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 13 February 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... Declaration of Opening aCKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF Visitors / DISCLAIMER / NOTICE OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS. 3

2....... Attendance. 3

3....... Prayer. 3

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

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

6....... Announcements Without Discussion.. 4

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

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

Previous Council Meetings. 5

8.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 30 January 2019. 5

Committee Meetings. 5

8.2          Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee meeting held on 22 January 2019. 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.. 6

Adoption by Exception Resolution.. 6

12..... Reports of Committee. 7

12.1        Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/01/2019 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY 181 - CROSSOVERS AND COUNCIL POLICY 195 - REINSTATEMENT OF WORKS IN ROAD RESERVES. 7

12.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/01/2019 - REVIEW AND CONSOLIDATION OF COUNCIL POLICY 134 (WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT ON FORESHORE AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION RESERVES) AND COUNCIL POLICY 240 (RESERVES VEGETATION PROTECTION), AND PROPOSED NEW POLICY PRIVATE WORKS ON CITY LAND, INCLUDING COASTAL PROTECTION WORKS. 10

12.3        Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/01/2019 - WITHDRAWAL FROM EFFECT OF POLICY 039 - BUILDING PERMIT LISTS. 14

16..... FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT. 18

16.1        APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY MEMBERS. 18

17..... cheif executive officer REPORT. 21

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 21

items for debate 22

13..... Planning and Development Services Report. 22

13.1        APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL - DA18/0154 - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF CLUB PREMISES (CLAY TARGET CLUB) - LOT 500 & 501 COOLILUP ROAD, LUDLOW... 22

18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 42

19..... urgent business. 42

20..... Confidential Reports. 42

21..... Closure. 42

 


Council                                                                                      3                                                                13 February 2019

MINUTES

 

MINUTES OF A Meeting of the Busselton City Council HELD IN the Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 13 February 2019 AT 5.30pm.

 

1.               Declaration of Opening aCKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF Visitors / DISCLAIMER / NOTICE OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS

The Presiding Member opened the meeting at 5.30pm.

2.               Attendance

Presiding Member:

Members:

 

Cr Grant Henley     Mayor

Cr John McCallum  Deputy Mayor

Cr Coralie Tarbotton

Cr Ross Paine

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

Mrs Naomi Searle, Director, Community and Commercial Services

Mr Tony Nottle, Director, Finance and Corporate Services

Ms Sarah Pierson, Manager, Governance and Corporate Services

Miss Kate Dudley, Administration Officer, Governance

 

Apologies:

 

Nil

 

Approved Leave of Absence:

 

Cr Rob Bennett

 

Media:

 

 “Busselton-Dunsborough Mail”

 

Public:

 

14

3.               Prayer

The prayer was delivered by Philip Gifford of Dunsborough Community Church.

4.               Application for Leave of Absence

                   Nil

5.               Disclosure Of Interests

Nil

6.               Announcements Without Discussion

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 Andrew Shearwood

 

Question

                   In relation to the 7 lot commercial subdivision between airport and Vasse highway, have             any been pre-leased or sold? And what do you anticipate the use of those sites to be?

 

Response

The Director Community and Commercial Services responded that the lots are predominantly for airfreight purposes, specifically the airside lots (4), wiht the other lots on landside for aviation purposes. The City hasn’t pre-sold or pre-lease any of those lots. The City is currently marketing the sites.

 

7.2             Mr Rob Griffiths

 

Question

Can the Council construct a bund at the start of the Vasse River to assist with the river being flushed out to the ocean?

 

Response

The Director of Planning and Development Services responded with respect to where the Vasse diversion drain and the lower Vasse River intersect that both the drain and the valve are both Water Corporation infrastructure. The Water Corporation do have plans and funds to upgrade that infrastructure , which will increase the ability to divert water.

 

Question

Is there something that can be done, maybe a concrete top or a wooden top,  to upgrade the rocks on Port Geographe Way to enable public to safely fish off them?

 

Response

The Director of Engineering and Works Services responded that they are managed by the Department of Transport (DOT) and that they currently not supportive of conducting those works.

8.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes 

Previous Council Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 30 January 2019

COUNCIL DECISION

C1902/016              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor J McCallum

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 30 January 2019 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED 8/0

 

Committee Meetings

8.2             Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee meeting held on 22 January 2019

COUNCIL DECISION

C1902/017              Moved Councillor C Tarbotton , seconded Councillor K Hick

 

That the minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 22 January 2019 be noted.

CARRIED 8/0

 

9.               RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS

Petitions

 

Nil

Presentations

 

Mr Robert Oakley presented as a party with an interest on item 13.1 Application for Development Approval - DA18/0154 - Proposed Development of Club Premises (Clay Target Club) - Lot 500 & 501 Coolilup Road, Ludlow. Mr Oakley was in general support of the Alternative Motion, as put by Cr Henley.

 

Mr Andrew Shearwood presented as a party with an interest on item 13.1 Application for Development Approval - DA18/0154 - Proposed Development of Club Premises (Clay Target Club) - Lot 500 & 501 Coolilup Road, Ludlow. Mr Shearwood was in general support of the Alternative Motion, as put by Cr Henley.

 

Mr Graeme Baesjou presented as a party with an interest on item 13.1 Application for Development Approval - DA18/0154 - Proposed Development of Club Premises (Clay Target Club) - Lot 500 & 501 Coolilup Road, Ludlow. Mr Baesjou was in general support of the Amended Officers Recommendation.

 

Mr Clayton Hyder presented as a party with an interest on item 13.1 Application for Development Approval - DA18/0154 - Proposed Development of Club Premises (Clay Target Club) - Lot 500 & 501 Coolilup Road, Ludlow. Mr Hyder was in general support of the Amended Officers Recommendation.

 

Mrs Janet Wells presented on behalf of Mr Kevin Taylor as a party with an interest on item 13.1 Application for Development Approval - DA18/0154 - Proposed Development of Club Premises (Clay Target Club) - Lot 500 & 501 Coolilup Road, Ludlow. Mr Taylor (via Mrs Wells) was in general agreement with the Alternative Motion, as put by Cr Henley.

 

Mr Greg Fly, Club President, presented as a party with an interest on item 13.1 Application for Development Approval - DA18/0154 - Proposed Development of Club Premises (Clay Target Club) - Lot 500 & 501 Coolilup Road, Ludlow. Mr Fly was in general support of the Amended Officers Recommendation.

Deputations

 

Nil

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

11.             Items brought forward

For the convenience of the Public

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.

 

COUNCIL DECISION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1902/018              Moved Councillor J McCallum, 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 - 22/01/2019 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY 181 - CROSSOVERS AND COUNCIL POLICY 195 - REINSTATEMENT OF WORKS IN ROAD RESERVES

12.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/01/2019 - REVIEW AND CONSOLIDATION OF COUNCIL POLICY 134 (WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT ON FORESHORE AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION RESERVES) AND COUNCIL POLICY 240 (RESERVES VEGETATION PROTECTION), AND PROPOSED NEW POLICY PRIVATE WORKS ON CITY LAND, INCLUDING COASTAL PROTECTION WORKS.

12.3        Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/01/2019 - WITHDRAWAL FROM EFFECT OF POLICY 039 - BUILDING PERMIT LISTS

16.1        APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY MEMBERS

17.1        Councillors' Information Bulletin

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 


Council                                                                                      7                                                                13 February 2019

12.             Reports of Committee

12.1           Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/01/2019 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY 181 - CROSSOVERS AND COUNCIL POLICY 195 - REINSTATEMENT OF WORKS IN ROAD RESERVES

SUBJECT INDEX:

Council Policy

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Control

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Development Control

REPORTING OFFICER:

Development Control Coordinator - Ronald Wildschut

Land and Infrastructure Officer - Andrew Scott

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Current policy - Crossovers

Attachment b    Proposed Policy - Crossovers

Attachment c    Current Policy - Reinstatement of Works in Road Reserves

Attachment d   Proposed Policy - Reinstatement Works in Road Reserves  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 22 January 2019, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report presents an updated version of two current Council Policies – Policy 181 ‘Crossovers’ (Attachment A) and Policy 195 ‘Reinstatement of works in road reserves’ (Attachment C). The proposed revised policies (Attachment B and D respectively) (the Policies) are considered to be of continuing relevance, have been moved into the new policy format and are recommended for Council approval.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Prompted by a requirement to periodically review Council policies and an initiative to make policy documents consistent with a new policy framework and format, the Policies, which relates to development control activities, have been reviewed by officers and, being considered of continuing relevance, are presented for the Council’s consideration.

 

In August 2017 the CEO commissioned a high level independent review of the City’s governance systems – the Governance Systems Review (GSR).   The GSR 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 of 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.

 

Apart from transfer to the new policy format the Policies have only undergone reasonably minor changes. 

 

City officers considered a more major and holistic review of development control policies as per the recommendations of the GSR  but found that a major review would need to be undertaken within the broader context of development control and the system of Engineering Technical Standards and Specifications that is in place.  This is not currently a scheduled work priority and instead it is the intent that a  broader systems wide review of the City’s development control policies and procedures, and the Engineering Technical Specifications and Standards be conducted by the business unit at a later stage, likely as part of the next round of organisational policy review.

 

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.

 

Regulations 12 and 15 of the Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996 deals with crossovers in so far as providing provision for and guidance of, the construction of crossovers and the local government contribution towards the construction of crossovers.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The City has a policy framework which was developed and endorsed by Council in response to the recommendations of the GSR.  The framework sets out the intent of Council policies, as opposed to operational documents such as Staff Management Practices and operational procedures.

 

The City’s Engineering Technical Standards and Specifications apply to the Policies, particularly where the standards and specifications relate to Construction (section 3) and Vehicle Crossovers (section 4), Property Development (section 6) and Reinstatements (section 7).

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no long term financial plan implications associated with the officer recommendation.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Policies link to the Key Goal Area 6 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2017, in particular Community Objective 6.4: Assets are well maintained and responsibility managed.

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

A risk assessment of implementing the officer recommendation was undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework and no risks of a medium or greater level were identified.

CONSULTATION

 

No external consultation was undertaken in relation to the review of the Policies.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Crossovers

The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the construction of crossovers and the provision of a crossover contribution towards this construction by the City of Busselton.  The policy sets out Council’s position in relation to crossover construction standards and the provision of a contribution. 

No significant changes were made to the policy content other than formatting changes and changes associated with the new format.

 

Reinstatement of works of Road Reserves

 

This policy sets out Council’s position in relation to construction activities undertaken by a private developer or public utility or their agent within a City of Busselton road reserve, and, that where those works impact on or cause damage to City of Busselton infrastructure, reinstatement works to the satisfaction and specifications of the City must be undertaken. 

 

No significant changes were made to the policy content other than formatting changes and changes associated with the new format.

 

CONCLUSION

 

A review of the Policies was undertaken, with only minor changes proposed in accordance with the City’s new policy framework and format.  The Policies continue to be of relevance and are recommended for adoption.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may decide to not adopt the Policies and instead choose to take a different positon or approach.

 

Council might also require further amendments to the Policies.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The Policies will be effective as of adoption by Council.

 

COUNCIL DECISION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1902/019              Moved Councillor J McCallum, seconded Councillor P Carter

 

That the Council adopts the:

 

1.            Policy ‘Crossovers’ as per Attachment B, to replace the current policy (Attachment A).

2.            Policy ‘Reinstatement Works in Road Reserves’ as per Attachment D, to replace the                 current policy (Attachment C).

 

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc


Council                                                                                      11                                                             13 February 2019

12.2           Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/01/2019 - REVIEW AND CONSOLIDATION OF COUNCIL POLICY 134 (WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT ON FORESHORE AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION RESERVES) AND COUNCIL POLICY 240 (RESERVES VEGETATION PROTECTION), AND PROPOSED NEW POLICY PRIVATE WORKS ON CITY LAND, INCLUDING COASTAL PROTECTION WORKS.

SUBJECT INDEX:

Council Policy

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Planning and Development Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Planning and Development Support

REPORTING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Existing Policy 134 - Works and Development on Foreshore and Landscape Protection Reserves

Attachment b    Existing Policy 240 - Reserves Vegetation Protection

Attachment c    Private works on City Land, including coastal protection works  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 22 January 2019, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report reflects the outcomes of a review of two existing Council policies; Policy 134 - Works and Development on Foreshore and Landscape Protection Reserves (Policy 134) and Policy 240 - Reserves Vegetation Protection (Policy 240). The review has regard to the Governance System Review (GSR) carried out by Mr John Woodhouse in 2017.

 

It is recommended that both of the existing policies be rescinded and that a new, much more targeted policy be adopted, identifying the only circumstance in which the City may contemplate private works or actions on City land (other than where those works or actions are specifically provided for in law or other policy, such as a vehicle crossover, or portable signage, or via a lease or licence to accommodate community or commercial activity), which is for private coastal protection works.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Existing Policy 134 is provided as Attachment A and existing Policy 240 is provided as Attachment B. Policy 134 was last reviewed in 2012, but a policy in broadly similar terms has been in place for around 20 years. Policy 240 was last reviewed in 2010, having been first introduced in broadly similar terms around 10 years ago.

 

In summary, Policy 134 seeks to do the following -

1.         Set out that proposals to undertake private works on City land, including landscaping works (including lawns) will not be supported, unless they are consistent with maintenance of landscape, environmental and recreational values and be in the broad public interest; and

2.         Set out a process of the approval or acknowledgement of such works.

 


 

In summary, Policy 240 seeks to do the following –

1.         Set out procedures for addressing the unlawful removal of vegetation from the City land;

2.         Provide support for prosecution where evidence exists to take that course of action;

3.         Provide for the placement of signage identifying that vegetation has been unlawfully damaged  where there is insufficient evidence to prosecute; and

4.         Provide for revegetation of areas where vegetation has been unlawfully damaged.

 

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.

 

Controls relating to the undertaking of private actions or works on City land are set out in a broad range of legislation, most particularly –

1.         Planning and Development Act 2005 and City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21;

2.         Building Act 2012; and

3.         Local Government Act 1995, Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) 1996 and City of Busselton Property and Thoroughfares Local Laws.

 

The above set out that, with some very limited exceptions, no works can occur on City land without at least one form of approval having first been granted by the City.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The City has reserve or foreshore management plans for extensive portions of City land, and those plans set out recommendations for the management of that land by the City.

 

The Council has also adopted relevant policy guidance, including the Compliance Policy and the Portable Advertising Signs in Public Places Policy.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no financial implications associated with the recommendations of this report.

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no Long-Term Financial Plan implications associated with the recommendations of this report.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendations of this report reflect Key Goal Area 3 (Environment) of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2017, in particular Community Objective 3.2 - ‘Natural areas and habitats are cared for and enhanced for the enjoyment of current and future generations’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

A risk assessment of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken against the City’s risk assessment framework. No risks of ‘medium’ or higher have been identified.

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation was not considered necessary in preparing this report.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

There are existing frameworks, other than the two policies under review, which allow for certain private works or actions on City land. That includes frameworks that allow for construction of vehicle crossings, certain ‘verge treatments’, portable signage, certain trading activities, and also other things that are possible pursuant to either a licence or lease. There are not considered to be many ‘gaps’ in those frameworks, the filling of which could or should require Council policy guidance.

 

More specifically, it is considered that existing Policy 134 either sets out things which are already established in law (i.e. that works on City land should not occur without City approval), or creates some impression that works for private benefit, which should not be supported, may be (i.e. placing lawn or similar on City land, other than a road verge). It is also considered that existing Policy 240 either overlaps with another existing policy (i.e. the Compliance Policy, with respect to situations where formal enforcement action is possible), or sets out guidance that officers consider could more appropriately be provided at an operational level either through a Staff Management Practice or an operational procedure document (i.e. the placement of ‘vegetation damaged’ signage). As such, it is recommended that both existing policies are withdrawn from effect.

 

Officers have, however, identified a situation in which private works may be considered on City land, and where there is thought to be value in Council adopting a policy that guides consideration of such proposals. That situation is private coastal protection works where properties directly adjoin foreshore reserves, but other adjoining or nearby properties may be ‘high water mark’ titles, or be surveyed titles that extend beyond the high water mark, and from a physical processes perspective, it does not make sense to limit coastal protection works to private property only (in simple terms, private seawalls all need to ‘line up with each other’).

 

Reflecting practice over the last decade or so, it is proposed that such works only be supported where the works are properly designed, engineered and take the form of removable geotextile bag seawalls, and that approval be time limited, to a maximum of ten years, to avoid the incorrect assumption that such works can or should provide ‘long-term’ protection, and allow for a timely change of strategic direction, should that be necessary. It should be noted that this approach should be reviewed as part of and following the development of the City’s Coastal Hazard Risk Management Adaptation Plan (CHRMAP), or more simply ‘Coastal Adaptation Strategy’. That process is expected to be completed in the latter part of 2019.

 

There are two other kinds of situations where policy guidance was seriously considered by officers, but is not recommended.

 

The first kind is private works to vegetate or revegetate City land. This could be supported in some instances, especially where it involves locally endemic species and could provide useful habitat for endemic fauna, but it is considered that the City’s Environment Policy and Environment Strategy and associated guidelines already provide an appropriate framework.

 

The second kind is works to manage vegetation on City land to achieve bushfire safety outcomes. The first reason this has not been supported by officers relates to a view that the management of City land should be done on the basis of what is in the long-term interests of the community as a whole, rather than the interests or needs of particular landowners at any given time, and that the best means of doing that is via the development of plans and programmes by the City itself, guided by community consultation as appropriate.


 

The processes through which the City does that are reserve management planning processes and, currently, through the development of an overall Bushfire Risk Management Plan (BRMP). The second reason this has not been supported is that, whilst such an approach could provide some relief to landowners who are significantly affected by the State’s current bushfire risk related planning and building laws and policies, it would impose significant risks and costs on the City and other ratepayers.

 

Having said this the Policy does retain a broader scope / policy statement reflecting that private works on City land will not generally be supported except where provided for in certain circumstances such as being provided for in a plan, policy or legislation.  The policy also identifies the broad circumstances where the removal of vegetation on City land for the purposes of private works may be supported, and highlights that any associated costs are to be met by the proponent.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is considered that the existing Policy 134 and Policy 240 should be withdrawn, and that a new more targeted policy should be adopted. The proposed policy is provided as Attachment C.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could decide to maintain more of the current policies’ substance in Council policy and/or propose alternative changes/inclusions to the proposed policy.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The recommendation would be undertaken through the publication of the new policy on the City’s website, as well as the removal of the existing policies from the website. A new operational practice or procedure relating to the erection of ‘vegetation damaged’ signage would also be developed.  It is expected these actions would be completed within four weeks of the Council making a resolution consistent with the officer recommendation.

 

COUNCIL DECISION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1902/020              Moved Councillor J McCallum, seconded Councillor P Carter

 

That the Council

 

1.            Withdraw from effect Policy 134 and 240; and

2.            Adopt Council Policy ‘Private Works on City Land, including Private Coastal Protection                 Works’ (Attachment C).

 

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 


Council                                                                                      15                                                             13 February 2019

12.3           Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/01/2019 - WITHDRAWAL FROM EFFECT OF POLICY 039 - BUILDING PERMIT LISTS

SUBJECT INDEX:

Council Policy

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Building Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Council Policy 039 - Building Permit Lists  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 22 January 2019, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

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 Council policies should deal with higher level strategies and objectives. 

 

In accordance with the recommendations of the GSR, the purpose of this report is to recommend that Council Policy 039 - Building Permit Lists (Attachment A) (the Policy), be withdrawn from effect.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Policy, which was last reviewed in March 2017, states that a list of building permits issued will be made available on the City’s website each month, with the information to be limited to:

 

·    The applicants name

·    The location

·    The type of development

·    The size / area of the building

 

The City is required to keep a register of building permits issued under Section 129 of the Building Act 2011 and is obliged to supply a list of building approvals to public utility providers.  Prior to the most recent review of the Policy, the City had a long standing practice (in excess of 20 years) of making its list of building permits issued available for commercial purposes, for which it charged an annual or monthly subscription fee.  The City was earning approximately $6,000 from the sale of the list.  In addition to the information above, the value of the development was also included in the listing.

 

Officers recommended as part of the 2017 review of the Policy that the City continue to make the list available for purchase but that the policy be modified to remove the value of the development, so as to improve on privacy implications for the property owner.  While none of the information contained in the register / building permit list is considered to give rise to any security concerns, it was felt that the “value of works” in particular, could conceivably give rise for embarrassment for the owner. 

 

The value of the building work is not relevant to the utility providers that are provided with the

List and the value of work is also not an essential requirement of the register, pursuant to s.129.

Generally speaking an explicit identification of building value was also not necessary with respect to the commercial sale / purpose of the list, as the building industry will have an expectation of the cost of a development from its application description, the building size and its location.

The Policy and Legislation Committee however recommended to Council that the list of building permits issued each month by the City was made available free of charge via the City’s webpage.  Council resolved (C1703/038):

 

That Council resolve to replace the Community Policy – 039 Building and development Lists, with:

“Community policy 039 – Building Permit lists

 

A list of Building Permits issued by the City each month to be made available via the City’s webpage.

The information provided will be limited to only the following items

 

·  The applicant name

·  The location

·  The development floor area size

·  The type of development”

 

This aligned in part to an option presented as part of the Officer’s report:

 

Delete Community Policy 039 and make the City’s Building Permit register available to view at the City’s website (in addition to maintaining the copy for inspection at the City Offices) and refund the proportion remaining on any current 12 month subscription.

 

The Policy however was not deleted or withdrawn from effect as part of the Council resolution.  This report recommends that that now occur.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 129 of the Building Act 2011 directs that the City must make the register of Building Permits available for public inspection during normal office hours.  Section 129 also provides a discretion to local government, that it may, on payment of a prescribed fee provide a copy of a Register. There is presently no prescribed fee, so in its absence a council can determine the charge.

 

Section 129 however, only refers only to an individual’s request, it does not address the provision of the register for commercial purposes. This City has previously consulted the Building Commission who advised there is no restriction upon any council from distributing lists and setting a fee for that service.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The GSR was undertaken over a 3 month period by Mr John Woodhouse LLB Juris and made the following recommendations, including, but not limited 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 of 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.

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. 

 

There are no other plans or policies relevant to this matter.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The City ceased charging a fee in for making its list of building permits issued available in March 2017 and as such there are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation to withdraw the Policy from effect.

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no long term financial plan implications associated with the officer recommendation.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The officer 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 policy framework.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

CONSULTATION

 

The Building Commission has previously advised that a council can make its list of building permits approved available for purchase at a fee set by the council.  Equally there is no compulsion upon a council to supply lists, or to charge for the supply of the list. Further consultation, nor public consultation, was considered necessary as part of the review of this Policy. 

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The City practice of making its building list available is a longstanding one, in the past for a fee and, since early 2017, available free of charge on the City’s website.  People likely to inspect the lists are neighbours and prospective purchasers checking that all structures are approved, and commercial operators, generally within the building industry, who are interested in selling their products. 

 

The availability of / refreshing the list on a monthly basis is considered to be an adequate frequency and the process of providing the information on the City’s website is now well established operationally.  There is no longer a fee or charge determination associated with the provision on the information.  The Policy therefore is not considered necessary and, noting the recommendations of the GSR, it is recommended that it be withdrawn from effect.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is recommended that the Policy be withdrawn from effect, as the City has an established operating procedure in place which no longer involves a fee for subscription service or charge.  Instead the information is provided as part of standard information provision protocols.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council could instead require that the Policy is maintained and updated to the new template and / or further reviewed. 

 

Although not specifically discussed in this report Council could also, as an alternative decide to cease making the building permits list publicly available (outside of its statutory requirements to) or it could decide to set a fee for the commercial provision of the information, as per its previous position.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The Policy will be withdrawn from effect immediately upon adoption of the Officer Recommendation.

 

COUNCIL DECISION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1902/021              Moved Councillor J McCallum, seconded Councillor P Carter

 

That the Council withdraws from effect Council Policy 039 – Building Permit Lists.

 

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 


Council                                                                                      19                                                             13 February 2019

16.             FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT

16.1           APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY MEMBERS

SUBJECT INDEX:

Committee Membership

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:

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

  

PRÉCIS

 

This report recommends the appointment of a deputy member to the Busselton Senior Citizens’ Centre Board, the Busselton Historical Society Committee/Group, the Waterways Improvement Reference Group and the Geographe Bay Regional RoadWise Road Safety Working Group (formally known as Cape Naturaliste Roadwise Committee).

 

BACKGROUND

 

On 23 October 2017 the Council appointed members to its Standing Committees, Working Groups and external organisations (C1710/262).  A deputy member however wasn’t appointed to the Busselton Senior Citizens’ Centre Board, the Busselton Historical Society Committee/Group or the Geographe Bay Regional RoadWise Road Safety Working Group. These groups only have one member representing the council and therefore the need for a deputy has been identified.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The groups for which deputies are sought are not formal committees of council and therefore the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 governing committee appointments do not apply.  Notwithstanding some detail in relation to these provisions is provided below for broader context.

 

Section 5.10(1) of the Act provides that a committee established by a local government is to have as its members persons appointed by the local government and persons who are appointed under subsection (4) and (5).

 

Section 5.10(4) provides that the Council must appoint the Mayor to each Committee if the Mayor informs the local government of their wish to be a member of a particular Committee.

 

Section 5.10(5) provides that the CEO must be appointed to a Committee that has or will have an employee as a member if the CEO informs the local government of their wish to be a member.

 

Section 5.11A provides for the appointment of deputy committee members.

 

The Busselton Senior Citizens’ Centre Board constitution outlines that one City Councillor is to be appointed to the Association’s Board of Management (the Board) by the City of Busselton.  As a board member the Councillor has a deliberate vote in relation to the Board affairs.

 


 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

In accordance with Council Policy - Fees, Allowances and Expenses for Elected Members, Councillors are entitled to be paid a travelling allowance for attending meetings of community groups or other external organisations of which the elected member has been appointed the Council's representative by Council resolution.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONST

 

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation as the costs associated with attendance at meetings of community groups or other external organisations are included in the current budget.

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no Long-Term Financial Plan Implications associated with the officer recommendation.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This policy aligns with and supports the Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Leadership’ of the Strategic Community Plan 2017 and more specifically Community Objective 6.1 – ‘Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

There are no identified risks associated with the appointment of a deputy member to the specified groups, with the appointment of a deputy minimising the risk of no Councillor attendance in the event that the appointed member in unable to attend meetings.

 

CONSULTATION

 

No external consultation is required in relation to this matter.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Officers recommend that nominations be received by members for the appointment of a deputy member to the Busselton Senior Citizens’ Centre Board, the Busselton Historical Society Committee and the Geographe Bay Regional RoadWise Road Safety Working Group.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Membership of all the Committees/Working groups are normally made at the Special Council Meeting immediately following the Council Election Day, however a deputy member wasn’t appointed to the groups identified.

 

In order to ensure Council representation and continue to make a valuable contribution to these groups, it is considered that a deputy member should be appointed.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may choose not to have a deputy member for to the Busselton Senior Citizens’ Centre Board, the Busselton Historical Society Committee and the Geographe Bay Regional RoadWise Road Safety Working Group.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Membership will become effective upon council resolution.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C1902/022              Moved Councillor J McCallum, seconded Councillor P Carter

 

That the Council appoint as deputy member, the following;

 

·    Cr Coralie Tarbotton as the deputy member to the Busselton Historical Society Committee

 

·    Cr Grant Henley as the deputy member to the Busselton Senior Citizens' Centre Board

 

·    Cr Ross Paine as the deputy member to the Geographe Bay Regional RoadWise Road Safety Working Group.

 

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

  


Council                                                                                      21                                                             13 February 2019

17.             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT

17.1           COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

SUBJECT INDEX:

Councillors' Information Bulletin

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:

Director Finance and Corporate Services  - Tony Nottle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Current Status of State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

Attachment b    Meelup Regional Park Management Committee  

  

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    State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

 

Attachment A is a list showing the current status of State Administrative Tribunal Reviews involving the City of Busselton.

17.1.2    Meelup Regional Park Management Committee

 

Attachment B shows the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee informal minutes.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1902/023              Moved Councillor J McCallum, seconded Councillor P Carter

 

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

·    17.1.1              State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

·    17.1.2              Meelup Regional Park Management Committee

 

 

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

  


Council                                                                                      23                                                             13 February 2019

ITEMS FOR DEBATE

13.             Planning and Development Services Report

13.1           APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL - DA18/0154 - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF CLUB PREMISES (CLAY TARGET CLUB) - LOT 500 & 501 COOLILUP ROAD, LUDLOW

SUBJECT INDEX:

Development Applications

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Planning and Development Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Statutory Planning

REPORTING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

  

PRÉCIS

 

The City has received an application for development of Club Premises (Clay Target Club) at Lot 500 and 501 Coolilup Road, Ludlow. Due to the nature of the issues requiring consideration and the level of community interest the application is being presented to the Council for determination, rather than being determined by City officers acting under delegated authority.

 

Having considered the application, including submissions received in relation to the application, City officers consider that the application is consistent with the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme 21 (the ‘Scheme’) and broader, relevant planning framework, and it is recommended that the application is approved, subject to appropriate conditions.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Council is asked to consider an application for development of a Club Premises (Clay Target Club) at Lot 500 and 501 Coolilup Road, Ludlow. Key information regarding the application is set out below:

 

Landowner:

Iluka Resources Limited

 

Applicant:

Busselton and Bunbury Clay Target Clubs Inc.

 

Site area:

80.93 ha

 

 

 


 

Location Plan (Attachment A):

 

General description of site:

Lot 500 and 501 are situated on the eastern side of Coolilup Road, Ludlow.  The northern property boundary is the local government boundary between the City of Busselton and the Shire of Capel. The lot is bound by agricultural land to the north, south and east.  On the western side of Coolilup Road is a portion of State Forest. Located within the Coolilup State Forest, at its northern end (corner of Bussell Highway and Hutton Road in the Shire of Capel) is the existing Commonwealth Rifle Range, utilised by the Australian Defence Force as well as the Busselton and Bunbury Rifle Clubs. The Commonwealth Range is approximately 1.5-2km north-north west of the proposed development site. 

 

The Ludlow River runs in an east-west direction through the site ranging from 110m – 280m from the northern property boundary. The site has significant areas of native vegetation concentrated along the river, with additional areas of vegetation in the north-west and north-east corners of the land and within the central southern part of the site.  The remaining area is largely clear of vegetation, with the land having been used for cattle grazing in recent years.

 

There is a restrictive covenant created in October 2000 over both lots to the benefit of the City. The covenant was created to satisfy a condition of subdivision approval granted by the Western Australian Planning Commission in 1996. The condition required satisfactory arrangements to ensure the protection of native vegetation, particularly along the Ludlow River. The covenant prevents the clearing of native vegetation on the land unless there has been prior written approval of the City obtained. The Clay Target Clubs are aware of the covenant.

 

Current development/use:

The proposed development site is subject of a mining lease held by Iluka Resources, though to date no mining has occurred on the site.  The property has in recent times been utilised for grazing of cattle.

 


 

Brief description of proposed development:

The proposal involves a currently vegetated area slightly west of the centre of the overall site and on the southern side of the Ludlow River being used to develop an eight station competition standard clay target range. Based on a two-stage development of the site spread over three to five years, four firing stations would be established in Stage 1 with a further four constructed in Stage 2.

 

 

The applicants advise that the proposed layout (see above and Attachment B) is designed to comply with current WA Police (WAPOL) safety requirements of a 300 metre shot fallout safety zone from the firing stations to the property boundary. The applicants advise that the shot fallout would be contained within 200 metres of the firing point, which leaves a buffer zone of approximately 100 metres to the southern boundary of the site.

 

The proposal also includes development of a small clubroom with a toilet, shower and secure storage facilities.

 

All season access to the site is proposed along Downs Road and Coolilup Road. An alternative access to the site to satisfy emergency access requirements may be available from the north along Hutton Road or Plantation Road. The Ludlow River crossing on Coolilup Road restricts the northern access to the site to during dry weather only and may not be suitable for two wheel drive vehicles. A portion of Downs Road, and all of Coolilup, Hutton and Plantation Roads, are unsealed.

 

The applicants propose that 1.76 hectares of vegetation is to be cleared, approximately 0.9 hectares for each stage. Permission to clear vegetation is dependent on the City of Busselton approving the Development Application and also Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) approval.

 

The applicants propose that riparian vegetation along the Ludlow River will be preserved and protected from further degradation by fencing off the area. It is also proposed to plant endemic species along the southern boundary to partially offset vegetation removed to facilitate the shooting range.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key statutory environment is set out in the Scheme, and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), Schedule 2 of which is the ‘deemed provisions’, which also functionally form part of the Scheme. Key aspects of the Scheme and Regulations relevant to consideration of the application are set out below.

 

Zoning

The site is zoned ‘Agriculture’. The objectives of the ‘Agriculture’ zone are as follows -

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

(b)    To provide for new forms of agricultural development (including agro-forestry), and changing patterns of existing agricultural development.

(c)     To regulate the subdivision of agricultural lands within this zone to ensure that land is not withdrawn from production or that the potential for land to be productive is not diminished.

(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.

(f)     To exclude urban development. Any such land adjacent to existing urban areas and identified as generally suitable for urban expansion may be used for urban development after it has been suitably rezoned.

(g)    To make provision for the subdivision of land and encourage the amalgamation of land so as to create lots for commercial farming.

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

(i)     To encourage the development of cluster or communal farming.

(j)     To encourage sustainable farming practices.

(k)    To control the clearing of trees and encourage generally the retention of vegetation and vegetation corridors concomitant with the agricultural use of the land.

 

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 ensure that development maintains the rural character of the locality and minimises disturbance to the landscape amenity through construction of buildings and structures, clearing, earthworks, firebreaks and access roads.

(c)    To provide incentives for landowners to implement rural landscape improvements such as rehabilitation/revegetation and soil stabilisation in areas of significant landscape or scenic value.

(d)    To enable a range of activities and land uses appropriate to the rural retreat/residential occupation of the land.

(e)    To discourage or prohibit development not compatible with the predominantly rural                nature or high landscape value or visual quality of the zone.

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

 

It is to be noted that when Scheme Amendment No. 29 (Omnibus 4) is gazetted the name of the ‘Agriculture’ zone will change to ‘Rural’ zone to align with the ‘Model Provisions’, which are contained within Schedule 1 of the Regulations. The amendment also reviews the objectives of the zone and removes all of the policies of the zone/s from the Scheme. The fundamental intent of the current Scheme provisions, however, is retained.

 

Special Control Area designation/s

The site is not affected by a Special Control Area designation.

 

Land-use and permissibility

The proposed development fits the ‘Club Premises’ definition, which is as follows -

 

"Club Premises" means premises used by a legally constituted club or association or other body of persons united by a common interest.

 

Club Premises is identified in the zoning table of the Scheme for the ‘Agriculture’ zone as an 'A' use, meaning that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting development approval after giving notice in accordance with clause 64 of the deemed provisions.

 

Matters to be considered

Clause 67 of the deemed provisions within the Regulations sets out ‘matters to be considered’ by a local government in considering an application for development approval. The following matters are considered to be relevant to consideration of this application –

(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;                  

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

(r)        the suitability of the land for the development taking into account the possible risk to human health or safety;

(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 probable 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;

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

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

 

Bushfire risk management

The site is located in a ‘bushfire prone area’ as designated by an order made under s18P of the Fire and Emergency Services Act 1998. As such, the provisions of Part 10A (Bushfire risk management) of the deemed provisions apply. Those provisions require a bushfire attack level assessment (BAL) for the site in support of the application.  In addition to a BAL assessment, a Bush Fire Management Plan (BMP) and Bushfire Emergency Evacuation Plan (BEEP) prepared by a Level 3 Bushfire Planning Practitioner was provided in support of the development proposal.

 

Development standards

There are no development standards set out in the Scheme that the application is not consistent with.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Relevant plans and policies must be given due regard in assessing the application, but cannot and do not bind the local government in determining an application for development approval. Plans and policies considered in the assessment of the application are set out below under appropriate subheadings.

 

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

 

State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP3.7) and Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas 2017 directs how development should address bushfire risk management in Western Australia. SPP3.7 applies to all land that has been designated as ‘bushfire prone’ by the Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner, as highlighted on the Map of Bush Fire Prone Areas.

 

Local Rural Planning Strategy

The subject land is located within Precinct 1 ‘Primary Rural’ of the Local Rural Planning Strategy (Rural Strategy). 

The Rural Strategy identifies the following ‘Sustainability factors’ –

•     “Contains areas of significant remnant vegetation that need to be conserved wherever possible.

·    High water table and generally poorly drained soils.

·    Mineral sand deposits and mining with potential for conflict with other uses.”

 

Specifically relating to development, the Rural Strategy identifies undesirable development as:

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

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

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

 

The Rural Strategy was finalised in 2007 and has been largely superseded by State Planning Policy 2.5: Rural Planning and the City’s draft Local Planning Strategy. The draft Local Planning Strategy identifies that the Rural Strategy is in need of review.

 

Local Planning Policy 8A – Car Parking Provisions

Local Planning Policy 8 (LPP8) provides car parking criteria for proposed development and is intended to provide a practical guide to aid in assessment of an application.

 

There is no minimum car parking requirement listed in LPP8 for a Club Premises 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.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The recommendation of this report is the determination of an application for development approval. There are no financial implications relevant to assessment of the application.

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

The recommendation of this report is the determination of an application for development approval. There are no Long Term Financial Plan implications relevant to assessment of the application.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendation of this report is consistent with Objective 2.1 of the City of Busselton’s Strategic Community Plan 2017, which is; ‘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. Risks are only identified where the residual risk, once controls are identified, is medium or greater.

 

Should inappropriate clearing, inadequate revegetation,  use of lead shot or inappropriate siting of effluent disposal be allowed there may be an environmental risk resulting in a risk rating of medium. It is considered that all of these potential risks can be adequately addressed or controlled through the use of development conditions and compliance monitoring.

 


 

The proposal may result in a reputational risk with a risk rating of medium should the proposed development be refused and the community is unable to find an alternative site for this use.  If the application is approved however and has an impact on nearby properties a similar reputational risk may result. 

 

CONSULTATION

 

Clause 64 of the deemed provisions sets out circumstances in which an application for development approval must be advertised, and also sets out the means by which applications may be advertised. This application was required to be advertised pursuant to clause 64.

 

The application was open for submissions from 19 September 2018 to 10 October 2018 and advertised in the following manner –

1.    Information regarding the application was posted on the City’s website;

2.    A portal was created using the City’s YourSay platform for the online lodgement of submissions;

3.    Letters or, where the City has a registered email address for the property, emails were sent to adjoining owners and to landowners within 2.5km of the development site (including properties within the Shire of Capel); and

4.    A notice was placed in a local newspaper on 19 September 2018.

 

The proposal was also referred to the Environmental Regulation Section and Noise Branch of DWER, Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions (DBCA), Department of Health (DoH), Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) and WAPOL for comment.

 

Submissions were received from a total of 27 people. Nine submissions are broadly supportive of the application, with 18 submissions objecting to the proposal.

 

A schedule of submissions is provided as Attachment N . The schedule identifies who submissions were received from, summarises the submissions, and provides a brief comment on the issues raised.

 

Where issues are raised which are not able to be considered, as they do not relate to the relevant planning framework, the comment provided indicates that, but does not provide further commentary or discussion. That does not necessarily suggest that the issues are not genuine issues of concern to the submitter or more broadly, but they are unfortunately not issues that can or should be addressed in the assessment of the application.

 

Key issues/considerations raised in support of the application are as follows –

1.    Suitability of the location;

2.    Need for a venue for this type of club;

3.    Future mining of the site;

4.    Environmental benefit to Ludlow River through fencing and revegetation; and

5.    Economic benefit from additional visitors to the region.

 

Key concerns related to the application are as follows –

1.      Noise impacts;

2.      Loss of amenity;

3.      Impact on flora and fauna;

4.      Impact on Ludlow River;

5.      Contamination;

6.      Access to site when flooded;

7.      Traffic; and

8.      Fire risk.

 

Agency comment has been received from DWER Environmental Regulation Section and Noise Branch, DBCA, DMIRS and DoH with summaries of significant issues provided below. Full copies of the submissions can be found at Attachments I - M.

 

DWER Noise Branch

The Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (Noise Regulations) provide for specific management provisions for shooting venues. Division 4 includes an approvals process that allows noise emissions to exceed the assigned noise levels provided shooting activities at shooting venues are carried out in accordance with an approved noise management plan (NMP) for that venue. The DWER Noise Branch have advised that this was introduced to the Noise Regulations as an acknowledgement that some existing venues could not reasonably and practicably meet the assigned levels but nonetheless had a degree of community acceptance.

 

In relation to proposals for new shooting venues, Division 4 is not intended to supplant appropriate consideration of environmental noise impacts at the development application stage. In siting a new shooting venue the first preference is to locate the venue sufficiently far from noise sensitive premises so that the noise emissions fully comply with the normal assigned levels in the Noise Regulations. Recognising that it is not always practicable to find such a site, preference might be given to sites that have a significant buffer between the venue and neighbouring noise sensitive premises.

 

Where, in spite of significant buffers, noise emissions are still predicted to exceed the assigned levels consideration should be given to the likely noise impact, within the context of the numbers and times of shooting activities proposed to be held, perceived community benefits and the future vision for strategic development within the area. Where the impacts are considered to be acceptable within the overall context, then Division 4 provides an avenue for the proposal to comply with the Noise Regulations and a means of achieving an acceptable outcome for all parties.

 

Herring Storer Acoustics (HSA) have prepared a Noise Impact Assessment Report (NIA) (Attachment D) to consider the environmental noise implications of the proposed Clay Target Range using pre-existing nearfield 12 gauge shotgun measurement data held on file to model the emissions and predict levels at various receivers in the vicinity of the proposed shoot venue.

 

HSA have assessed the proposal's noise emissions against the NSW noise criteria for shooting ranges. Given Division 4 provides for the assigned levels to be set aside if activities at a shooting venue are conducted in accordance with an approved NMP, there is value in considering alternative acceptability criteria such as those from NSW. However, this should not be to the exclusion of consideration of the assigned noise levels since they are the principal instrument for the protection of human health and amenity in Western Australia in relation to environmental noise. 

 

Without mitigation, receiver R1 is predicted to be the most impacted with an LAsmax level of 63 dB(A) and Lzpeak level of 98 dB(A). HSA observe the shooting noise emissions are impulsive and "therefore an adjustment of +10 dB(A) should be applied to the shooting noise emission.”


 

The contour plot labelled "Ref: 20" includes the notation: "blue dotted contour - 45 dB(A), Weekday LA1 compliance level with impulsive characteristic", suggesting that the levels presented may be adjusted.

 

The predicted LAsmax level is an important consideration in the siting of a new shooting venue. An LAsmax level which is predicted to comply with the assigned level after the necessary adjustments might suggest there is an adequate separation between noise sensitive receivers and the venue, such that the impact of the noise from the venue can be appropriately managed.

 

It is noted that unmitigated, the emission would be considered unacceptable for two receivers and acceptable for one day per week at three other receivers under the NSW criteria. The results of the mitigated scenarios show there is little benefit to a bund behind the firing line, but a bund downrange has significant benefits for receivers R1 and R2, the two most affected, where the levels are reduced by 8 and 9 dB(Z) respectively. For the downrange bund scenario the emissions are found to be acceptable for some level of use at all receivers, although for only one day a week at three receivers under the NSW criteria.

 

There is cause to believe HSA may have over predicted the Lzpeak levels. HSA predict a difference of greater than 30 dB between the Lzpeak level and the LAsmax level for all receivers, with a range of 32 to 37 dB or 42 to 47. This is much greater than would be expected when receivers are up to 2.8 kilometres from the source. Some shotgun noise measurements by DWER suggest that Lpeak levels have been found to decrease more rapidly with distance from the source than the LAsmax levels and so an unexpectedly large difference between the Lzpeak and LAsmax level suggests the Lzpeak level may be over predicted.

 

Assuming the predicted LAsmax level of 63 dB(A) at the most affected receiver (R1) has been adjusted for impulsive characteristics, then the predicted emissions comply with the day time LAmax assigned level. The modelling indicates the inclusion of the forward bund can improve this by further reducing the LAsmax level received at R1 by a further 5 dB (approx.) and a similar benefit would be expected for the LAs1 and LAs10 levels, although these have not been modelled. These reductions represent a significant improvement and the downrange bund should be considered a mitigation measure worth pursuing.

 

Compliance with the day time LAmax assigned level suggests the venue may be appropriately located and sufficiently separated from noise sensitive receivers for day time operations.

 

Should the development proceed the City may wish to consider strategies to minimise the encroachment of noise sensitive development on the venue.

 

DWER Environmental Regulation Section

 

Water Resources

DWER have identified the following potential risks associated with this proposal from a water resources perspective -

 

·    The proposed location of the clubhouse is in an area that may be subject to localised flooding, particularly during winter and large storm events.

·    The likelihood of groundwater and surface water contamination from the disposal of toilet wastewater is high, given the potentially high water table.

·    Potential contamination of groundwater with lead, as this occurs over an area with a high water table.

·    Difficulty in recovering lead shot, particularly when the selected area is likely to be seasonally wet. The Clay Target EMP stresses the importance of dry soil for clean-up.

·    Risk of lead bearing material being swept away to waterways during large storm events. Lack of detail as to how stormwater would be managed in the Clay Target EMP.

·    The use of lime may increase stormwater pH altering the Ludlow River water quality.

·    Mobilisation of plastic and other parts associated with firearm operation into the waterways.

·    Mobilisation of hydrocarbons from the carpark into the waterway and potentially diesel generator use and fuel storage

·    Sufficient water to meet the needs of the development.

To mitigate the above risks, the DWER has provided the following advice from a water resources perspective -

 

·    The extent of localised flooding should be investigated to ensure appropriate siting of proposed buildings and infrastructure.

·    Greater detail should be provided as to how stormwater will be managed, particularly hydrocarbons from the carpark and potentially lead contaminated stormwater.

·    The proponent should manage stormwater in accordance with the Decision process for stormwater management in WA (DWER 2017) and the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Australia (DoW 2004–2007).

·    The Department’s preference for wastewater management is Aerobic Treatment Units (ATU’s) in lieu of septic systems.

·    The proponent should ensure that sufficient separation to groundwater (in accordance with the draft Government Sewerage Policy (WAPC 2016) can be achieved and outside of flood prone areas.

·    It is recommended that areas of lead shot deposition be identified and be outside of the zones that are seasonally wet.

·    A schedule should be in place as to how often and who would be appropriately removing the lead shot; and the application regime for lime.

·    Details should be provided if fuel/chemicals are to be stored on-site, and how the risks of spills into the environment would be managed.

Native Vegetation Clearing

The Busselton and Bunbury Clay Target Club’s submitted a clearing permit application proposing clearing of 4.36ha, which was refused in July 2016 due to the following reasons - 

·    significant habitat for indigenous fauna,

·    significant remnant within a highly cleared landscape,

·    wetland dependent vegetation

·    impacts to the environmental values of nearby conservation areas.

 

A new application will need to be submitted for the clearing associated with this project, noting that the current proposal has a revised clearing proposal for an area of 1.76ha

 

DWER recommend that the Ludlow Clay Target EMP be revised to the satisfaction of the City, on advice of the DWER that includes revised and additional detail to prove that the identified risks can be mitigated.

 

DBCA

Parks and Wildlife Service's South West Region has no objection to this application subject to the following advice:

 

·    The development area forms part of a South West Regional Ecological Linkage.

·    Noise is likely to impact upon fauna behaviour and use of adjacent habitat.

·    The application area is in very close proximity to the Ludlow River and tributaries, with vegetation proposed to be cleared consisting of Marri, Jarrah and Peppermint in the upland areas and Flooded Gum and Melaleuca species.

·    Lot 500 and 501 are adjoining the Coolilup Road Reserve which has been recognised as an occurrence of a listed Threatened Ecological Community. The Coolilup Road crossing over the Ludlow River is not bridged and not passable in the winter months, an access and river crossing would need to be identified.

 

DBCA have recommended as follows:

1.    This proposal be referred to Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, Native Vegetation Clearing Section for an assessment of a clearing application which shows all vegetation affected by development, access, bushfire protection and for firing range and berm construction.

2.    This proposal be referred to Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, Water Quality Section for an assessment of impacts on the Ludlow River and related tributaries.

3.    This proposal be referred to Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, Contamination Section with regard to lead contamination impacts on the site and on the Ludlow River and tributaries.

4.    This proposal be referred to Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, Noise Impact Section with regard to noise impact assessment.

 

All of the above recommended referrals have been undertaken.

 

DMIRS

The proposal is situated over Strategic Mineral Protection Area for Titanium Zircon mineralisation that is under a granted Mining Lease held by lluka Midwest Limited; therefore the potential to sterilise access for future mining is of concern. The Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) prefers that the proposed club premises are not located on strategic resources.

 

However, noting that lluka Resources Limited is the landholder and must be a party to this proposal, DMIRS have advised they will not in this instance oppose the development on the condition that the clubrooms and storage can be relocated if future mining operations are proposed and that no sensitive land uses such as accommodation or dwellings are allowed.

 

DoH

Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal

DoH have advised that the development is to comply with the draft Country Sewerage Policy and have access to a sufficient supply of potable water that is of the quality specified under the Australian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines 2004.

 

Health Requirements

DoH have also advised that consideration should be given to adding a condition of approval that the facility only uses or permits lead-free shots.

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The main issues considered to be relevant in the assessment of this application are the suitability of the location, Noise Regulations and the impact on the amenity of surrounding properties, impact on flora and fauna, contamination risk, and site access.  Each of these issues are addressed below.

 

Noise Regulations and amenity

 

The critical issue is considered to be whether the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the locality. The Regulations provide a definition of amenity, as follows -

 

amenity means all those factors which combine to form the character of an area and include the present and likely future amenity”.

 

The main potential amenity impact in this case is considered to be noise associated with the use of shotguns on the proposed range.

The Noise Regulations recognise that certain activities cannot meet the normal requirements. It acknowledges that sometimes exceptions should be made that enable certain uses to exceed the normal maxima, and that a NMP can be endorsed through a process under the Noise Regulations, providing protection for the continued operation from prosecutions that may otherwise be pursued under the Noise Regulations. Division 4 recognises shooting venues as a class that typically cannot meet the normal quantified standards for noise levels and enables the occupier of a shooting venue to apply to the respective local government CEO for approval of a NMP.  Regulation 7 exempts noise emitted from a shooting venue during the conduct of a shooting activity at the venue if the shooting activity is conducted in accordance with an endorsed NMP prepared in accordance with the Noise Regulations.

 

DWER have advised that assuming the predicted LAsmax level of 63 dB(A) at the most affected receiver (R1) has been adjusted for impulsive characteristics, then the predicted emissions comply with the day time LAsmax assigned level and modelling indicates the inclusion of the forward bund can improve this by further reducing the LAsmax level received at R1 by a further 5 dB (approx.).  This is a significant improvement and should be considered a mitigation measure worth pursuing should an approval be issued. DWER further advise that compliance with the day time assigned level suggests the venue may be appropriately located and sufficiently separated from noise sensitive receivers for day time operations.

 

The NIA prepared for the application recommends that the NSW application criteria for shooting ranges be considered as a reasonable guide for assessment of potential impact. The NIA concludes that the noise contour plots show that residential receptor R1 is the most significantly affected premises, with potential noise level of around 98 dBLZPeak. Under the NSW application criteria three shoots per week would be permitted for an existing range, however this would not be considered acceptable for a new range.  The NIA advises that determination as to whether the proposed range should be considered as ‘existing’ or as ‘future’ facility depends on the current expectation of the residents most affected, and whether shooting noise from the existing Commonwealth rifle range to the north‐west (in the Shire of Capel) is considered.  Given the proximity of the existing Commonwealth Rifle Range to the subject site, it is considered reasonable to apply the standards for an existing range in this case.  This would allow the range to operate for up to three days per week under an NMP approved under Division 4 of the Noise Regulations by the local government CEO.

 


 

Issues which might be considered within the NMP could include -

●    Limitations on range operation in accordance with nominated operating times.

●    Provision for two (or three) major matches per year extending over two-three days, with prior written notification to residential landholders within 1 km of the Clay Target range 14 days prior to the competition, and earlier if practical.

●    Limit on range operation in terms of types and sizes of firearms used – for Clay Target limit to shotguns and bore no larger than 12 Gauge and powder charge no greater than commonly used for Clay Target competition.

●    Signage or other means to ensure that potential buyers of nearby properties are aware of the range and typical operating times.

HSA also recommends that in developing an NMP it may be necessary to consider existing adjacent premises which currently do not contain a dwelling but may have entitlement to construct one in the future.  Further, should the development proceed the City may wish to consider strategies to minimise the encroachment of noise sensitive development on the venue.

 

Should a development approval be granted by the City, separate consultation under Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 is required with all people in a 1km radius to be notified and invited to respond to any NMP that is developed.  Should development approval be granted, it would be strongly recommended that the applicant do not undertake any on-ground works unless and until the NMP process has been completed.

 

Impact on flora and fauna

A previous application made by the applicant for a clearing permit from DWER for an area of 4.36ha was refused. The applicant has now identified that the area of vegetation clearing could be reduced to 1.76 ha, proposed in two stages of approximately 0.9ha each. DWER have advised that as the clearing is within an identified Environmentally Sensitive Area a new application for clearing will need to be submitted, even if broken into stages of less than one hectare.

 

The City holds a Restrictive Covenant (Attachment H) as a legal protection for the vegetation on both lots, which the applicant is aware of. The City, in considering support for clearing a portion of the sites vegetation to facilitate establishment of the Clay Target Range, may seek for a conservation benefit to be derived from a conditional approval of the proposal. The types of benefits may include, but are not limited to:

·    Fencing of the remnant vegetation

·    Management of the vegetation to promote the regeneration of the vegetation (management plan to be prepared and implemented)

·    Revegetation of identified areas to screen the development and/or link remnant vegetation patches

 

DBCA advise that noise is likely to impact upon fauna behaviour and use of adjacent habitat but have not suggested that the proposal should be modified or refused on this basis.  

 


 

Contamination risk

In submissions from members of the public, DWER and DoH, concern has been raised in regards to the proposed use of lead shot during shooting activities and the risk of contaminating groundwater and polluting the Ludlow River which runs through Lots 500 and 501.

 

Officers, when considering comment received from DWER, are not convinced of the effectiveness of the proposed methods of preventing lead contamination of the site and river, particularly during periods when the site is particularly wet.

 

Discussion within the Environmental Management Plan (Attachment E) submitted in support of the application has been made in regard to how the applicant would manage spent lead and prevent environmental contamination of the site and surrounds. Within the plan and during discussion between City officers and the applicant, the prospect of using steel shot as an alternative to lead shot has been raised. The applicant has agreed that if necessary the clubs could restrict activities on this site to the use of steel shot in lieu of standard lead shot.  This is recommended as a condition should an approval be issued.

 

Concern was also raised in respect to potential water contamination if onsite effluent disposal is not adequately managed. Details of onsite effluent disposal, with a preference for the use of an Aerobic Treatment Unit (ATU) will be required as a condition of any approval.

 

Traffic, parking and access

It is first worth setting out the nature of the decision that the Council is required to make in relation to traffic safety. Clause 67 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations sets out that in determining an application for development approval, a decision maker must consider –

(s) the adequacy of…the proposed means of access to and egress from the site…;

(t) the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development, particularly in relation to…the probable effect on traffic flow and safety;

 

Planning consideration of the potential impacts of traffic, other than where linked to amenity, is related to assessing whether the traffic impacts would result in the safe and efficient capacity of the road network being exceeded, when measured against accepted traffic engineering/planning standards.

 

The main access to the site is via Downs Road and Coolilup Road and is available throughout the year. An alternative dry weather only access may be available from the north via Hutton Road or Plantation Road, as identified in the Bushfire Management Plan (Attachment G). The Ludlow River crossing in Coolilup Road restricts the northern access to the site to use only during dry weather and currently is not suitable for two wheel drive vehicles. A portion of Downs Road, all of Coolilup, Hutton and Plantation Roads are unsealed. Some minor works will be required on Coolilup Road to ensure the road remains passable in prolonged wet weather for conventional vehicles. Although the proposed development will increase traffic numbers, the proposal is not expected to exceed the capacity of the road network.

 

The application material identified that all car parking can be contained within the site for up to 70 vehicles. Although it could be argued that, given the overall size of the site, there is adequate space on-site to accommodate car parking, the plan does not indicate the exact location or layout of proposed parking.  Should approval be granted, it is recommended that as a minimum, constructed but unsealed car parking area/s are to be formalised to ensure that sufficient spaces are provided (inclusive of the provision for disabled access) and that informal parking does not damage vegetation.

Fire management

A BMP and BEEP prepared by a Level 3 Bushfire Planning Practitioner was provided with the development application.

 

The elements of the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas relevant to the proposal and required to be addressed by a BMP are:

·    Element 1: Location of Development; and

·    Element 2: Siting of Development.

·    Element 3: Vehicular Access

·    Element 4: Water Sources and Storage

 

The BMP and BEEP are considered to have acceptably addressed the above criteria in accordance with the guidelines.

 

Suitability of the location

It is the view of City officers as a result of extensive research over the last ten years that it is unlikely that a better site, from a noise perspective, can currently be found for this type of development without locating the facility on land that is within State Forest or a National Park.  The neighbouring State Forest, low density of settlement in the area and proximity to the adjacent Commonwealth Rifle Range make this site the most suitable of any currently available land in the City for this purpose.  Should this application be refused, it should be noted that it is unlikely that any other suitable site will be found to accommodate this type of community use within the City in the near future.

 

Future mining activity

Iluka consented to the application but it is understood that there is some risk to the applicant that development would have to be removed from the range should Iluka choose to mine the site at some point in the future.  To that end, and in line with the agency comments from DMIRS, it is recommended that should an approval be issued, a condition be included requiring that any structures be either temporary/transportable in nature or able to be removed from the site if required to allow future mining activity. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

With the inclusion of conditions of approval requiring specific management plans to address issues such as that of noise, it is considered that the proposal is appropriate and it is accordingly recommended for approval.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could:

 

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

2.    Apply additional or different conditions.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council resolve:

 

(A)   That application DA18/0154 submitted for development of Club Premises (Clay Target Club) at Lot 500 and 501 Coolilup Road, Ludlow is considered by the Council to be generally consistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives and policies of the zone within which it is located.

 

(B)   That Development Approval is issued for the proposal referred to (A) above subject to the  following conditions -

 

General conditions

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

 

2.      The development hereby approved shall be substantially commenced within two years from the date of this decision letter.

 

Prior to commencement of any works conditions

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

 

3.1          A Noise Management Plan prepared in accordance with the Environmental           Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 which will meet the following requirements -

·    Limitations on range operation times to between 7am – 7pm and a maximum of three shooting days per week;

·    Provision for a maximum of three major competitions per year extending over a maximum of three days each, with prior written notification to residential landholders within 1 km of the Clay Target range, not less than 14 days prior to the competition, and earlier if practical;

·    Limit on range operation in terms of types and sizes of firearms used – for Clay Target limit to shotguns and bore no larger than 12 Gauge and powder charge no greater than commonly used for Clay Target competition;

·    Inclusion of downrange/forward bund noise mitigation measures; and

·    Signage or other means to ensure that occupiers of nearby properties are aware of the range and typical operating times.

 

3.2          A revised Environmental Management Plan to address the following -     

·      Management of existing vegetation in order to improve biodiversity and habitat values;

·      Requirements for clearing to minimize impact to native fauna;

·      Revegetation requirements including vegetation offsets and vegetation buffers;

·      Fencing to restrict movement within bushland areas of the site;

·      Implementation schedule;

·      Costings for implementation;

·      Monitoring of revegetation;

·      Fuel management;

·     Waste removal; and

·     Shot management/contamination risk management (specifying that only lead free shot may be used).

 

3.3          Landscape/revegetation plan that provides for offset planting to address vegetation         loss from proposed clearing for the approved development;

 

3.4          Details of proposed buildings which shall be of a temporary/transportable nature;

 

                 3.5       A detailed plan which shows natural ground levels, finished ground levels and      finished floor levels;

 

                 3.6         Details of onsite effluent disposal works including details of separation from         the groundwater table;

 

                3.7          Details of stormwater management configurations and a Drainage Management                                Plan;

 

                 3.8         A minimum number of 70 car parking bays (including 2 disabled bays) shall be     provided on site and the parking area(s), driveway(s) and point(s) of ingress and          egress   shall be designed, constructed, drained and marked;

 

                 3.9        Details of the vehicular crossover to Coolilup Road; and

 

                 3.10      Details of the means and method of providing a potable water supply;

 

Prior to Occupation/Use of the Development Conditions

 

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

4.1          Agreement to the satisfaction of the City in respect to the upgrading of Coolilup Road as required as a direct consequence of the proposed development.

 

Ongoing conditions

 

5.    The works undertaken to satisfy Condition(s) 1, 3 and 4 shall be subsequently maintained for the life of the development; and, the following conditions have been complied with –

 

5.1         The approved Environmental Management Plan shall be implemented and carried             out in accordance with the approved details;

 

5.2         The approved Noise Management Plan shall be implemented and carried out in accordance with the approval details;

 

5.3         The approved Landscape/revegetation plan shall be implemented and carried out             in accordance with the approved details;

 

5.4         The approved Drainage Management Plan shall be implemented and carried out in           accordance with the approved details;

 

5.5         The applicant must implement all of the recommendations contained in the         Bushfire Management Plan prepared by Gary McMahon, Ecosystems Solutions,   dated 3 October 2017 and approved by the City for the duration of the            development; and

 

5.6         The removal of native vegetation outside of the approved clearing permit boundary         is prohibited.

 

Cr Henley put an alternative motion, as per the Council Decision.  

 

Cr Paine put an amendment to the alternative amendment to include a point 4

AMENDMENT

C1902/024              Moved Councillor R Paine

 

 

                4.            The applicants have not adequately addressed the risk to human health with regard                                 to lead poisoning.

 

LAPSED FOR WANT OF A SECONDER

 

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C1902/025              Moved Councillor G Henley, seconded Councillor J McCallum

 

That the Council resolve:

 

(A)    That application DA18/0154 submitted for development of Club Premises (Clay Target Club) at Lot 500 and 501 Coolilup Road, Ludlow is considered by the Council to be inconsistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives and policies of the zone within which it is located.

 

(B)    That Development Approval is refused for the proposal referred to (A) above for the  following reasons –

 

 

1.              It will have unacceptable impacts on the amenity of the locality, in particular in relation to noise impacts;

 

2.              The applicants have not adequately demonstrated how risks of contamination will be managed; and

 

3.              The applicants have not adequately demonstrated what the impacts on the flora and fauna values of the land will be, and whether those impacts are acceptable and/or can be adequately managed.

 

 

(C)    To request that the CEO continues to investigate a suitable location for ballistic clubs, including writing to the Federal Member for Forrest, seeking discussion with Department of Defence on co-location of additional ballistic clubs on the existing Hutton Road range.

 

 

CARRIED 5/3

Voting:

For the motion:             Councillor G Henley, Councillor R Paine, Councillor L Miles, Councillor J McCallum and Councillor R Reekie.

Against the motion:     Councillor P Carter, Councillor C Tarbotton  and Councillor K Hick.

 

 

  


Council                                                                                      43                                                             13 February 2019

18.             Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given

Nil  

19.             urgent business

Nil 

20.             Confidential Reports  

Nil

21.             Closure

The Presiding Member closed the meeting at 7.06pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THESE MINUTES CONSISTING OF PAGES 1 TO 42 WERE CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD ON Wednesday, 27 February 2019.

 

 

DATE:_________________  PRESIDING MEMBER:         _________________________