Council                                                                                      2                                                                      8 August 2018

ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN 
VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST
city@busselton.wa.gov.au


Please note:  These minutes are yet to be confirmed as a true record of proceedings

CITY OF BUSSELTON

MINUTES FOR THE Council MEETING HELD ON 8 August 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... DECLARATION OF OPENING/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF VISITORS/DISCLAIMER. 3

2....... Attendance. 3

3....... Prayer. 3

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

5....... Disclosure Of Interests. 4

6....... ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER. 4

7....... Question Time For Public. 4

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice. 4

Question Time For Public. 4

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

Previous Council Meetings. 5

8.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 25 July 2018. 5

8.2          Minutes of the Special Council Meeting held 25 July 2018. 5

Committee Meetings. 5

8.3          Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 24 July 2018. 5

9....... RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS. 5

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

Adoption by Exception Resolution.. 6

12..... REPORTS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS. 7

12.1        Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/07/2018 - RESCISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY 142 ROADSIDE ADVERTISING.. 7

12.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/07/2018 - RESCISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY 245 WORKSHOP ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY. 11

12.3        Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/07/2018 - RESCISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY 217/3 RESERVE MAINTENANCE STANDARDS. 15

13..... PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT. 18

13.1        PROSPECTIVE FREEHOLD ACQUISITION OF LOT 500 (CROWN RESERVE 22884)  QUEEN ELIZABETH AVENUE, BUSSELTON.. 18

13.2        APPLICATION FOR USE NOT LISTED (SMALL BAR) - LOT 182 (UNIT 3, 86) WEST STREET, WEST BUSSELTON.. 22

17..... CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT. 28

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 28

ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED.. 40

12.       REPORTS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS. 40

12.4        Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/07/2018 - STATUTORY REVIEW OF DELEGATIONS. 40

13..... PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT. 28

13.3        APPLICATION FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING PRIVATE RECREATION, RESTAURANT/RECEPTION CENTRE AND CHALETS - LOT 40 (HSE NO 342) WILDWOOD ROAD, ANNIEBROOK. 28

14..... Engineering and Works Services Report. 53

15..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 54

15.1        COMMUNITY BIDS 2018/19 ROUND ONE ALLOCATIONS. 54

16..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 60

18..... MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN.. 61

19..... urgent business. 61

19.1        BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST – RATE INSTALMENT DATES. 61

20..... Confidential Reports. 62

21..... Closure. 62

 


MINUTES

 

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE A Meeting of the Busselton City Council HELD IN Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 8 August 2018 AT 5.30pm.

 

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

 

The Presiding Member open the meeting at 5.30pm.

2.               Attendance

Presiding Member:

Members:

 

Cr Grant Henley     Mayor

Cr Coralie Tarbotton

Cr Ross Paine

Cr Rob Bennett

Cr Paul Carter

Cr Robert Reekie

Cr Kelly Hick

Cr Lyndon Miles

 

Officers:

 

Mr Mike Archer, Chief Executive Officer

Mr Oliver Darby, Director, Engineering and Works Services

Mr Paul Needham, Director, Planning and Development Services

Mr Cliff Frewing, Acting Director, Community and Commercial Services

Mr Tony Nottle, Director, Finance and Corporate Services

Miss Kate Dudley, Administration Officer, Governance

 

Apologies:

 

Nil

 

Approved Leave of Absence:

 

                 Cr John McCallum

 

Media:

 

“Busselton-Dunsborough Times”

“Busselton-Dunsborough Mail”

 

Public:

 

20

3.               Prayer

 

The prayer was delivered by Gerald Hutton of Dunsborough Community Church.

 

4.               Application for Leave of Absence

 

Nil

5.               Disclosure Of Interests

 

The Mayor noted that a declaration of financial interest had been received from:

            

•          Cr Lyndon Miles in relation to agenda Item:

 

                             15.1        COMMUNITY BIDS 2018/19 ROUND ONE ALLOCATIONS

 

             A declaration of Impartiality Interest has been received from:

            

             •             Cr Coralie Tarbotton in relation to agenda Item:

 

                             15.1        COMMUNITY BIDS 2018/19 ROUND ONE ALLOCATIONS

 

The Mayor advised that in accordance with the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 this declaration would be read out immediately before Item 15.1 was discussed.

6.               ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Nil

 

7.               Question Time For Public

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice

 

Nil

Question Time For Public

 

7.1            Mr Neville Wheatley of Yalyallup

 

                  The following question was asked at the 8 August 2018 Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

Question:

Will the Council be notifying residents in the surrounding area of the airport of plans for the future?

 

Response:

The Presiding Member responded that airport plans are well known and communicated to the community. The City has recently been short listed for a Qantas Academy, there will be an announcement on Friday 10 August 2018. If the City is selected, further community consultation will take place. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes 

Previous Council Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 25 July 2018

COUNCIL DECISION

C1808/139              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 25 July 2018 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED 8/0

 

8.2             Minutes of the Special Council Meeting held 25 July 2018

COUNCIL DECISION

C1808/140              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor R Reekie

That the Minutes of the Special Council Meeting held 25 July 2018 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED 8/0

 

Committee Meetings

8.3             Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 24 July 2018

COUNCIL DECISION

C1808/141              Moved Councillor K Hick, seconded Councillor R Bennett

 

That the Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 24 July 2018 be noted.

CARRIED 8/0

9.               RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS

 

PRESENTATION

 

Mr Bruce Hammon presented as a party with an interest on item 13.3 – “Application for Mixed-Use Development Including Private Recreation, Restaurant/Reception Centre and Chalets - Lot 40 (Hse No 342) Wildwood Road, Anniebrook”, as a neighbouring property and was generally in support of the Officer Recommendation. 

 

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

                   Nil

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

                   Nil

                   Adoption by Exception Resolution

At this juncture the Mayor advised the meeting that with the exception of the items identified to be withdrawn for discussion, that the remaining reports, including the Committee and Officer Recommendations, will be adopted en bloc, i.e. all together.

Items Brought Forward For Discussion

 

COUNCIL DECISION/ COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1808/142              Moved Councillor C Tarbotton , seconded Councillor P Carter

 

That the Committee and Officer Recommendations in relation to the following agenda items be carried en bloc:

               

12.1        Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/07/2018 - RESCISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY 142 ROADSIDE ADVERTISING

12.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/07/2018 - RESCISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY 245 WORKSHOP ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

12.3        Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/07/2018 - RESCISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY 217/3 RESERVE MAINTENANCE STANDARDS

13.1        PROSPECTIVE FREEHOLD ACQUISITION OF LOT 500 (CROWN RESERVE 22884)
 QUEEN ELIZABETH AVENUE, BUSSELTON

13.2        APPLICATION FOR USE NOT LISTED (SMALL BAR) - LOT 182 (UNIT 3, 86) WEST STREET, WEST BUSSELTON

13.3        APPLICATION FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING PRIVATE RECREATION, RESTAURANT/RECEPTION CENTRE AND CHALETS - LOT 40 (HSE NO 342) WILDWOOD ROAD, ANNIEBROOK

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 

 


Council                                                                                      10                                                                    8 August 2018

12.             REPORTS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS

12.1           Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/07/2018 - RESCISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY 142 ROADSIDE ADVERTISING

SUBJECT INDEX:

Council Policies

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Governance and Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Council Policy 142 - Roadside Advertising  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 24 July 2018, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The purpose of this report is to recommend rescission of Council Policy 142 – Roadside Advertising (the Policy) (Attachment A).  Under the Policy Council is to consider applications for roadside advertising by the calling of a public tender where interest has been shown, and/or Council believes the outcome has a net public benefit within aesthetic criteria. 

 

The Policy was adopted in 2002 and does not appear to have been reviewed since.  A review of the Policy has now been undertaken and it is recommended that it be rescinded, on the basis that it is no longer relevant or aligned to the City’s current strategic direction.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Policy was adopted in 2002 and sets out the process by which applications for roadside advertising (on bus shelters, street bins, and street seats in urban areas) are to be called and the ‘tests’ to be applied in considering whether such advertising is appropriate.  These include functionality and location of the shelter, bin or seat, the cost / income implications, the aesthetics and quality, and compliance with ‘adopted Council Townscape Guidelines’.  

 

Prior even to the Policy being adopted, the City (then Shire) of Busselton, in 1995, entered into an agreement with Muscara Holdings Pty Ltd trading as Streetside Advertising (Streetside Advertising) for a period of five years for the placement of and advertisement on bench seats within the City.  This agreement was extended beyond that term.

 

During 2012 the CEO requested that City staff review the use of roadside advertising, and accordingly also the services provided by Streetside Advertising. The review found that the benches provided were continually vandalised (mainly being the subject of graffiti), that the quality of the benches was low, and that they were generally out-dated and no longer suited to the landscaping and rejuvenation of the Busselton city centre.

 

Subsequently, in 2014 Council considered a (confidential) report in relation to the contract in place between the City and Streetside Advertising, and more broadly whether this type of advertising (on street seats) is desirable.  Council resolved (C1403/057) as follows:

 

“That the Council does not continue with the existing contract with Streetside Advertising expiring on 30 June 2014”.

 

Since that time the City has not entered into any other private contracts with respect to street seat advertising and does not currently have any private contracts in place for the provision of advertising on City bins or bus shelters, with the majority of City provided litter bins in Busselton and Dunsborough city / town centres displaying City images. 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

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

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

In August 2017 the CEO commissioned a high level independent review of the City’s governance systems - the Governance Systems Review.   Included in the scope of the review was the City’s policy and procedure framework with the following recommendations made:

 

1.    There should be a review of the Council Policies with the intent that a Council Policy:

a.    Should deal with higher level objectives and strategies;

b.    Should not deal with operational matters, employee matters, or other matters which are the responsibility if the CEO; and

c.     Should, where appropriate provide sufficient direction to the CEO to develop OPPs which deal with the implementation of the Council Policy or other detailed matters.

2.    As part of that review, any existing Council Policy should be deleted where it could, more sensibly, be dealt with by an OPP adopted by the CEO.

3.    Consideration should be given to developing a new Council Policy which sets out the ‘framework’ for Council Policies, OPPs and other procedures.  The new Policy would explain the role to be played by each level of document.  It could, for example, be called a Policy Framework Policy.

In response a Policy Framework has been developed and endorsed by Council, setting out the intent of Council policies, as opposed to operational documents such as Staff Management Practices and operational procedures.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The recommendation to rescind the policy has no financial implications. 

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

The recommendation to rescind the policy has no long term financial plan implications. 

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Officers Recommendation will not impact adversely on the achievement of any of the community objectives contained within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 and will instead serve to meet the objectives of Key Goal Area 6, specifically:

·    community objective 6.1 – ‘Governance systems, processes and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent’, by streamlining the City’s governance approach with respect to strategic planning; and

·    community objective 6.4 – ‘Assets are well maintained and responsibly managed’, by ensuring that urban infrastructure is appropriate and able to be readily maintained to the City’s standards.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The City does not currently utilise roadside advertising as contemplated by the Policy.  In the event, however that the City wanted in the future to enter into such an arrangement (despite the considerations outlined in the Officer Comment section of this report), the absence of a specific policy will not limit this.  As such there are no identified risks of a medium or greater level associated with the Officers Recommendation.

 

CONSULTATION

 

No consultation was considered necessary in relation to this matter.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The Policy is obviously very out-dated; it refers to guidelines under the Dunsborough and Busselton Town Centre Studies (2002), which are also out-dated and considered inconsistent with current strategic planning guidelines, and references a Townscape Advisory Committee that has ceased to exist.  The policy requires for tenders to be called for roadside advertising, however under the current Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, the contract value of this type of advertising is unlikely to require a tender.

 

Roadside advertising of the type contemplated by the Policy is normally based on a supplier providing free seats/benches and / or associated infrastructure (like litter bins and bus shelters) in exchange for the right to advertise on a limited number of these structures.  The risk of profit or loss associated with the advertising normally lies with the supplier, with the local government earning a (relatively small) fixed fee for granting the right to advertise on a pre-determined number of structures.  The supplier is also responsible for maintaining these structures (including removal of graffiti).

 

The major consideration or benefit for entering into this type of advertising agreement is the provision and maintenance of the structures by the supplier, at no cost to the local government. The number of structures to be provided by the supplier (and hence the financial advantage of such an agreement to Council) will depend on a range of factors, including the number and location of structures allowed, the design and quality of the furniture (for instance a preparedness to accept plain, robust furniture will generally result in more “free” non-advertising structures being supplied) and the term of the contract.

 

While things such as the number and location and design, standard and maintenance of the structures should negotiable under an agreement, the aesthetic value of this type of advertising is questionable and could detract from the City’s town and landscapes.  Importantly, the City, as part of its ongoing Busselton and Dunsborough foreshore redevelopment projects, has determined certain themes for street furniture in high profile areas like the Busselton and Dunsborough centres and foreshores, and in Port Geographe (that is specific designs, materials and standards for items like bench seats, litter bins and barbeques). It is unlikely that the City would have an unlimited choice/discretion in relation to design and materials, which could then result in the need to compromise on its strategic direction in this regard.

 

The City’s ability to control advertising material and standards likely to be limited. Maintenance and response times (especially where the supplier is in Perth) is also likely to be an issue.  Due to the nature and prominent location of street furniture, it is preferred for maintenance of street furniture to be under the direct control of the City (to ensure that damage caused by graffiti or other types of vandalism is repaired in the shortest possible time).


It is for all of the above reasons that the City does not currently have any arrangements in place for the provision of roadside advertising of the type contemplated by this Policy and why officers consider it appropriate to rescind, as opposed to update, the Policy.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is recommended that the Policy be rescinded, as it is not considered to be relevant or aligned to the City’s current strategic direction and objectives. 

 

OPTIONS

 

Council could instead require that the Policy is reviewed and updated to reflect an alternate position and high level principles with respect to roadside advertising arrangements.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The Policy will be rescinded immediately upon adoption of the Officers Recommendation.

 

COUNCIL DECISION/ COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1808/143              Moved Councillor C Tarbotton , seconded Councillor P Carter

 

That the Council rescinds Council Policy 142 – Roadside Advertising.

 

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 


Council                                                                                      14                                                                    8 August 2018

12.2           Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/07/2018 - RESCISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY 245 WORKSHOP ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

SUBJECT INDEX:

Council Policies

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Governance and Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Workshop Environmental Policy

Attachment b    Environment Policy  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 24 July 2018, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The purpose of this report is to recommend rescission of Council Policy 245 – Workshop Environmental Policy (the Policy) (Attachment A).  The Policy outlines Council’s position with respect to reducing its environmental impact in all aspects of its work activities and specifically applies to the operation of the workshop at the City depot. 

 

The Policy was originally created in 2009 as part of an initiative at the time to achieve Motor Trade Association of WA (MTA) Green Stamp Environmental Accreditation.  In order to achieve level three of the accreditation, an Environmental Policy was required.  In 2017 the City reviewed its membership of the MTA along with the Green Stamp accreditation and its benefits and decided not to retain either.  This report, therefore recommends that the Policy be rescinded.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Policy was originally created in 2009 as part of an initiative by the then mechanical workshop team to achieve Motor Trade Association of WA (MTA) Green Stamp Environmental Accreditation.  The mechanical workshop had taken on the challenge to reduce its impact on the environment which involved reviewing its use of toxic chemicals and detergents and ensuring that materials are disposed of in the appropriate manner (recycling materials, correct disposal of oils at waste facilities and so on).  In order to achieve level three of the accreditation (the final step), an Environmental Policy was required. 

 

The Policy was reviewed in 2012, with officers recommending that it be retained (with minor changes to terminology only) to demonstrate the organisation’s commitment to best practice operating procedures for the motor trades industry.  The relevant accreditation was also retained. 

 

In 2017 the City reviewed its membership of the MTA, along with the Green Stamp accreditation and its benefits and decided not to retain either.  While the work done to obtain the accreditation was worthwhile and remains in place as part of Fleet Service’s standard operating protocols and procedures, the accreditation itself was not felt to have any sufficient value to retain.  While purported to have leadership benefits with respect to encouraging other local businesses to follow the City’s lead, there has been no significant visible manifestation of such purported leadership/benefit.  This report therefore recommends that the Policy be rescinded.

 


 

The recommendation to rescind the Policy is also aligned to the recommendations of the Governance Services Review (GSR), a high level independent review of the City’s governance systems undertaken by Mr John Woodhouse in August 2017 – November 2017.  With respect to the City’s policy and procedure framework the GSR recommended as follows:

 

1.    There should be a review of the Council Policies with the intent that a Council Policy:

a.    Should deal with higher level objectives and strategies;

b.    Should not deal with operational matters, employee matters, or other matters which are the responsibility if the CEO; and

c.     Should, where appropriate provide sufficient direction to the CEO to develop OPPs which deal with the implementation of the Council Policy or other detailed matters.

2.    As part of that review, any existing Council Policy should be deleted where it could, more sensibly, be dealt with by an OPP adopted by the CEO.

3.    Consideration should be given to developing a new Council Policy which sets out the ‘framework’ for Council Policies, OPPs and other procedures.  The new Policy would explain the role to be played by each level of document.  It could, for example, be called a Policy Framework Policy.

The Policy contains principles that are able to be embodied in operational practices and procedures.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

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

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The City has a broader environmental policy, Policy 030 - Environmental Policy (Attachment B), adopted in 2004 and last reviewed in 2016.  This policy outlines Council’s commitment towards continuous improvement in environmental management and to ensuring its decision making considers the impacts on the environment and identifies measures to adequately manage them.  With respect to implementation of its objectives the policy refers to planning, designing, operating and conducting operations in a manner that minimises waste and the demand on natural resources and energy.  Hence, it has relevance and sets out Council’s commitment to the environment, even in the absence of the Policy. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The recommendation to rescind the Policy has no financial implications,  However the annual MTA membership and Green Stamp accreditation was costing the City $890 per annum. 

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

The recommendation to rescind the policy has no long term financial plan implications. 

 


 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Officers Recommendation will not impact adversely on the achievement of any of the community objectives contained within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 and will instead serve to meet the objectives of Key Goal Area 6, specifically community objective 6.1 - Governance systems, processes and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent, by streamlining the City’s governance approach with respect to strategic planning.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The City’s current management of the workshop and existing operational practices and procedures align with the intent and principles of the Policy.  Therefore, there are no identified risks of a medium or greater level associated with the Officers Recommendation

 

CONSULTATION

 

No consultation was considered necessary in relation to this matter.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

While maintaining the MTA Green Stamp accreditation had previously been a relatively simple process, the requirements changed in 2017, making the paperwork and overall process a lot more onerous.  The MTA is a body created predominantly to improve the environmental processes and outcomes of mechanical workshops in the private sector, and also provide a point of difference for them from a marketing perspective.  The City joined the organisation to demonstrate its commitment to good environmental practices and outcomes.  The Policy was designed to reflect this and to facilitate achievement of the level three accreditation.  

 

Regardless of accreditation, the Fleet Service’s current standard operating practices and procedures continue to demonstrate a commitment to the environment,  with a focus on using the most environmentally friendly, lowest toxic products available, and with established (and easy) access to proper waste disposal. 

 

Further, the City’s Environmental Policy continues to reflect Council’s commitment to the environment and to the principles of planning, designing, operating and conducting operations in a manner that minimises waste and the demand on natural resources and energy.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is recommended that the Policy be rescinded, as it is no longer directly relevant and the principles are covered sufficiently by Policy 030 and current operational practices and procedures.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council could instead require that the Policy is retained and / or further reviewed.  For the reasons outlined in this report, that is not recommended. 

 


 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The Policy will be rescinded immediately upon adoption of the Officers Recommendation.

 

COUNCIL DECISION/ COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1808/144              Moved Councillor C Tarbotton , seconded Councillor P Carter

 

That the Council rescinds Council Policy 245 – Workshop Environmental Policy.

 

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 


Council                                                                                      17                                                                    8 August 2018

12.3           Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/07/2018 - RESCISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY 217/3 RESERVE MAINTENANCE STANDARDS

SUBJECT INDEX:

Council Policies

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Governance and Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Council Policy 217/3 - Reserve Maintenance Standards  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 24 July 2018, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The purpose of this report is to recommend rescission of Council Policy 217/3 – Reserve Maintenance Standards (the Policy) (Attachment A).  The Policy, which is very brief and out-dated, states that how parks maintenance standards will be set by Council according to the Passive and Active Reserve Maintenance Standards Schedules.

 

In August 2017 the CEO commissioned a high level independent review of the City’s governance systems - the Governance Systems Review (GSR).   Included in the scope of the review was the City’s policy and procedure framework with recommendations made in relation to the nature and intent of Council policies, namely that there should be a review of Council policies and that Council policies should deal with higher level strategies and objectives, as opposed to operational matters. 

 

In accordance with the recommendations of the GSR, and for the reasons outlined in the report, it is recommended that the Policy be rescinded.

 

BACKGROUND

 

It is not clear exactly when the Policy was first adopted.  Documentation held in the City’s record keeping system indicates it was in existence, and possibly created in 1999 with the referenced Passive and Active Maintenance Standards Schedule attached to the agenda of an Executive Committee meeting held on 17 February 1999.  Attached is a copy of the referenced original Passive and Active Maintenance Standards Schedule, noted as an Attachment to Item 8.1 of an Executive Committee meeting held on 17 February 1999.  The Policy is clearly out-dated and requires review.  

 

With respect to the City’s policies generally, the GSR was undertaken over a 3 month period by Mr John Woodhouse LLB B.Juris and made the following recommendations with respect to the City’s policy and procedure framework:

 

1.    There should be a review of the Council Policies with the intent that a Council Policy:

a.    Should deal with higher level objectives and strategies;

b.    Should not deal with operational matters, employee matters, or other matters which are the responsibility if the CEO; and

c.     Should, where appropriate provide sufficient direction to the CEO to develop OPPs which deal with the implementation of the Council Policy or other detailed matters.

2.    As part of that review, any existing Council Policy should be deleted where it could, more sensibly, be dealt with by an OPP adopted by the CEO.

3.    Consideration should be given to developing a new Council Policy which sets out the ‘framework’ for Council Policies, OPPs and other procedures.  The new Policy would explain the role to be played by each level of document.  It could, for example, be called a Policy Framework Policy.

In response a Policy Framework has been developed and endorsed by Council, setting out the intent of Council policies, as opposed to operational documents such as Staff Management Practices and operational procedures. 

 

It is considered that this Policy in terms of its intent is now managed through other Council and operational processes and it is therefore recommended that the Policy be rescinded.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

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

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

There are no plans or other policies directly relevant.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The recommendation to rescind the policy has no financial implications. 

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

The recommendation to rescind the policy has no long term financial plan implications. 

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Officers Recommendation will not impact adversely on the achievement of any of the community objectives contained within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 and will instead serve to meet the objectives of Key Goal Area 6, specifically community objective 6.1 - Governance systems, processes and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent, by streamlining the City’s governance approach with respect to strategic planning.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The City undertakes asset management and maintenance planning on a regular basis with respect to all of its assets, including parks, with these processes providing for the maintenance of parks within budget allocations.  Therefore there are no identified risks of a medium or greater level associated with the Officers Recommendation.

 

CONSULTATION

 

No consultation was considered necessary in relation to this matter.

 


 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The Policy is out-dated and references a schedule that is no longer relevant.  The intent of the Policy is also currently adequately managed through other Council and operational processes, namely asset management planning, long term financial planning and budgeting, and operational maintenance scheduling.  

 

While the Policy was probably necessary at the time it was adopted, these planning processes, which are ongoing and continuously being refined, are well established at the City.  This is particularly since the introduction of ‘Integrated Planning’ by the (then) Department of Local Government in 2011 and its focus on strategic and asset management planning.  The Policy therefore is not considered necessary. 

 

In the event that Council does want to retain a policy outlining their commitment or position with respect to the maintenance of parks and reserves, the Policy could be revised to provide a more relevant statement. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is recommended that the Policy be rescinded, as it is sufficiently managed by current Council and operational practices and procedures.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council could instead require that the Policy is reviewed and updated to reflect a more relevant strategic statement with respect to parks maintenance standards. 

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The Policy will be rescinded immediately upon adoption of the Officers Recommendation.

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION/ COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1808/145              Moved Councillor C Tarbotton , seconded Councillor P Carter

 

That the Council rescinds Council Policy 0217/3 – Parks Maintenance Standards.

 

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 


Council                                                                                      21                                                                    8 August 2018

13.             PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT

13.1           PROSPECTIVE FREEHOLD ACQUISITION OF LOT 500 (CROWN RESERVE 22884)
 QUEEN ELIZABETH AVENUE, BUSSELTON


SUBJECT INDEX:

Land and Asset Management

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Assets are well maintained and responsibly managed.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Strategic Planning and Development Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Planning and Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Strategic Planning and Development Services - Matthew Riordan

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Location Plan - Lot 500 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Busselton

Attachment b    Neighbouring Land Ownership  

  

PRÉCIS

 

Lot 500 Queen Elizabeth Avenue (Crown Reserve 22884) is vested in the City of Busselton for the purpose of ‘Sand Pit, Rubbish Disposal and Sanitary Site’ with a Management Order issued in favour of the City providing the power to lease, sub-lease or licence for a period not exceeding 10-years (subject to the approval in writing of the Minister for Lands).

 

Given important strategic investments undertaken to date, it is considered desirable for the City to have security of tenure over Lot 500.   In July 2016, the City of Busselton made an offer to the (then) Department of Lands (DoL) of $50,000 (excluding GST) to acquire the freehold title of Lot 500. In correspondence to the City in September 2017, the (now) Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) accepted the City’s offer.

 

The Contract of Sale provided by the DPLH has been now declared by Legal and Property Services to be ‘in order for dealing’. Accordingly, this report recommends that the City enter into that Contract of Sale with the DPLH for the acquisition of Lot 500 Queen Elizabeth Avenue.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Lot 500 has an area of 26.42 hectares, and is identified as a Reserve for ‘Recreation’ in Local Planning Scheme 21 (LPS21). The property is partly situated within the odour buffer for the Busselton Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is located to the south of the property. Please refer to the Location Plan at Attachment A and the Neighbouring Land Ownership plan at Attachment B.

 

Approximately 12.9 hectares of Lot 500 was historically used for waste disposal and landfill (the ‘Busselton Waste Facility’) for a period of about 50 years, being de-commissioned in 2012 in accordance with a ‘Closure and Rehabilitation Plan’ prepared on behalf of the City and endorsed by the (then) Department of Environmental Regulation (DER).

 

In the correspondence to the DoL of July 2016, the City put forward the case for freehold ownership of Lot 500. In return correspondence to the City, in September 2017, the DPLH approved the City’s offer to acquire the land for $50,000 exclusive of GST. 

 


 

The acquisition of Lot 500 has been deferred since September 2017. This was in order to allow for legal due diligence to be undertaken by external experts in regard to potential liabilities to the City under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. That advice has been provided, clarifying that the City is currently occupying and using land (Lot 500) for which it would generally have the same responsibilities and obligations under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003, regardless of whether the land remained vested in the City by the Crown or was owned by the City in freehold title.      

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The prospective purchase of Lot 500 will constitute ‘acquiring an interest in land’ as contemplated in s3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act). However, it will not constitute a ‘major land transaction’ under the Act and therefore will not necessitate the application of any further requirements of s3.59 (e.g. the preparation and advertisement of a ‘business plan’ concerning the development of the property prior to any purchase).

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The City’s ‘Strategic Land Review 2016’, as reported to the Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 28 September 2016, identified (inter alia) the prospective strategic acquisition of Lot 500 Queen Elizabeth Avenue and this was endorsed by the Council (together with a suite of other recommendations in regard to strategic land assets).

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The cost of acquisition of Lot 500 ($50,000 exclusive of GST) has been included in the City’s adopted Budget for 2018-2019 and would be funded from the Waste Reserve.

 

Long-term Financial Plan (LTFP) Implications

 

The potential cost of relocating the City of Busselton (EWS) Operations Services Depot from its current site on Barlee Street to Lot 500 Queen Elizabeth Avenue has been factored into the LTFP recently adopted by the Council. Any such relocation would not be likely to commence, however, until sometime after 2025.   

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Officer Recommendation aligns to Key Goal Area 6 of the Community Strategic Plan 2017 (Leadership: visionary, collaborative, accountable), being 6.4 ‘Assets are well maintained and responsibly managed’. 

 

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.

 

The key risks associated with the land relate to the contaminated sites legislation and, as set out elsewhere in this report, the City’s responsibilities in regard to that legislation are generally unaffected by the procuring of freehold title. As such, there are no significant risks associated with the Officer Recommendation. 

 


 

CONSULTATION

 

There is no statutory obligation for the City to advertise this prospective acquisition for public notice. 

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The most secure form of tenure for the City in terms of its strategic investment in Lot 500 is freehold title. This is because:

 

1)    The subject property contains, and will in the future likely contain more, significant City infrastructure and it is seen as appropriate that the City secure the most secure form of title over the land in order to best protect those assets.

2)    Freehold title will enable leasing or licensing arrangements to be entered into by the City which would not be required to be subject to Ministerial approval, or limited to 10-years in duration, and any associated income would be to the direct benefit of the City and its ratepayers.

3)    The acquisition of freehold title will not generally affect the City’s current responsibilities in terms of site contamination-related issues.       

 

The DPLH presented the City with a draft Contract of Sale (CoS) based on standard terms and conditions. The key terms and conditions of the CoS are as follows:

 

·    The purchase price is $50,000 + GST payable by way of a deposit of $5,000 + GST upon contract execution and the balance upon settlement.

·    The City is responsible for payment of all costs and duties associated with registration of transfer of the land in name of the City.

·    Unless otherwise agreed settlement will occur within 60 days of contract execution.

·    The land is sold “as is” and no warranties are given in relation to matters such as zoning, suitability for intended use by the City or any existing encumbrances like sewers, drains, pipelines and cables on or over the land.

·    The City assumes all responsibility for the presence of any contamination found over, on or in the land and releases and indemnifies the Minister and the Crown against all actions, claims, losses, damages, compensation, costs of remediation and legal costs which at any time may be brought or made against the Minister or the Crown arising from the state or condition of the land or any contamination on the land or emanating from the land.

 

Based on currently available information and subsequent legal advice obtained by the City it is considered that becoming the freehold owner of Lot 500, and assuming the responsibility and providing the indemnity and release as outlined in the fifth bullet point above, is unlikely to make any significant difference to the City’s current risk in relation to the legacy contamination associated with Lot 500. On that basis the proposed purchase price of $50,000 + GST is considered very favourable to the City.

 

CONCLUSION

 

For reasons outlined throughout this report, it is recommended that the Council endorse the City proceeding with the strategic acquisition of Lot 500 (Crown Reserve 22884) Queen Elizabeth Avenue from the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage for the sum of $50,000 excluding GST.

 


 

It is further recommended that in due course, the City coordinate the amendment of the ‘Recreation’ reserve depicted over Lot 500 in LPS21 to more accurately reflect current and proposed land usage. It is considered that a more appropriate reservation would be ‘Public Purposes (Waste Transfer Station and Other Works, Services and Operations)’, or similar. This process can be undertaken, however, following the acquisition and transfer of freehold title in Lot 500 to the City.

 

OPTIONS

 

Should the Council not agree with the Officer Recommendation it could consider the following options:

 

1.    Support the acquisition of Lot 500 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, but for a negotiated lesser sum.

 

2.    Not support the acquisition of Lot 500 Queen Elizabeth Avenue for stated and justified reasons and thereby maintain the ‘status quo’.

 

Neither option would represent a desirable alternative as the current purchase price offered by the DPLH is considered to be fair and reasonable, and to not proceed with the acquisition would run counter to the Council’s adopted strategic direction and significant previous and planned future investment in the property. 

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

If the Officer Recommendation is supported by the Council, the Contract of Sale shall be endorsed on its behalf by the City and forwarded to the DPLH for execution, together with a required initial deposit of $5,500 (10% of the purchase price, including GST) and the name of the City’s ‘settlement agent’ prior to 31 August 2018. In this respect, it has been agreed between parties that the City shall attend to the preparation and coordinated execution of the Transfer of Crown Land documentation ‘in house’, through Legal and Property Services.

 

COUNCIL DECISION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1808/146              Moved Councillor C Tarbotton , seconded Councillor P Carter

 

That the Council:

 

1)    Resolves to acquire Lot 500 Queen Elizabeth Avenue (being Crown Reserve 22884 on Deposited Plan 55437) for the sum of $50,000 excluding GST.

2)    Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and enter into a Contract of Sale in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in this report.

3)    Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to commence the process for amending the reservation over Lot 500 in Local Planning Scheme 21, from ‘Recreation’ to ‘Public Purposes (Waste Transfer Station and Other Works, Services and Operations)’, or similar.   

 

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 


Council                                                                                      24                                                                    8 August 2018

13.2           APPLICATION FOR USE NOT LISTED (SMALL BAR) - LOT 182 (UNIT 3, 86) WEST STREET, 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:

Planning Officer - Stephanie Navarro

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Location Plan

Attachment b    Development Plans

Attachment c    Land Use Concept Plan

Attachment d   Summary of Submissions  

  

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is asked to consider a development (planning) application seeking approval for a Use Not Listed (Small Bar) at Unit 3, 86 West Street, West Busselton. The proposal is located within the ‘West Street Development’ and is located within the same building as Kmart and Health Freak Café.

 

The proposal is placed before the Council due to the nature of the issues requiring consideration.

 

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

 

BACKGROUND

 

Lot 182 (Unit 3, 86) West Street, West Busselton is located within the ‘West Street Development’. The subject tenancy is located within the same building as Kmart and Health Freak cafe. A location plan is provided in Attachment A.

 

The site is zoned “Restricted Business” under Local Planning Scheme No.21 (‘the Scheme’). A Small Bar is not listed under Table 1 – The Zoning Table of the Scheme, and it is considered that it can be treated as a “Use not listed”. It should be noted that under Omnibus 4, which is currently awaiting final endorsement from the Western Australian Planning Commission, the land use “Small Bar” is proposed to be inserted into the Scheme and would be an “A” (discretionary with advertising) land use within the Restricted Business zone (which is to be renamed as the ‘Service Commercial’ zone).

 

The ground floor of the development proposes a kitchen and 51m2 of wine/beer bar area inside the tenancy with an addition 24m2 of outdoor seating area. The development has internal access to shared toilets with Tenancy 2 (Health Freak Café).  The development proposes external modifications to the tenancy and includes two ‘signage zones’ on the northern elevation and one ‘signage zone’ on the eastern elevation.

 

Development plans are provided at Attachment B

 

While the applicant has not indicated the maximum number of patrons that will be accommodated on site, under a Small Bar Liquor Licence, issued by the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor, the maximum is 120 people. Given the small size of the premise, however, a lower maximum occupancy would be set due to requirements under the National Construction Codes, with the limiting factor being the number of toilets. It is considered that numbers would probably not be able to exceed 100.

 

Trading hours under a Small Bar Liquor Licence are ordinarily as follows:

 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key elements of the statutory environment that relate to the proposal are set out in the Scheme.

 

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

 

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.

 

As the development proposes a land use which is not listed under Table 1 – The Zoning Table of the Scheme it needs to be considered whether it can be treated as a “Use not listed” and is subject to the provisions of clause 3.4.2 of the Scheme which states:

 

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

 

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

(b)       determine that the use may be consistent with the objectives and policies of the particular zone and thereafter follow the advertising procedures of clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions in considering an application for development approval;  or

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

 

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

 

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

 

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 C.

 

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 formally advertised in the local newspaper on 18 May 2018 for a period of 14 days. As a result of the advertising one submission being a letter from the Strata Manager of an adjoining residential property was received, raising the following concerns/contentions:

·    Hours of operation;

·    Noise generated by music/bands, patrons leaving the premise and using outdoor seating;

·    Anti-social behaviours;

·    Late night traffic noise; and

·    Inconsistency with the Land Use Concept Plan

 

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

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Land Use Classification

 

The proposed development has been considered to be a “Use not Listed” as it does not fall under a land use currently listed within the Scheme. It should be noted that as part of Omnibus 4, which is currently with the Western Australia Planning Commission awaiting final endorsement, that the land use “Small Bar” is proposed to be inserted into Table 1 – The Zoning Table and will be defined as:

 

small bar means premises the subject of a small bar licence granted under the Liquor Control Act 1988;

 

As part of Omnibus 4 a “Small Bar” is proposed to be an “A” (discretionary with advertising) land use within the Restricted Business zone (which is to be renamed as the ‘Service Commercial’ zone).

 

It has been suggested that the development could be considered a “Restaurant/Cafe” which is defined under the Scheme as:

 

“Restaurant/Café” means premises primarily used for the preparation, sale and serving of food and drinks for consumption on the premises by customers for whom seating is provided, including premises that are licenced under the Liquor Control Act 1988.

 

While a “Restaurant/Cafe” is a “D” (discretionary) land use within the “Restricted Business” zone and therefore the City could consider a proposal for this land use within this location, the liquor licence restrictions on a Restaurant Licence are ordinarily more restrictive than a Small Bar Licence.  While for a ‘Restaurant’ a “liquor without meal” permit may be applied for, liquor must be consumed by patrons seated at a dining table and only table service, no bar service, is permitted. This is not in keeping with the intention of the proposal and therefore it is considered that it should be treated as a “Use Not Listed.”

 

Land Use Permissibility

 

As a “Use not Listed” the development is required to be assessed against clause 3.4.2 of the Scheme and the City is required to determine if the proposed development is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the relevant zone. In this instance it is the Objective of the Restricted Business zone that is seen as critical which states:

 

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.

 

Previous decisions of the State Administrative Tribunal have observed that consideration of alternative sites is not usually a relevant consideration. However, in this instance, the Objective of the Restricted Business zone specially states that when determining development applications consideration should be given to maintaining the commercial primacy of the Busselton and Dunsborough town centres. It is considered that due the small scale of the proposal that the development will not detract in any significant way from the commercial primacy of the Busselton town centre. However, if a proposal of a larger scale were to be considered on the site that would result in a greater capacity to diminish the Busselton Town Centre, then it would be considered appropriate for the Council to have greater consideration to the appropriateness of the development in this location and if the proposal would potentially detract from the commercial primacy of the town centre.

 

In regards to the concerns which have been raised that the proposal does not strictly comply with the LUCP; 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.

 

Impact on surrounding residential properties

 

The proposed small bar is approximately 240m from the nearest dwelling on Seymour Street.  Given the distance, and the fact that there will be more commercial development along the western section of the overall development site, it is not anticipated that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on these residents in terms of noise or traffic.

 

In regards to the impact on surrounding properties and limiting the operating hours of the proposal the Council must determine if it wants to place conditions on the approval that limit the operating hours or if it is felt that the liquor licence will adequate address these concerns. Officers are of the view that no special conditions are necessary. Previous planning determinations made in relation to ‘The Fire Station’ and ‘The Laundry’, which have approvals to operate as ‘Small Bars’, have no planning conditions regarding operating hours.  In addition, the lease over the Fire Station which is with the City does not including any conditions limiting operating hours.

 

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.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1808/147              Moved Councillor C Tarbotton , seconded Councillor P Carter

 

That Council resolve:

 

1.            That application DA18/0240  submitted for a Use not Listed (Small Bar) at Lot 182 (Unit 3, 86)      West Street, 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.

 

2.            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) (enclosed), including any notes placed thereon in red by the City.

 

3.         The development hereby approved shall at all times comply with the following definition of ‘Small Bar’:

 

             “Premises used for the sale of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and may include the sale of food.”

 

 

 

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 


Council                                                                                      28                                                                    8 August 2018

13.3           APPLICATION FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING PRIVATE RECREATION, RESTAURANT/RECEPTION CENTRE AND CHALETS - LOT 40 (HSE NO 342) WILDWOOD ROAD, ANNIEBROOK

SUBJECT INDEX:

Development/Planning Applications

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Development is managed sustainably and our environment valued.

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:

Attachment a   Location Plan

Attachment b    Development Plans

Attachment c    Table of Submissions

Attachment d   Noise Assessment

Attachment e    Proposed Landscaping Scheme

Attachment f    Agency Submissions  

  

PRÉCIS

 

A development application has been received by the City for a ‘mixed-use’ development at Lot 40 (Hse No 342) Wildwood Road, Anniebrook.  The application comprises three land use types: Private Recreation (Wakeboard Park), Restaurant/Reception Centre and Chalets.

 

The proposal has been placed before the Council due to the nature of the issues and level of community interest which were generated during the consultation on the proposal.

 

During the consultation period the main concerns that have been raised are noise amenity, the amount of traffic generated, water consumption including evaporation and the scale of the proposed development.

 

It is considered that the application is inconsistent with the relevant planning framework and it is recommended for refusal. The key reasons for that recommendation relate to the likely amenity impact of the proposed development.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Council is asked to consider a planning application seeking approval for a mixed-use development comprising a private recreation (wakeboard park), restaurant/reception centre and six chalets at Lot 40 (Hse No 342) Wildwood Road (Attachment A).  Under the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No.21 (the Scheme) the site is zoned Agriculture.  The sire has an area of 30.1 hectares.

 

A copy of the development plans is provided as Attachment B and noise assessment information is provided as Attachment D.

 

The ‘Private Recreation’ component of the application consists of three separate elements:

 

1.    Cable-Ski Lake

-      340m long

-      110m wide

-      2m-2.5m deep

-      Capacity to tow up to eight riders at any given time or on average 250-300 people per day

2.    Boat Lake

-      740m long

-      110m wide

-      2m-2.5m deep

-      Central channel of lake will range from 4m-4.5m in depth for a 20m wide section

 

3.    Aqua Park Lake

-      110m long

-      70m wide

-      2m deep

-      50m x 60m inflatable playground/ fun park

 

The Restaurant/Reception Centre component of the application comprises of a two storey building.  Ground floor level would consist of a function room, reception area incorporating the induction area and hire facilities, boat storage area and toilets.  This is proposed to be utilised for corporate functions at times.  At first floor a restaurant is proposed with a large undercover alfresco area and further toilets.  The restaurant would be able to accommodate 120 people and is intended to be licenced to serve alcohol.

 

Six chalets are proposed, these would be single storey, each with two bedrooms and private jetties.  One of the six Chalets would be dedicated and designed for disabled access.

 

In the Agriculture Zone, Private Recreation, Restaurant and Chalets are all ‘D’ uses (i.e. uses approval of which is subject to the reasonable discretion of the City) and Reception Centre is an ‘A’ use (i.e. a use approval of which is subject to the reasonable discretion of the City, following a period of consultation and consideration of the outcomes of the consultation process).

 

High levels of community interest have resulted in a significant number of submissions being received by the City. In addition, due to the complexities of a number of the issues, over the course of the referral period City officers met with officers from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) to discuss elements of the proposal pertaining to water; specifically, access to ground-water and the measures to ensure ongoing sustainability.

 

The comments and recommendations provided by the external government agencies were relayed to the applicant for an opportunity to address and/or comment. City officers discussed elements of the proposal where the applicant might take into consideration the modification/ removal of some elements or modifying the design. City officers also sought further information from the applicant on the following questions:

 

-      Where will the water be sourced from?

-      How potential noise and amenity factors will be managed?

 

In response to the above the applicant provided further information to support the application.

 

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 ‘Agriculture, the Objectives of the Agricultural zone include:

 

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

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

(e)       To encourage low-key rural tourism associated with traditional forms of agriculture or rural retreat as a contributor to the overall rural economy of the City.

 

The Policies of the Agriculture Zone are:

 

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

(b)       To permit rural tourist accommodation and rural tourist facilities where these will not conflict or detrimentally impact established farming pursuits and/or associated with rural activities.

 

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;

(g)       any local planning policy for the Scheme area;

(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;                  

 

(o)       the likely effect of the development on the natural environment of water resources and any means that are proposed to protect or mitigate impacts on the natural environment of the water resource;

 

(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;

 

(q)       the suitability of the land for the development taking into account the possible risk of flooding, tidal inundation, subsidence, landslip, bush fire, soil erosion, land degradation or any other risk;


 

 

(s)       the adequacy of –

             (i)  the proposed means of access to and egress from the site; and

             (ii) arrangements for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles;

 

(t)        the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probably effect on traffic flow and safety;

 

(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

 

State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas and Guidelines for Planning in Bush Fire Prone Areas 2017

SPP 3.7 directs how development should address bushfire risk management in Western Australia. It applies to all land that has been designated as ‘bushfire prone’ by the Fire and Emergency Services (FES) Commissioner as highlighted on the Map of Bush Fire Prone Areas. The accompanying Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas provide supporting information to assist in the interpretation of the objectives and policy measures outlined in SPP3.7, providing advice on how bushfire risk is to be addressed when planning, designing or assessing a planning proposal within a designated bushfire prone area.

 

The elements of the Guidelines relevant to the proposal are:

·    Element 1: Location of Development; and

·    Element 2: Siting of Development.

 

The intent of Element 1 is to ensure that the development or land use is located in areas with the least possible risk from bushfire, to help minimise risk to people, property and infrastructure.

 

Element 2 intends to ensure that the siting of development minimises the level of bushfire risk. The bush fire management plan provided in support of the proposal suggests that the bush fire risk to the development can be managed to an acceptable level.

 

A Bush Fire Attack Level Assessment (BAL) was provided with the development application. The OBRM bushfire prone area mapping shows that most of the property is not bushfire prone; the applicant has ensured that the ‘vulnerable’ development is outside of the area that is shown to be bushfire prone. 

 

Local Planning Policy 5B - Rural Tourist Accommodation (LPP5B)

 

Local Planning Policy 5 provides criteria for assessing tourist accommodation in the agricultural zone, in respect to chalet development, the policy states that chalets should not be developed at a density greater than 1 chalet per 3 hectares of site area and shall comprise a minimum of 2 accommodation units.

 

The application proposed 6 chalets, as a result there would be sufficient site area to accommodate the proposed number of chalets when assessed against the policy.

 


 

Local Planning Policy 8A - General Development and Process Standards

Local Planning Policy 8 provides car parking criteria for proposed development and is intended to provide a practical guide to aid in assessment of an application. The development plans provided as Attachment B identify a formalised car parking area that accommodates 71 car parking bays and an overflow car parking area.

 

There is no minimum car parking requirement specifically listed in LPP8 for the reception centre land use. Internal practice has been for the City to assess such uses against the nearest analogous use, typically ‘Place of Assembly’, which has a minimum car parking requirement of one car parking bay per four patrons.  Based on the net lettable area (NLA) the reception centre and restaurant would require 82 car parking bays. 

 

In respect to the chalets, the policy requires 1 bay per chalet and an additional 2 bays for visitors.  There is a carport proposed for each chalet and there is ample room for additional bays adjacent to the chalets.

 

It is considered that there is sufficient formalised car parking bays and overflow area to cater for the mix of uses on the site. Furthermore, there is ample room that could be utilised to accommodate car parking in the future if required.

 

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 development application was referred to adjoining landowners, external government agencies, advertisement in the local newspaper and a site notice.  City officers received large volumes of phone enquiries and written submissions relating to the proposal. The summary of submissions can be seen in Attachment C.

 

In addition, 135 supporting comments have been received; officers have been unable to individually note these as they were generated from commenting on the applicant’s website and these, the City understands, being automatically forwarded to the City.

 


 

DWER have highlighted a number of points that need to be considered in relation to the application:

-      Access to a water supply and the ongoing management of the water supply

-      The status of whether or not acid-sulfate soils are present is indeterminate without further testing, but is thought to be a ‘significant’ risk.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Officers are of the view that a development of the kind proposed could make a substantial contribution to the tourism potential of the District, and if a suitable site could be found or secured, that a development of this kind could be supported. Officers are also of the view, however, that the scale and scope of the proposed development are too large for the subject site, and would have significant and unacceptable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. The reasons for that position are set out in the paragraphs below.

 

Before looking at the current proposal any further, though, it is considered worth stating that City officers are of the view that it may be appropriate to approve a development of lesser scale and impact, but similar character, on the subject site. For instance, if the proposal were modified such that only the cable ski lake were proposed, and not the boat lake, the potential noise impacts would be significantly reduced, and it would be possible to locate the development more within the centre of the subject site, and therefore further away from neighbouring properties. Officers have had a number of discussions of that kind with the proponent, but the proponent has indicated that they are unwilling to modify the proposal in that kind of way. That is a choice that only the proponent can make, and it is neither necessary nor appropriate to comment further on that decision.

 

It is worth noting, however, that it would not be appropriate for the City to approve the application subject to conditions requiring changes of the kind described above. Conditions that substantially modify a proposal are not valid conditions and, given the feedback from the proponent, would constitute a de facto refusal in any case. Such substantial changes should only ever occur where the proponent chooses to modify their proposal. Further, it would be strongly arguable that such a substantial change to the proposal should necessitate the lodging of a new application, and a further round of consultation, before a final decision was made.

 

Similarly, a development of the kind and the scale proposed may be appropriate on an alternative, larger site, or if the subject site could be expanded beyond the current lot boundaries – which would obviously require negotiations with adjoining landowners. The City can assist proponents in site identification, but it is neither necessary nor appropriate to address that matter any further in this report.

 

There appear to be two key sets of issues of most interest and concern from a community perspective. The first set of issues relates to amenity, in particular potential noise and visual impact. The second set of issues relates to water. Each of those sets of issues is briefly outlined and discussed below, under appropriate sub-headings.

 

Amenity

 

The potential amenity impacts of the proposal mostly relate to noise and visual impact, with traffic also having a potential amenity element. The local road network can clearly cope with the additional traffic that would be generated by the development, and in any case it is considered that the traffic impact would be similar to other kinds of fundamentally commercial land uses that are fairly common in the rural areas of the City. In the context of this proposal, traffic is not considered by officers to be an issue of significant concern. That leaves noise and visual impact to be further considered.

 

The proponent has provided noise assessment information prepared by suitably qualified and experienced consultants, and that assessment has been subject of appropriate review and critique. It appears that the proposal may be able to be developed and managed in a manner that would achieve compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (‘Noise Regulations’), in terms of the noise levels experienced at the nearest, existing noise sensitive premises (i.e. in this case, houses) located outside the subject site. Some further work has been undertaken to identify and test some quieter ski boats, which could further reduce noise levels experienced outside the subject site. Whilst not a critical consideration, given other factors, it is worth noting that it is questionable whether workable and enforceable conditions could be applied to ensure that the proposal was indeed developed and managed in a manner consistent with the noise assessment, given the extent to which the type and use of boats would need to be regulated.

 

Demonstrating compliance with the Noise Regulations, in terms of the noise levels experienced at the nearest, existing noise sensitive premises, however, is not sufficient to demonstrate that there will not be unacceptable amenity impacts, in the form of noise, as part of a planning assessment process. There are instances where the pre-existing levels of background noise are relatively low, and there is a reasonable community expectation that will continue into the future. Whilst at the nearest existing houses the background noise levels may be elevated by virtue of traffic on Wildwood Road (and the proponent has provided some information supporting that contention), the same cannot be said with respect to adjoining land that is further away from Wildwood Road. The character of the noise is also different, and it is considered by officers that the noise from the boat lake would be more concerning and intrusive than traffic noise from Wildwood Road.

 

That then leads into the next key reason why demonstrating compliance with the Noise Regulations, in terms of the noise levels experienced at the nearest, existing noise sensitive premises, is not sufficient to demonstrate that there will not be unacceptable amenity impacts, in the form of noise, as part of a planning assessment process. Whilst the nearest existing houses are respectively 150m from the western boundary (216m to the boat lake) and 230m from the eastern boundary and over 400m to the proposed boat lake (which has significantly higher noise generating potential than the cable lake), the boat lake is actually proposed to be located within approximately 20m of both the northern and western side boundaries.

 

New or additional noise sensitive premises could be developed relatively close to those boundaries, and on the basis of the noise assessment information provided, could be exposed to noise levels well in excess of the levels prescribed in the Noise Regulations (i.e. 45 dB during the day, 35 dB on Sundays and public holidays). In some cases, such development could occur without the need for development approval or, even if development approval would be required, the City would generally not be able to prevent the development occurring on the basis that it may be exposed to unacceptable levels of noise. If such development occurred and the occupants complained about the noise they were experiencing, the City would then ordinarily have a duty to enforce the Noise Regulations. The fact that the proposed development ‘was there first’ would generally not matter. Amongst other things, that would obviously represent a significant risk for the proponent to consider.

 

It is worth noting that there are circumstances where development or infrastructure cannot contain emissions (of noise, odour, gas, dust or similar) entirely within the subject site, and steps are taken to regulate development outside the site to protect that investment. That can include airports, wastewater treatment plants, major roads/railway corridors and strategic industrial areas. That is not, however, done to protect a single private investment.

 

The Noise Regulations also allow a local government to approve a noise management plan that does not directly regulate development outside the subject site, but does allow the prescribed levels to be exceeded, in ways and to an extent as set out in a noise management plan.


 

That can be done to protect strategic infrastructure. It can also be done, or a similar effect achieved in other ways, to allow for temporary land-uses, such as events, or for mining or extraction activity. It can also be done to allow certain kinds of recreational activity to occur, especially motorsport or activity that involves firearms. Again, though, that would not ordinarily be done to protect a single private investment.

 

For the reasons set out above, the proposal is considered to have unacceptable amenity impacts, in terms of noise. Lastly, then, there is a need to consider the visual amenity impacts.

 

In order to address officers concerns about any loss of amenity to the neighbouring properties, the applicant has submitted a landscaping scheme.  The scheme proposes to utilise the material from the construction of the lakes to create an earth bund surrounding the lakes and a three-tiered vegetated buffer, it states that “the landscaping scheme proposed would completely conceal the proposed development from Wildwood Road and all neighbouring properties”.  The report can be found in Attachment E.

 

 

The diagram above shows the distance from the boat lake to the western boundary.  It is considered that there would be insufficient distance (18m) to install a bund and establish a substantial landscaping strip that would ameliorate concerns that the proposal would result in the loss of amenity. It is considered that in order to properly ‘screen’ the development, a landscaping strip 30—40 metres would probably be necessary. Assessment of the potential impact of the screening vegetation on the structural integrity of the bund and lake would also need to be undertaken before it could be accepted that the visual impact of the proposal could be addressed through the planting of vegetation – and there is a further issue about how long it takes the vegetation to grow and what to do during the interim period. This issue could probably be dealt with satisfactorily if the proposal were reduced in scope and scale, but in the absence of that, it is considered the potential amenity impacts, in terms of visual amenity, are unacceptable.

 

Water

 

The lakes will require 259.6Ml of water, the application site exists within the Vasse Shelf of the Southern Perth Basin and there are three recognised aquifer systems beneath the property:   

 

·      The Superficial aquifer, which is thin and possibly extends to a depth of 5-8m below ground level.    

·      The Leederville aquifer is a confined aquifer and underlies the superficial and may extend to a depth of 130m below the natural surface. 

·      The Sue Coal Measures formation occurs below the Leederville, may have a thickness of more than 700 metres and consists of sandstone, shale and some coal seams.

 

The Superficial and Leederville aquifer in the Dunsborough-Vasse subarea are fully allocated; the applicant submitted a licence to DWER to obtain water from the Leederville aquifier and has been notified by DWER of their proposed decision to refuse the application.  As a result, the applicant has indicated that negotiations with a third party for groundwater trading to obtain water to the Leederville Aquifer has commenced.  If an arrangement cannot be made and a suitable volume of water cannot be accessed, the applicant has indicated that a bore will be dug approximately 140m to access the Sue Coal Seam Aquifer. This will be subject to DWER issuing a water licence.

 

In the context of water resource management DWER does not object to this proposal, however it is logical that this proposal cannot succeed without firstly securing a suitable supply of water both to fill and then maintain the lakes.  The Department have recommended a number of conditions if the proposal was to be approved.  The advice from DWER can be found at Attachment F.

 

In regard to the allocation of water, this is not considered to be a critical planning consideration and would be determined by DWER through the issuing of water licences.  In light of the above comments, officers consider that any water concerns can be addressed. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Due to the scale and scope of the proposed development in the context of the site and the potential impact on amenity, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

OPTIONS

 

Should the Council be minded to approve the development; the Council could determine the application is consistent with the objectives and policies of the zone in which development is proposed, and approve the proposal subject to appropriate conditions. If a Councillor is minded to support this option 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.

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1808/148              Moved Councillor C Tarbotton , seconded Councillor P Carter

 

That the Council, having considered application DA17/1002, for the development of a Mixed Use Development comprising of Private Recreation (Wakeboard Park), Restaurant/Reception Centre and Chalets at Lot 40 (Hse No 342), Wildwood Road, Anniebrook considers that the application is inconsistent with Local Planning Scheme 21, and resolves that development approval is refused, for the following reasons –

 

1.    The proposal would result in a detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

2.    By virtue of the overdevelopment of the site, the proposal is inconsistent with the amenity of the locality and the objectives of the zone.

 

3.    The proposal does not constitute orderly and proper planning.

 

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

  


Council                                                                                      39                                                                    8 August 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 - Kate Dudley

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Planning Applications received by the City between 1 July, 2018 and 15 July, 2018

Attachment b    Planning Applications determined by the City between 1 July, 2018 and 15 July, 2018

Attachment c    State Administrative Tribunal Appeals

Attachment d   WALGA Summary June/July 2018  

  

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 1 July, 2018 and 15 July, 2018. A total of 45 formal applications were received during this period.

 

Attachment B is a report detailing all Planning Applications determined by the City between 1 July, 2018 and 15 July, 2018. A total of 36 applications (including subdivision referrals) were determined by the City during this period with 36 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 27 July, 2018.

 

17.1.3    WALGA Summary

 

Attachment D is a copy of the WALGA Summary for the meetings held in June/July 2018.

 

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1808/149              Moved Councillor C Tarbotton , seconded Councillor P Carter

 

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

·    17.1.1              Planning Applications

·    17.1.2              State Administrative Tribunal Appeals

·    17.1.3              WALGA Summary

 

 

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

  


Council                                                                                      40                                                                    8 August 2018

ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

12.             REPORTS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS

12.4           Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/07/2018 - STATUTORY REVIEW OF DELEGATIONS

SUBJECT INDEX:

Authorised Delegation of Power/Authority

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Director Finance and Corporate Services  - Tony Nottle

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director Finance and Corporate Services  - Tony Nottle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Revised Delegation LG3A Executive Function - Determining Applications Under Local Laws and Enforcement of Local Law Provisions showing proposed tracking changes

Attachment b    Revised Delegation LG3A Executive Function - Determining Applications Under Local Laws and Enforcement of Local Law Provisions

Attachment c    Revised Delegation LG3M Establishment of Panels of Pre-qualified Suppliers showing proposed tracking changes

Attachment d   Revised Delegation LG3M Establishment of Panels of Pre-qualified Suppliers

Attachment e    Revised Delegation BA1 Building Control showing proposed tracking changes

Attachment f    Revised Delegation BA1 Building Control

Attachment g   Revised Delegation PDR1 Development Control showing proposed tracking changes

Attachment h   Revised Delegation PDR1 Development Control

Attachment i     Revised Delegation LG3I Reserve Under the Control of the Local Government showing proposed tracking changes

Attachment j     Revised Delegation LG3I Reserve Under the Control of the Local Government

Attachment k    Revised Delegation LG7A Meeting with the Auditor showing proposed tracking changes

Attachment l    Revised Delegation LG7A Meeting with the Auditor

Attachment m  Revised Delegation CA1 The Powers and Duties of the Cat Act 2011 showing proposed tracking changes

Attachment n   Revised Delegation CA1 The Powers and Duties of the Cat Act 2011

Attachment o   Revised Delegation DA1 The Powers and Duties of the Dog Act 1976 including the authority to further delegate showing proposed tracking changes

Attachment p    Revised Delegation DA1 The Powers and Duties of the Dog Act 1976 including the authority to further delegate  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 24 July 2018, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Local Government Act 1995 requires delegations made under that Act to be reviewed by the delegator at least once every financial year.  Additionally, delegations made under the Cat Act 2011 and the Dog Act 1976 are required to be reviewed once every financial year.  This review is to fulfil those requirements.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Council has the ability to delegate the exercise of powers and discharge of duties to its Chief Executive Officer or to Committees.  These delegations are required to be reviewed by the delegator (in this case the Council) at least once in every financial year.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 5.42 of the Act provides the Council with the ability to delegate powers and duties to its CEO.  Some powers and duties cannot be delegated in accordance with Section 5.43 of the Act, such as matters that require an Absolute Majority decision of the Council. 

 

Section 5.16 of the Act provides the ability for powers and duties to be delegated to Committees.  This review is to comply with the requirements of Section 5.18 of the Act.

 

Section 127 of the Building Act 2011 provides Council with the ability to delegate powers and duties to its CEO and Section 96(3) of the Building Act 2011 provides Council with the ability to delegate the designation of authorised persons pursuant to Section 96(3) of the Act.

 

Clause 82 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, Schedule 2 Deemed Provisions for Local Planning Schemes provides Council with the ability to delegate powers and duties to its CEO.

 

The delegations must be contained in a Register.  Wherever a decision has been made under delegated authority, records of the decision must be kept in accordance with the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

 

Section 44 of the Cat Act 2011 provides the power for Council to delegate the exercise of its functions and discharge of its duties to the CEO.  Section 47(2) of that Act requires the delegator to review delegations at least once every financial year.

 

Section 10AA of the Dog Act 1976 provides Council with the ability to delegate powers and duties to its CEO.  In accordance with Section 10AB(2) of that Act, the delegations must be reviewed at least once every financial year.


RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Department of Local Government and Communities Operational Guidelines Number 17 - ‘Delegations’ and the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 are both relevant to this matter.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no financial implications involved in reviewing Delegations, however, utilisation of delegated authority creates organisational efficiencies.  Without a system of delegated authority in place, a significant number of day-to-day local government decisions would need to be referred to Council as agenda reports. 

Having an effective delegated authority system in place reduces the turnaround time for some matters which allows for the Council to use its time to undertake its more strategic role.

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

There are no direct Long Term Financial Plan implications associated with this review.

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This statutory delegation review aligns with and supports the Council’s Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.1 – ‘Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent’.

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Not required for a review undertaken in accordance with statutory requirements.

CONSULTATION

 

The current delegations were developed with reference to the Department of Local Government and Communities Operational Guidelines Number 17 – ‘Delegations’.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

There are a range of powers and duties delegated to the CEO in accordance with the powers provided by Sections 5.42(1)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act 1995.  These are largely recommended to continue unchanged, with the exception of proposed updates as identified in the table below.   The table provides an overview of the current delegations and an explanation of the powers exercised by the CEO.  Minor amendments are proposed to delegations LG3A, LG3M, BA1, PDR1, LG3I, LG7A, CA1 and DA1.

The reasons for the proposed changes to delegations LG3A, LG3M, BA1, PDR1, LG3I, LG7A, CA1 and DA1 have been documented in the ‘Purpose’ column for each delegation.


Delegations to the CEO

Description

Purpose

LG3A

Executive Function

To determine applications received by the City in accordance with a Local Law made by the City in accordance with Subdivision 2 of Division 3 of Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1995 and to enforce the provisions of those local laws and to otherwise exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government under those local laws.

(Attachment A)

 

Enables the CEO to determine applications in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Local Law and the ability to enforce the provisions of those local laws.

 

Summary of proposed updates:

 

Minor amendments are proposed to the Local Government Act Reference and Delegation Subject to assign the delegation with the correct and relevant section of the Act.

(Attachment B)

 

 

LG3B

Acquisition of Property

To acquire property on the local government’s behalf in accordance with Section 5.43(d).


Allows the CEO to acquire property on behalf of the local government under the value of $100,000.

 

No change proposed.

LG3C

Disposing of Property

To exercise the powers under Sections 3.58(2),(3) and (4).

 

 

 

Allows the CEO to sell or lease land or property subject to certain conditions as previously applied. Disposal via a sale is not to exceed $20,000 for land or $100,000 for all other property. Where disposed by way of lease or license there are restrictions on “first time” leases/licenses, annual value limitations, standard terms and general use requirements.

 

This delegation was only recently updated at a Policy and Legislation Committee meeting on 26 June 2018 and has subsequently been listed at a Council meeting to be held on 25 July 2018 and therefore no change is recommended from that amended delegation.

 

No change proposed.

LG3D

Notices Requiring Things to be Done

To exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government under Sections 3.25(1), 3.26(2) and 3.26(3).

 

This provides for the ability to require actions from an owner or occupier relating to unsightly land, overgrown vegetation, rubbish etc.

 

No change proposed.

 

 

LG3E

General Procedure for Entering Property

To authorise persons on behalf of the local government for the purposes of discharging the duties under Section 3.31(2).

 

A person requires authorisation in order to enter property.  This enables the CEO to authorise others instead of requiring Council approval.

 

No change proposed.

LG3F

Power to Remove and Impound

To authorise employees on behalf of the local government for the purposes of discharging the duties under Sections 3.39 and 3.40A(1).

A person requires authorisation in order to impound vehicles etc.  This enables the CEO to authorise others instead of requiring Council approval.

No change proposed.

 

LG3G

Disposing of Uncollected Goods

To exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government under Sections 3.47(2) and 3.47(2a).

Enables the CEO to dispose of impounded goods when not collected in a specified time, including vehicles.

No change proposed.

LG3H

Thoroughfare Closure

To exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government under Sections 3.50(1), 3.50(1a), 3.50(4), 3.50(6) and 3.50A.

Enables the CEO to require the closure of roads.

No change proposed.

LG3J

Inviting and Awarding Tenders
To exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government under Regulations 11, 13, 14, 18 20 and 21A to publicly invite tenders by determining the written criteria for deciding which tender should be accepted.

 

Enables the CEO to invite and evaluate tenders prior to entering into a contract of a prescribed kind under which another person is to supply goods or services to the Council.  Also provides the CEO with the ability to award tenders not exceeding a contract value of $500,000.

 

This delegation was reviewed during a recent procurement review process and an amended delegation was presented to the Policy & Legislation Committee on 26 June 2018 and has subsequently been listed at a Council meeting to be held on 25 July 2018 and therefore no change is recommended from that amended delegation.

No change proposed.

LG 3K

Preliminary Selection of Tenderers

Exercise the local government’s powers and discharge of its duties under Regulation 21 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 to decide whether to make a preliminary selection from amongst prospective tenderers by seeking expressions of interest with respect to the supply of the goods or services and to assess expressions of interest that have not been rejected under sub-regulation (1) or (2) and decide which, if any, of those expressions of interest are from persons who it thinks would be capable of satisfactorily supplying the goods or services.

 

Enables the CEO to exercise the local government’s powers and discharge of its duties to implement, in accordance with the Tender Regulations and Tender Pre Selection Criteria Policy, a preliminary selection process if and when deemed appropriate or advantageous to the City.

As with Delegation LG3J above, this was also extensively reviewed throughout the procurement review process. As such an amended Delegation was presented to the Policy & Legislation Committee on 26 June 2018 and has subsequently been listed at a Council meeting to be held on 25 July 2018 and therefore no change is recommended to that amended delegation.

No change proposed.

LG3L

Airport Redevelopment Project - Inviting Tenders and Awarding Tenders

To publicly invite tenders by determining the written criteria for deciding which tender should be accepted and to award tenders with a contract value up to $1,000,000 subject to agreement from the CEO of the South West Development Commission (SWDC).

Due to the nature and scope of the Airport Redevelopment Project a specific tender delegation has been put in place which is required to be exercised in accordance with agreement from the CEO of the South West Development Commission (SWDC).

No change proposed.

LG3M

Establishment of Panels of Pre-Qualified Suppliers

To exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government under Part 4 Division 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 pursuant to Regulation 24AC(1)(b) to determine whether there is, or will be, a continuing need for the particular goods or services to be supplied by pre-qualified suppliers and in accordance with Regulations 24AD – 24AI establish panels of pre-qualified suppliers for provision of particular goods or services and in accordance with Regulation 24AJ enter into a contract, or contracts, for the supply of goods or services with a pre-qualified supplier who is part of a panel of pre-qualified suppliers for the supply of those particular goods or services.

(Attachment C)

Enables the CEO to establish panels of pre-qualified suppliers in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Tender Regulations and the Council’s “Purchasing” Policy which in turn assists in streamlining Council operations and improving efficiency without compromising statutory or policy compliance or Council’s existing powers in relation to choice of tenderer.


Summary of proposed updates

Removal of numbering to title of City of Busselton Purchasing Policy to reflect new format.
 

In addition removal of references to City of Busselton Tender Selection Criteria Policy 031 and City of Busselton Tender Pre Selection Criteria Policy 247 as these policies are proposed to be rescinded as part of a report presented to the Policy and Legislation Committee on 26 June 2018 which has subsequently been listed at a Council meeting to be held on 25 July 2018.
 (Attachment D)

LG3N

Amendments to the Consolidated Parking Scheme

To exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government pursuant to Section 1.10 of the City of Busselton Parking Local Law 2011 which was made in accordance with Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1995 relating to prohibiting or regulating, by signs or otherwise, the stopping or parking of any vehicle or any class of vehicles in any part of the parking region.

Enables the CEO to exercise the powers of Council contained in Section 1.10 of the Parking Local Law 2011 to amend the City’s Consolidated Parking Scheme 2018 in accordance with the requirements of the City of Busselton Parking Local Law 2011.  This instrument of delegation includes a call-in provision whereby any two or more Councillors may consider an amendment to the Scheme to be of strategic significance and/or high community interest and request the CEO to present the proposal to Council for consideration.

No change proposed.

 

LG3P

Disposing of Property
(General Aviation Precinct leases)

To exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government relating to disposing of property by negotiating, advertising under  Section 3.58 of the Act and entering into leases of land lots at the new Busselton-Margaret River Regional Airport General Aviation Precinct.

Enables the CEO to facilitate the efficient and expeditious leasing of up to 36 new land lots, where lease arrangements are expected to be both high volume and similar in nature.   Current delegation arrangements are limited to $25,000 per annum and only for renewals and therefore do not enable the intended course of action.

No change proposed.

LG5A

Provision of Urgent Legal Services

To provide authorisation in accordance with Clause 3.10 of Council Policy 085 “Legal Representation for Council Members and Employees” for urgent legal services to a maximum value of $10,000.

Enables the CEO to exercise, on behalf of the Council, the powers of the Council under Clause 3.8 of Council Policy “Legal Representation for Council Members and Employees” to a maximum of $10,000 in respect of each application when delays in the approval of an application are considered to be detrimental to the legal rights of the applicant. 

 

CEO approved applications are required to be submitted to the next Ordinary Meeting of Council.

No change proposed.

LG5B

Directions Regarding Unauthorised Development

To give directions in relation to unauthorised development and to authorise any action available to the responsible authority under the Planning and Development Act 2005 incidental to such written direction. 

 

Provides for the ability to give a written direction to an owner or any other person having undertaken a development to remove, pull down, take up, or alter the development and restore the land as nearly as practicable to its condition immediately before the development commenced, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.


No change proposed.

LG6A

Payments from Municipal Fund and Trust Fund

To exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government in accordance with regulation 12 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.


Enables the payment of creditors without specific Council approval.  All payments made must be reported to Council which is undertaken by way of a monthly report via the Finance Committee.

Also includes a condition regarding a limitation on donations and sponsorships (max. $1,000.)

No change proposed.

LG6B

Power to Defer, Grant Discounts, Waive or Write Off Debts

To exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government under Sections 6.12(1)(b), 6.12(1)(c) and 6.12(3) of the Local Government Act 1995.

Enables the CEO to deal with minor fee waivers, concessions and debt write-off requirements.

No change proposed.

LG6C

Rates and Service Charges

To exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government under Sections 6.49, 6.50(1), 6.60(2), 6.64(1), 6.64(3), 6.71(1), 6.74(1), 6.76(4) and 6.76(5).

 

 

 

 

Enables the CEO to determine due dates for rates and to take recovery action for unpaid rates.

No change proposed.

LG6D

Investment

To invest surplus funds in accordance with the Direct Investments section of the Council's Policy 218 “Investment”.

 

Enables funds to be invested by the CEO as set out in Council Policy 218 “Investment”.

 

No change proposed.

LG9A

Appointment of Authorised Persons

To authorise persons, or classes of persons, on behalf of the local government for the purposes of performing particular functions in accordance with Sections 9.10(1) and 9.10(2) of the Local Government Act 1995.

 

A person requires authorisation in order to take enforcement action.  This enables the CEO to authorise others instead of requiring Council approval.

No change proposed.

LG9B

Authorising Common Seal

To authorise the affixing of the Common Seal of the City to a document that needs the City's Common Seal to be legally effective.

 

While the CEO can authorise the affixing of the Common Seal to a document as classified which in turn allows for no specific Council approval of individual documents being required, it is noted that it is also necessary for individual documents to be signed by both the Mayor and the CEO (or a senior employee authorised by the CEO and in accordance with Section 5.37 of the Local Government Act 1995).

No change proposed.

LG10A

Claims Against the Local Government

To consider claims against the local government for damage to property and either accept or deny liability.

 

This is intended only for minor claims within the City’s insurance premium excess with a $500 limit on claims made under this delegation.

No change proposed.

 

 

BA1

Building Control

To exercise the City’s powers under the Building Act 2011, in particular the issuing of building permits.

 

(Attachment E)


Enables the CEO to exercise the City’s powers, including the ability to sub-delegate those powers.

 

Summary of proposed updates

 

Removes specific reference to Section 96 of the Act, which is merely one of the powers that can be delegated to the CEO through Section 127 of the Act and could create confusion as to whether the CEO can exercise and/or sub-delegate the other powers necessary for the City to meet its obligations to administer the Act.

 

(Attachment F)

 

PDR1

Development Control

To exercise the City’s powers under the Planning and Development Act 2005, in particular the determination of applications for development approval.

 

(Attachment G)


Enables the CEO to exercise the City’s powers, including the ability to sub-delegate those powers. 

 

Summary of proposed updates

 

Amends the requirements in Condition 5 for delegated decision-making in relation to applications for review by the State Administrative Tribunal subject to reconsideration orders, so that Council decisions can be reconsidered under delegation provided that the ‘call-in’ provisions set out in Condition 1 have not been exercised, rather than on the basis the reconsideration provisions set out in Condition 2 having been exercised.

 

There is also an additional requirement in Condition 5 in that Councillors must first be briefed as per Condition 6, to enable Councillors to have an opportunity to exercise the ‘call-in’ provisions.

 

The intent of the change is for the purpose of avoiding the 3-4 week delay associated with the reconsideration provisions, in resolving matters where mediation has resulted in an opportunity to reconsider an application and where the mediated outcome clearly addresses the Council’s concerns.

 

(Attachment H)

 

Delegations from the Council to the CEO made in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act have been utilised to enable the CEO to carry out powers and duties of the local government.

All other delegations are recommended to continue unchanged.

Committee delegations

 

Description

Purpose

LG3I

Reserve under the Control of the Local Government

When constituted for a formal meeting and in accordance with Section 5.17(c) of the Local Government Act 1995, is delegated to adopt plans, policies or documents that relate to management of the Park.

 

(Attachment I)

 

 

Enables the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee to meet formally for the purpose of reviewing and adopting plans, policies and documents relating to the management of the Park.

This delegation is subject to conditions as follows:

The Power or Duty is other than where those plans, policies or documents require adoption pursuant to a particular statutory power, and the Committee may not make any decision that would require expenditure of funds contrary to the adopted budget and any decisions shall not be actioned until the Committee meeting minutes have been formally received and noted by the Council. 

Summary of proposed updates

No change is proposed to the content of the delegation, however, minor amendments are proposed to the format of the delegation for the purpose of creating consistency with other Council delegations.

(Attachment J)

 

Description

Purpose

LG7A

Meeting with the Auditor

Authority to meet with the City’s Auditor at least once every financial year on behalf of the Council in accordance with the requirements of Sections 7.12A(2), (3) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1995 to consider the report of the City’s Auditor and determine matters that require action to be taken by the City.

 

Authority to review and endorse the City’s report on any actions taken in response to an Auditor’s report, prior to it being forwarded to the Minister.

 

(Attachment K)

 

Enables the Audit Committee to meet with the Auditor for the purpose of examining the report of the City’s Auditor, make determinations on matters that require action to be taken by the Council and endorse actions taken in response to the Auditor’s report.

The conditions imposed on this delegation are as follows:

(a)     This delegation is not to be used where a Management Letter or Audit Report raises significant issues and the Local Government’s meeting with the Auditor must be directed to the Council; and

(b)    Council has discretion to determine any conditions/limitations applicable to the use of delegated powers or duties.

 

Summary of proposed updates

Minor amendments are proposed by way of the inclusion of additional powers, duties and conditions being incorporated into the delegation to bring the delegation into line with WALGA’s model.

(Attachment L)

The reasons for the proposed changes to the delegations to the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee and the Audit Committee have been documented in the ‘Purpose’ column for each delegation.


Cat Act and Dog Act


Cat Act

Description

Purpose

CA1

The Powers and Duties of the Cat Act 2011

To delegate to the CEO all the powers and duties of the local government under the
Cat Act 2011.

(Attachment M)

 

 

To provide the CEO and staff with the ability to administer and enforce the provisions of the Cat Act 2011 (the Act).

Summary of proposed updates

Change the wording of the Delegation Subject and Power/Duty for consistency with the wording of the Act.

(Attachment N)

 


 

 

Dog Act

Description

Purpose

DA1


The Powers and Duties of the Dog Act 1976

To delegate to the CEO all the powers and duties of the local government under the Dog Act 1976 including the authority to further delegate.

(Attachment O)

 


Provides the CEO and staff with the ability to administer and enforce the provisions of the Dog Act 1976 (the Act).

Summary of proposed updates

Change the wording of the Delegation Subject and Power/Duty for consistency with the wording of the Act.

(Attachment  P)


The reasons for the proposed changes for the delegations to the CEO under the Cat Act 2011 and the Dog Act 1976 have been documented in the ‘Purpose’ column for each delegation.

Having conducted the statutory annual review of delegations made under the Local Government Act 1995, Building Act 2011, Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Cat Act 2011 and Dog Act 1976, Officers are recommending changes to those delegations as listed in Attachments A through to P for the reasons outlined in the table above.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The existing delegations have served the organisation well and provide a sufficient level of authority to enable timely consideration of day-to-day local government matters as well as specific authority whereby the Council has recognised circumstances such as the nature of the airport redevelopment project.  

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may decide that it requires changes to the powers and discharge of duties delegated to the Chief Executive Officer or Committees, or choose to place conditions on any of the delegations.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Any determinations on the delegations will be effective immediately following the Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1808/150              Moved Councillor R Paine, seconded Councillor R Reekie

 

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

That the Council having conducted the statutory annual review of delegations made under the Local Government Act 1995, Building Act 2011, Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Cat Act 2011 and Dog Act 1976:

                                                                                                                  

1.    Adopts the revised Delegation LG3A Executive Function - Determining Applications under Local         Laws and Enforcement of Local Law Provisions  as shown at Attachment B;

2.    Adopts the revised Delegation LG3M Establishment of Panels of Pre-qualified Suppliers as shown         at Attachment D;

3.    Adopts the revised Delegation BA1 Building Control as shown at Attachment F;

4.    Adopts the revised Delegation PDR1 Development Control as shown at Attachment H;

5.    Adopts the revised Delegation LG3I Reserve under the Control of the Local Government as shown         at Attachment J;

6.    Adopts the revised Delegation LG7A Meeting with the Auditor as shown at Attachment L;

7.    Adopts the revised Delegation CA1 The Powers and Duties of the Cat Act 2011 as shown at         Attachment N;

8.    Adopts the revised Delegation DA1 The Powers and Duties of the Dog Act 1976 including the         authority to further delegate as shown at Attachment P; and

9.    Notes that all other delegations have been reviewed and remain unchanged.

 

CARRIED 8/0

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

  


Council                                                                                      53                                                                    8 August 2018

14.             ENGINEERING AND WORKS SERVICES REPORT

Nil


Council                                                                                      56                                                                    8 August 2018

15.             COMMUNITY AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES REPORT

15.1           COMMUNITY BIDS 2018/19 ROUND ONE ALLOCATIONS

SUBJECT INDEX:

Donations, Contributions and Subsidies

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A community with access to a range of cultural and art, social and recreational facilities and experiences.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Community Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Community Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Community Development Officer - Naomi Davey

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Cliff Frewing

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Date

8 August 2018

Meeting

Council

Name/Position

Lyndon Miles, Councillor

Item No./Subject

15.1 Community Bids 2018/19 Round One Allocations

Type of Interest

Financial Interest

Nature of Interest

 I provide a service (local building trade) to the Busselton Senior High School.

 

5:39 pm               At this time Councillor L Miles left the meeting.

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Date

8 August 2018

Meeting

Council

Name/Position

Coralie Tarbotton, Councillor

Item No./Subject

15.1 Community Bids 2018/19 Round One Allocations

Type of Interest

Impartiality Interest

Nature of Interest

I am a member of the Busselton Senior High School Board.

 

Cr Tarbotton made an impartiality declaration and remained in the chamber.

 

PRÉCIS

 

Each year the City of Busselton provides financial assistance to community groups and not-for profit

organisations through the Community Bids process. This assistance is provided for specific activities or projects proposed to be undertaken by that group or organisations within the forthcoming financial year.

 

Each year applications are workshopped with Councillors. This report provides a summary of the outcomes from the workshop on 27 June 2018, and seeks formal endorsement of the Community Bid submissions to be funded in the first round of the 2018/19 financial year.  Endorsement is also sought in relation to a number of other expired community funding agreements.

 

BACKGROUND

 

In March 2011 the Council resolved (C1103/097) to allocate funding to the Community Bids

program as follows:

 

1.    Council allocate a total of 0.5% of estimated rates to be levied to Major Project Assistance Grants to be determined as part of the Community Bids assessment process advertised in the first quarter of each year.

 

2.    Allocate a total of $50,000 to Minor Project Assistance Grants to be determined twice each year, once as part of the Community Bids process, and once again in September each year.

 

3.    Increases the maximum amount of Minor Project Assistance Grants from $3,000 to $5,000 for any one project.

 

Application for the first round of Community Bids funding for the 2018/19 financial year opened in April 2018 and a total of eight (8) applications were received. This included one (1) application for minor bids ($5,000 and under) requesting $5,000 and seven (7) applications for major bids ($5,001 and over) requesting a total of $77,056.

 

Applications were assessed by an Officer working group, in accordance with the Community Bids guidelines, and recommendations were discussed with Councillors at a workshop held on 27 June 2018. The outcomes of the workshop form the basis of the Officer recommendations in this report.

 

Additionally in 2018/19 there are three (3) annual funding agreements outside of the Community Bids program that have expired:

 

 

·    YouthCARE

·    Busselton Senior Citizens Club

·    Surf Life Saving WA

 

These agreements were discussed at the Community Bids workshop and are also presented for ongoing endorsement.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Nil

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Community Bids funding program is an opportunity for community based organisations to seek assistance to implement initiatives that benefit the wider community and is a program contained within the City of Busselton Social Plan 2015-2025.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Based on the current funding model, the total funds available for allocation in the Community Bids program for 2018/19 is $50,000 for minor projects and $187,930* for major projects.

 

*This amount is inclusive of the following endorsed Multi-year agreements:

 

                Current Community Bid multi-year agreements                  Ending                  Amount

 

                South West Academy of Sport                                                    2020/21                $10,000

                Surfing WA                                                                                          2018/19                  $2,500

 

                                                                                                                                Total                      $12,500

 

The proposed funding allocations detailed in the Officer recommendation of this report totals $5,000 for minor projects and $59,280 for major projects (inclusive of the above multi-year agreements). This leaves a balance of $173,650 for minor and major projects for Round 2 in 2018/19.

 

Funding allocations for the 3 expired annual funding agreements outside of the Community Bids program are as follows:

 

                Annual Agreement                          2017/18

                YouthCARE                                          $ 39,970

                Busselton Senior Citizens Club    $ 85,680

                Surf Life Saving WA                         $144,970

 

The City’s 2018/19 adopted budget includes these funding contributions. Consequently entering into funding agreements with these organisations will not have any further financial implications on the City's 2018/18 budget.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Nil

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Officer’s recommendation aligns primarily to the following Key Goal Area and community objective of the Strategic Community Plan 2017:

 

Key Goal Area 1 – Community – Welcoming, friendly, healthy:

 

                1.3          A community with access to a range of cultural and art, social and recreational                                    facilities and experiences.

 

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 identified where the residual risk, once controls have been identified, is identified as 'medium' or greater.  There are no such risks identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The Community Bids Funding Program was advertised in the Council for the Community page on 14, 21 & 28 March and 4 April 2018 and the City of Busselton website. Recognised community groups and sporting clubs in the City of Busselton were also notified of the Community Bids process via email. A Community Bids workshop was held on 1 March 2018 in which 20 interested community groups and organisations attended.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Applications were initially assessed by an Officer working group, who considered the following

criteria:

·    Does the project, program or activity meet the Community Bids criteria?

·    Has the applicant outlined why the projects, programs or activities are needed by the community?

·    Is there an expectation or risk to the community if the project, program or activity does not proceed?

·    Did the organisation or group state the level of cash or in kind contribution they will make to the project, program or activity?

·    Has the applicant demonstrated attempts at seeking funding from other sources?

·    Has the applicant been successful in previous community bids applications and what was the funded amount?

·    Does the project align with the City of Busselton's Strategic Community Plan?

 

Officers presented the applications to Councillors at a workshop on 27 June 2018, where the following recommendations were made:

 

Minor Bids

 

 

APPLICANT

PROJECT TITLE

REQUEST

RECOMMENDATION

1

The People Place Busselton

The Permaculture Project

$5,000

$5,000                          

 

 

Total

$5,000

(Remaining $45,000)

 

Major Bids

 

 

APPLICANT

PROJECT TITLE

REQUEST

RECOMMENDATION

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

1

Busselton Senior High School P&C*

Busselton Trade Training Centre

$40,000 over 3 years

 $10,000

Enter into a 3 years, $10,00 per annum agreement

2

 

Cape Mountain Bikers Inc

Meelup Old Gravel Pit Mountain Bike Trails

$12,000

$12,000

 

3

Dunsborough & Districts Progress Association

Wonder Art Dunsborough

$8,000

$8,000

The project must comply with the City’s Urban Art Policy

4

Dunsborough Community Garden

Stage 2

$12,715

$6,000

 

5

South West Sports Academy

SWAS Program

$10,000

$10,000

2nd year of 4 year funding agreement

6

Surfing WA

Surfers Rescue 365

$2,500

$2,500

2nd year of 2 years funding agreement

7

Yallingup Land Conservation District Committee

Vehicle Replacement

$10,780

$10,780

 

 

 

 

 Total

$59,280

(Remaining $128,650)

 

* Funding for the Busselton Trade Training Centre is approved in response to the recently identified gaps in delivery of training opportunities for school aged students in certificate qualifications in trade and apprenticeships. It also aligns with Strategic Community Plan 2017, Key Goal Area 4, Economy – 4.2: A community where local business is supported and in turn drives our economy.

 

With respect to round two of the 2018/2019 program, Officers recommend the amalgamation of the remaining Minor & Major funds, which will assist with the full allocation of the 2018/2019 Community Bids funding to the community.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Community Bids funding program is constantly evolving and aims to meet community needs, with funding available to further priority goals and objectives identified in the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan 2017.

 

It is recommended that Council adopts the funding allocations as outlined in the Officer recommendation.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may wish to consider different levels of funding proposed for all or some of the community bid applications. In pursuing this option the Council needs to consider budget availability and the immediacy for some funding items, and the effect this delay could have on organisations being able to finalise their plans and budgets for the 2018/19 year.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

All Community Bid applicants will be individually advised in writing of the outcome of the Council decision within 21 days. Successful applications will be required to sign a grant agreement with the

City and meet any specific conditions of funding.

 

City officers will continue discussions with the various applicants regarding eligibility for other grant funding opportunities.


 

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1808/151              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor K Hick

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Endorses the provision of funding for Round One of the 2018/19 Community Bids funding program as outlined in the table below, subject to the specific conditions as stated:

 

a)                   Minor Bids

 

 

APPLICANT

PROJECT TITLE

RECOMMENDATION

1

The People Place Busselton

The Permaculture Project

$5,000                          

 

 

Total

(Remaining $45,000)

               

b)                  Major Bids

 

 

APPLICANT

PROJECT TITLE

RECOMMENDATION

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

1

Busselton Senior High School P&C

Busselton Trade Training Centre

 $10,000

Enter into a 3 years, $10,00 per annum agreement

2

 

Cape Mountain Bikers Inc

Meelup Old Gravel Pit Mountain Bike Trails

$12,000

 

3

Dunsborough & Districts Progress Association

Wonder Art Dunsborough

$8,000

The project must comply with the City’s Urban Art Policy

4

Dunsborough Community Garden

Stage 2

$6,000

 

5

South West Sports Academy

SWAS Program

$10,000

2nd year of 4 year funding agreement

6

Surfing WA

Surfers Rescue 365

$2,500

2nd year of 2 years funding agreement

7

Yallingup Land Conservation District Committee

Vehicle Replacement

$10,780

 

 

 

Total

$59,280

(Remaining $128,650)

 

c)            Endorses the funding allocation of $39,970 towards the 2018/19 YouthCARE services       within the City of Busselton

 

d)            Endorses the funding allocation of $85,680 towards the 2018/19 Busselton Senior             Citizens Centre services within the City of Busselton

 

e)            Endorses the funding allocation of $144,970 towards the 2018/19 Surf Lifesaving WA       services within the City of Busselton

 

f)             Amalgamate the remaining minor bids funds ($45,000) and major bids funds        ($128,650) for Round two (2) Community Bids 2018/19 funding program

 

CARRIED 7/0

  

5:40 pm               At this time Councillor L Miles returned to the meeting.


Council                                                                                      60                                                                    8 August 2018

16.             FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT

Nil

18.             MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil  


 

19.             urgent business

19.1          BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST – RATE INSTALMENT DATES

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C1808/152              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor K Hick

 

The Council accepts item 19.1 “Budget Amendment – Rate Instalment Dates” as Urgent Business for consideration

CARRIED 8/0

 

PRÉCIS 

 

This report seeks Approval of Council to amend it 2018/2019 Adopted Budget as detailed in this report.  Adoption of the Officers recommendation will result in no change to the City’s current amended budgeted surplus position of $0.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Council adopted its 2018/2019 Municipal Budget on Wednesday, 25 July 2018 with a balanced Budget position.

 

Through the 2018/2019 Budget Adoption process Council set the following instalment dates:

 

“In accordance with regulation 64(2) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the following Instalment options:

 

Option 1 - Payment in full by a single instalment

 

1st          7 September 2018

 

Option 2 - Payment in full by four instalments

 

1st          7 September 2018

2nd        7 November 2018

3rd         7 January 2019

4th         7 March 2019”

 

Unfortunately due to computer software issues, including incorrect Pensioner Rebate calculations, zoning information and electronic refuse site pass data, these dates will not be able to be achieved. Therefore officers seek Council to approve a Budget amendment to change the above Instalment dates to the following:

 

Option 1 - Payment in full by a single instalment

 

1st          21 September 2018

 

Option 2 - Payment in full by four instalments

 

1st          21 September 2018

2nd        21 November 2018

3rd         21 January 2019

4th         21 March 2019

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act refers to expenditure from the municipal fund that is not included in the annual budget. In the context of this report, where no budget allocation exists, expenditure is not to be incurred until such time as it is authorised in advance, by an absolute majority decision of the Council.

 

It is a requirement that in accordance with Section 6.45 of the Local Government Act 1995, regulations 27(c)(i) and 64(2) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 that a Local Government when adopting its annual budget the local government is to determine, in accordance with the Act, the due date for payment of instalments.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Nil

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Budget amendments being sought will result in no change to Council’s Budget Surplus position of $0. 

 

Long Term Financial Plan Implications

 

There are no LTFP implications in relation to this item.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.1 - ‘Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Should the Council choose not to amend the Rate Instalment Payment dates the City will be in breach of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

 

CONSULTATION

 

No consultation required

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The Officer commends the requested Budget Amendment to Council such that statutory requirements of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 are complied with.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Council’s approval is sought to amend the budget as per the details contained in this report.

 

 

 

 

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could decide not to go ahead with any or all of the proposed budget amendment requests, however that would place the City of Busselton in breach of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should the Officer Recommendation be endorsed, the associated budget amendment will be processed immediately.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1808/153              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor R Bennett

 

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED  

 

That Council adopts the Requested Budget Amendments outlined below, resulting in no change to a Budgeted Surplus Position of $0.

 

Amend the following 2018/2019 Rate Payment Instalment options:

 

Option 1 - Payment in full by a single instalment

 

             1st 7 September 2018

 

Option 2 - Payment in full by four instalments

 

             1st 7 September 2018

             2nd 7 November 2018

             3rd 7 January 2019                         

             4th 7 March 2019

 

To the following 2018/2019 Rate Payment Instalment options:

 

Option 1 - Payment in full by a single instalment

 

                                1st 21 September 2018

 

Option 2 - Payment in full by four instalments

 

             1st 21 September 2018

             2nd 21 November 2018

             3rd 21 January 2019                      

             4th 21 March 2019

 

CARRIED 8/0

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

 

 

 

 

20.             Confidential Reports  

 

Nil

21.             Closure

 

The Presiding Member declared the meeting closed at 5.41pm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THESE MINUTES CONSISTING OF PAGES 1 TO 62 WERE CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD ON Wednesday, 22 August 2018.

 

 

DATE:_________________              PRESIDING MEMBER:_________________________