café/kiosk;

 

2.    Delegates authority for the CEO to enter into a Heads of Agreement  with Margaret River Hospitality Group Pty Ltd containing the following features:

·    Lease for a period of 30 years

·    Opening hours be approved from 7am to 8pm and the number of “Business type after hours events’ be set at no more than 24 each year;

·    No weddings, 21st or 18th birthday parties

·    Additional parking bays required to be provided in accordance with normal planning assessment

·    City infrastructure contributions to the project being :

·    $200,000 towards the cost of provision of new public toilet facilities;

·    $18,000 for upgrading the existing car park; and

·    An agreed contribution towards the cost of re-location of the footpath / cycleway when the design and location has been completed

 

3.    Delegates to the CEO authority to progress statutory advertising and parliamentary approvals for the excision of portions of parts of the ‘A’ Class Reserve R22965 within  ‘Centennial Park’ to accommodate the café/kiosk development and store proposed in this report;

 

4.    Once the excision of the areas referred to above at Recommendation 3 has occurred authorises the CEO to advertise an intended disposition of the two parcels of land identified in this report being portions of Reserve R22965, by leasehold in accordance with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 and presents a further report to Council following the closure for public submissions;

 

 


Council

70

27 June 2018

15.1

Attachment a

Council report & Attachments - Item15.1 May 201

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

72

27 June 2018

15.1

Attachment b

Proposed Plan of Site

 

 


Council                                                                                      73                                                                      27 June 2018

16.             FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT

Nil


Council                                                                                      74                                                                      27 June 2018

17.             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT

17.1           COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

SUBJECT INDEX:

Councillors' Information

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Governance Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Administration Officer - Governance - Katie Dudley

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Planning Applications received by the City between 16 May, 2018 and 31 May, 2018

Attachment b    Planning Applications determined by the City between 16 May, 2018 and 31 May, 2018

Attachment c    State Administrative Tribunal Appeals  

 

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.

 

Any matter that is raised in this report as a result of incoming correspondence is to be dealt with as normal business correspondence, but is presented in this bulletin for the information of the Council and the community.

 

INFORMATION BULLETIN

17.1.1    Planning Applications

 

Attachment A is a report detailing all Planning Applications received by the City between 16 May, 2018 and 31 May, 2018. A total of 48 formal applications were received during this period.

 

Attachment B is a report detailing all Planning Applications determined by the City between 16 May, 2018 and 31 May, 2018. A total of 35 applications (including subdivision referrals) were determined by the City during this period with 35 approved / supported and 0 refused / not supported.

17.1.2    State Administrative Tribunal Appeals

 

Attachment C is a list showing the current status of State Administrative Tribunal Appeals involving the City of Busselton as at 7 June, 2018.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

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

·    17.1.1              Planning Applications

·    17.1.2              State Administrative Tribunal Appeals

 

 


Council

75

27 June 2018

17.1

Attachment a

Planning Applications received by the City between 16 May, 2018 and 31 May, 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

82

27 June 2018

17.1

Attachment b

Planning Applications determined by the City between 16 May, 2018 and 31 May, 2018

 


 


 


 


 


Council

87

27 June 2018

17.1

Attachment c

State Administrative Tribunal Appeals

 


 

 


Council                                                                                      88                                                                      27 June 2018

18.             MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

19.             urgent business

20.             Confidential Matters

21.             Closure